Gore's Challenge to Congress and the Media

Al Gore did not use the "I" word. But the former vice president did use his Martin Luther King Day speech in Washington to declare that: "A president who breaks the law is a threat to the very structure of our government." And he went on to say that, in year five of the Bush-Cheney interregnum, "America's Constitution is in grave danger."

Monday's much-anticipated speech by the man who won the popular count in the 2000 presidential election by more than 500,000 votes opened with the assertion that "the American values we hold most dear have been placed at serious risk by the unprecedented claims of the Administration to a truly breathtaking expansion of executive power."

While Gore stopped short of echoing the call by U.S. Rep. John Conyers, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, for the censure of George Bush and Dick Cheney -- and for an exploration of whether the misdeeds of the president and vice president merit impeachment -- the former member of the U.S. House and Senate did declare that the time has come for Congress to hold this administration to account.

"I call upon Democratic and Republican members of Congress today to uphold your oath of office and defend the Constitution. Stop going along to get along. Start acting like the independent and co-equal branch of government you're supposed to be," Gore told a cheering crowd at the historic Constitution Hall of the Daughters of the American Revolution.

The former vice president left little doubt regarding the proper response to Bush administration assaults on civil liberties and the rule of law. "We have a duty as Americans to defend our citizens' right not only to life but also to liberty and the pursuit of happiness," Gore explained in his remarks to an event organized by the the bipartisan Liberty Coalition and the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy. "It is therefore vital in our current circumstances that immediate steps be taken to safeguard our Constitution against the present danger posed by the intrusive overreaching on the part of the Executive Branch and the President's apparent belief that he need not live under the rule of law."

Gore's remarks have already created a firestorm on the right, with the Republican National Committee decrying the speech as a diatribe "laden with inaccuracies and anger."

But don't settle for the RNC spin, nor for that of its media acolytes.

Gore's speech, while surely controversial, contained a dramatic and significant critique not merely of the Bush administration's wrongdoing but of the failure of Congress and major media to expose and challenge abuses of power.

What was said in Washington on Monday mattered. Indeed, it mattered so much that the the spin machine of the president's party is hard at work seeking to mischaracterize the former vice president's remarks -- remarks that bluntly criticized both Republicans and Democrats.

Here is a transcript of what Al Gore had to say:

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

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

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

It is appropriate that we make this appeal on the day our nation has set aside to honor the life and legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., who challenged America to breathe new life into our oldest values by extending its promise to all our people.

On this particular Martin Luther King Day, it is especially important to recall that for the last several years of his life, Dr. King was illegally wiretapped - one of hundreds of thousands of Americans whose private communications were intercepted by the U.S. government during this period.

The FBI privately called King the "most dangerous and effective negro leader in the country" and vowed to "take him off his pedestal." The government even attempted to destroy his marriage and blackmail him into committing suicide.

This campaign continued until Dr. King's murder. The discovery that the FBI conducted a long-running and extensive campaign of secret electronic surveillance designed to infiltrate the inner workings of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, and to learn the most intimate details of Dr. King's life, helped to convince Congress to enact restrictions on wiretapping.

The result was the Foreign Intelligence and Surveillance Act (FISA), which was enacted expressly to ensure that foreign intelligence surveillance would be presented to an impartial judge to verify that there is a sufficient cause for the surveillance. I voted for that law during my first term in Congress and for almost thirty years the system has proven a workable and valued means of according a level of protection for private citizens, while permitting foreign surveillance to continue.

Yet, just one month ago, Americans awoke to the shocking news that in spite of this long settled law, the Executive Branch has been secretly spying on large numbers of Americans for the last four years and eavesdropping on "large volumes of telephone calls, e-mail messages, and other Internet traffic inside the United States." The New York Times reported that the President decided to launch this massive eavesdropping program "without search warrants or any new laws that would permit such domestic intelligence collection."

During the period when this eavesdropping was still secret, the President went out of his way to reassure the American people on more than one occasion that, of course, judicial permission is required for any government spying on American citizens and that, of course, these constitutional safeguards were still in place.

But surprisingly, the President's soothing statements turned out to be false. Moreover, as soon as this massive domestic spying program was uncovered by the press, the President not only confirmed that the story was true, but also declared that he has no intention of bringing these wholesale invasions of privacy to an end.

At present, we still have much to learn about the NSA's domestic surveillance. What we do know about this pervasive wiretapping virtually compels the conclusion that the President of the United States has been breaking the law repeatedly and persistently.

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

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

Thomas Paine, whose pamphlet, "On Common Sense" ignited the American Revolution, succinctly described America's alternative. Here, he said, we intended to make certain that "the law is king."

Vigilant adherence to the rule of law strengthens our democracy and strengthens America. It ensures that those who govern us operate within our constitutional structure, which means that our democratic institutions play their indispensable role in shaping policy and determining the direction of our nation. It means that the people of this nation ultimately determine its course and not executive officials operating in secret without constraint.

The rule of law makes us stronger by ensuring that decisions will be tested, studied, reviewed and examined through the processes of government that are designed to improve policy. And the knowledge that they will be reviewed prevents over-reaching and checks the accretion of power.

A commitment to openness, truthfulness and accountability also helps our country avoid many serious mistakes. Recently, for example, we learned from recently classified declassified documents that the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which authorized the tragic Vietnam war, was actually based on false information. We now know that the decision by Congress to authorize the Iraq War, 38 years later, was also based on false information. America would have been better off knowing the truth and avoiding both of these colossal mistakes in our history. Following the rule of law makes us safer, not more vulnerable.

The President and I agree on one thing. The threat from terrorism is all too real. There is simply no question that we continue to face new challenges in the wake of the attack on September 11th and that we must be ever-vigilant in protecting our citizens from harm.

Where we disagree is that we have to break the law or sacrifice our system of government to protect Americans from terrorism. In fact, doing so makes us weaker and more vulnerable.

Once violated, the rule of law is in danger. Unless stopped, lawlessness grows. The greater the power of the executive grows, the more difficult it becomes for the other branches to perform their constitutional roles. As the executive acts outside its constitutionally prescribed role and is able to control access to information that would expose its actions, it becomes increasingly difficult for the other branches to police it. Once that ability is lost, democracy itself is threatened and we become a government of men and not laws.

The President's men have minced words about America's laws. The Attorney General openly conceded that the "kind of surveillance" we now know they have been conducting requires a court order unless authorized by statute. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act self-evidently does not authorize what the NSA has been doing, and no one inside or outside the Administration claims that it does. Incredibly, the Administration claims instead that the surveillance was implicitly authorized when Congress voted to use force against those who attacked us on September 11th.

This argument just does not hold any water. Without getting into the legal intricacies, it faces a number of embarrassing facts. First, another admission by the Attorney General: he concedes that the Administration knew that the NSA project was prohibited by existing law and that they consulted with some members of Congress about changing the statute. Gonzalez says that they were told this probably would not be possible. So how can they now argue that the Authorization for the Use of Military Force somehow implicitly authorized it all along? Second, when the Authorization was being debated, the Administration did in fact seek to have language inserted in it that would have authorized them to use military force domestically - and the Congress did not agree. Senator Ted Stevens and Representative Jim McGovern, among others, made statements during the Authorization debate clearly restating that that Authorization did not operate domestically.

When President Bush failed to convince Congress to give him all the power he wanted when they passed the AUMF, he secretly assumed that power anyway, as if congressional authorization was a useless bother. But as Justice Frankfurter once wrote: "To find authority so explicitly withheld is not merely to disregard in a particular instance the clear will of Congress. It is to disrespect the whole legislative process and the constitutional division of authority between President and Congress."

This is precisely the "disrespect" for the law that the Supreme Court struck down in the steel seizure case.

It is this same disrespect for America's Constitution which has now brought our republic to the brink of a dangerous breach in the fabric of the Constitution. And the disrespect embodied in these apparent mass violations of the law is part of a larger pattern of seeming indifference to the Constitution that is deeply troubling to millions of Americans in both political parties.

For example, the President has also declared that he has a heretofore unrecognized inherent power to seize and imprison any American citizen that he alone determines to be a threat to our nation, and that, notwithstanding his American citizenship, the person imprisoned has no right to talk with a lawyer - even to argue that the President or his appointees have made a mistake and imprisoned the wrong person.

The President claims that he can imprison American citizens indefinitely for the rest of their lives without an arrest warrant, without notifying them about what charges have been filed against them, and without informing their families that they have been imprisoned.

At the same time, the Executive Branch has claimed a previously unrecognized authority to mistreat prisoners in its custody in ways that plainly constitute torture in a pattern that has now been documented in U.S. facilities located in several countries around the world.

Over 100 of these captives have reportedly died while being tortured by Executive Branch interrogators and many more have been broken and humiliated. In the notorious Abu Ghraib prison, investigators who documented the pattern of torture estimated that more than 90 percent of the victims were innocent of any charges.

This shameful exercise of power overturns a set of principles that our nation has observed since General Washington first enunciated them during our Revolutionary War and has been observed by every president since then - until now. These practices violate the Geneva Conventions and the International Convention Against Torture, not to mention our own laws against torture.

The President has also claimed that he has the authority to kidnap individuals in foreign countries and deliver them for imprisonment and interrogation on our behalf by autocratic regimes in nations that are infamous for the cruelty of their techniques for torture.

Some of our traditional allies have been shocked by these new practices on the part of our nation. The British Ambassador to Uzbekistan - one of those nations with the worst reputations for torture in its prisons - registered a complaint to his home office about the senselessness and cruelty of the new U.S. practice: "This material is useless - we are selling our souls for dross. It is in fact positively harmful."

Can it be true that any president really has such powers under our Constitution? If the answer is "yes" then under the theory by which these acts are committed, are there any acts that can on their face be prohibited? If the President has the inherent authority to eavesdrop, imprison citizens on his own declaration, kidnap and torture, then what can't he do?

The Dean of Yale Law School, Harold Koh, said after analyzing the Executive Branch's claims of these previously unrecognized powers: "If the President has commander-in-chief power to commit torture, he has the power to commit genocide, to sanction slavery, to promote apartheid, to license summary execution."

The fact that our normal safeguards have thus far failed to contain this unprecedented expansion of executive power is deeply troubling. This failure is due in part to the fact that the Executive Branch has followed a determined strategy of obfuscating, delaying, withholding information, appearing to yield but then refusing to do so and dissembling in order to frustrate the efforts of the legislative and judicial branches to restore our constitutional balance.

For example, after appearing to support legislation sponsored by John McCain to stop the continuation of torture, the President declared in the act of signing the bill that he reserved the right not to comply with it.

Similarly, the Executive Branch claimed that it could unilaterally imprison American citizens without giving them access to review by any tribunal. The Supreme Court disagreed, but the President engaged in legal maneuvers designed to prevent the Court from providing meaningful content to the rights of its citizens.

A conservative jurist on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals wrote that the Executive Branch's handling of one such case seemed to involve the sudden abandonment of principle "at substantial cost to the government's credibility before the courts."

As a result of its unprecedented claim of new unilateral power, the Executive Branch has now put our constitutional design at grave risk. The stakes for America's representative democracy are far higher than has been generally recognized.

These claims must be rejected and a healthy balance of power restored to our Republic. Otherwise, the fundamental nature of our democracy may well undergo a radical transformation.

For more than two centuries, America's freedoms have been preserved in part by our founders' wise decision to separate the aggregate power of our government into three co-equal branches, each of which serves to check and balance the power of the other two.

On more than a few occasions, the dynamic interaction among all three branches has resulted in collisions and temporary impasses that create what are invariably labeled "constitutional crises." These crises have often been dangerous and uncertain times for our Republic. But in each such case so far, we have found a resolution of the crisis by renewing our common agreement to live under the rule of law.

The principle alternative to democracy throughout history has been the consolidation of virtually all state power in the hands of a single strongman or small group who together exercise that power without the informed consent of the governed.

It was in revolt against just such a regime, after all, that America was founded. When Lincoln declared at the time of our greatest crisis that the ultimate question being decided in the Civil War was "whether that nation, or any nation so conceived, and so dedicated, can long endure," he was not only saving our union but also was recognizing the fact that democracies are rare in history. And when they fail, as did Athens and the Roman Republic upon whose designs our founders drew heavily, what emerges in their place is another strongman regime.

There have of course been other periods of American history when the Executive Branch claimed new powers that were later seen as excessive and mistaken. Our second president, John Adams, passed the infamous Alien and Sedition Acts and sought to silence and imprison critics and political opponents.

When his successor, Thomas Jefferson, eliminated the abuses he said: "[The essential principles of our Government] form the bright constellation which has gone before us and guided our steps through an age of revolution and reformation ... [S]hould we wander from them in moments of error or of alarm, let us hasten to retrace our steps and to regain the road which alone leads to peace, liberty and safety."

Our greatest President, Abraham Lincoln, suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War. Some of the worst abuses prior to those of the current administration were committed by President Wilson during and after WWI with the notorious Red Scare and Palmer Raids. The internment of Japanese Americans during WWII marked a low point for the respect of individual rights at the hands of the executive. And, during the Vietnam War, the notorious COINTELPRO program was part and parcel of the abuses experienced by Dr. King and thousands of others.

But in each of these cases, when the conflict and turmoil subsided, the country recovered its equilibrium and absorbed the lessons learned in a recurring cycle of excess and regret.

There are reasons for concern this time around that conditions may be changing and that the cycle may not repeat itself. For one thing, we have for decades been witnessing the slow and steady accumulation of presidential power. In a global environment of nuclear weapons and cold war tensions, Congress and the American people accepted ever enlarging spheres of presidential initiative to conduct intelligence and counter intelligence activities and to allocate our military forces on the global stage. When military force has been used as an instrument of foreign policy or in response to humanitarian demands, it has almost always been as the result of presidential initiative and leadership. As Justice Frankfurter wrote in the Steel Seizure Case, "The accretion of dangerous power does not come in a day. It does come, however slowly, from the generative force of unchecked disregard of the restrictions that fence in even the most disinterested assertion of authority."

A second reason to believe we may be experiencing something new is that we are told by the Administration that the war footing upon which he has tried to place the country is going to "last for the rest of our lives." So we are told that the conditions of national threat that have been used by other Presidents to justify arrogations of power will persist in near perpetuity.

Third, we need to be aware of the advances in eavesdropping and surveillance technologies with their capacity to sweep up and analyze enormous quantities of information and to mine it for intelligence. This adds significant vulnerability to the privacy and freedom of enormous numbers of innocent people at the same time as the potential power of those technologies. These techologies have the potential for shifting the balance of power between the apparatus of the state and the freedom of the individual in ways both subtle and profound.

Don't misunderstand me: the threat of additional terror strikes is all too real and their concerted efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction does create a real imperative to exercise the powers of the Executive Branch with swiftness and agility. Moreover, there is in fact an inherent power that is conferred by the Constitution to the President to take unilateral action to protect the nation from a sudden and immediate threat, but it is simply not possible to precisely define in legalistic terms exactly when that power is appropriate and when it is not.

But the existence of that inherent power cannot be used to justify a gross and excessive power grab lasting for years that produces a serious imbalance in the relationship between the executive and the other two branches of government.

There is a final reason to worry that we may be experiencing something more than just another cycle of overreach and regret. This Administration has come to power in the thrall of a legal theory that aims to convince us that this excessive concentration of presidential authority is exactly what our Constitution intended.

This legal theory, which its proponents call the theory of the unitary executive but which is more accurately described as the unilateral executive, threatens to expand the president's powers until the contours of the constitution that the Framers actually gave us become obliterated beyond all recognition. Under this theory, the President's authority when acting as Commander-in-Chief or when making foreign policy cannot be reviewed by the judiciary or checked by Congress. President Bush has pushed the implications of this idea to its maximum by continually stressing his role as Commander-in-Chief, invoking it has frequently as he can, conflating it with his other roles, domestic and foreign. When added to the idea that we have entered a perpetual state of war, the implications of this theory stretch quite literally as far into the future as we can imagine.

This effort to rework America's carefully balanced constitutional design into a lopsided structure dominated by an all powerful Executive Branch with a subservient Congress and judiciary is - ironically - accompanied by an effort by the same administration to rework America's foreign policy from one that is based primarily on U.S. moral authority into one that is based on a misguided and self-defeating effort to establish dominance in the world.

The common denominator seems to be based on an instinct to intimidate and control.

This same pattern has characterized the effort to silence dissenting views within the Executive Branch, to censor information that may be inconsistent with its stated ideological goals, and to demand conformity from all Executive Branch employees.

For example, CIA analysts who strongly disagreed with the White House assertion that Osama bin Laden was linked to Saddam Hussein found themselves under pressure at work and became fearful of losing promotions and salary increases.

Ironically, that is exactly what happened to FBI officials in the 1960s who disagreed with J. Edgar Hoover's view that Dr. King was closely connected to Communists. The head of the FBI's domestic intelligence division said that his effort to tell the truth about King's innocence of the charge resulted in he and his colleagues becoming isolated and pressured. "It was evident that we had to change our ways or we would all be out on the street... The men and I discussed how to get out of trouble. To be in trouble with Mr. Hoover was a serious matter. These men were trying to buy homes, mortgages on homes, children in school. They lived in fear of getting transferred, losing money on their homes, as they usually did. ... so they wanted another memorandum written to get us out of the trouble that we were in."

The Constitution's framers understood this dilemma as well, as Alexander Hamilton put it, "a power over a man's support is a power over his will." (Federalist No. 73)

Soon, there was no more difference of opinion within the FBI. The false accusation became the unanimous view. In exactly the same way, George Tenet's CIA eventually joined in endorsing a manifestly false view that there was a linkage between al Qaeda and the government of Iraq.

In the words of George Orwell: "We are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show that we were right. Intellectually, it is possible to carry on this process for an indefinite time: the only check on it is that sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually on a battlefield."

Whenever power is unchecked and unaccountable it almost inevitably leads to mistakes and abuses. In the absence of rigorous accountability, incompetence flourishes. Dishonesty is encouraged and rewarded.

Last week, for example, Vice President Cheney attempted to defend the Administration's eavesdropping on American citizens by saying that if it had conducted this program prior to 9/11, they would have found out the names of some of the hijackers.

Tragically, he apparently still doesn't know that the Administration did in fact have the names of at least 2 of the hijackers well before 9/11 and had available to them information that could have easily led to the identification of most of the other hijackers. And yet, because of incompetence in the handling of this information, it was never used to protect the American people.

It is often the case that an Executive Branch beguiled by the pursuit of unchecked power responds to its own mistakes by reflexively proposing that it be given still more power. Often, the request itself it used to mask accountability for mistakes in the use of power it already has.

Moreover, if the pattern of practice begun by this Administration is not challenged, it may well become a permanent part of the American system. Many conservatives have pointed out that granting unchecked power to this President means that the next President will have unchecked power as well. And the next President may be someone whose values and belief you do not trust. And this is why Republicans as well as Democrats should be concerned with what this President has done. If this President's attempt to dramatically expand executive power goes unquestioned, our constitutional design of checks and balances will be lost. And the next President or some future President will be able, in the name of national security, to restrict our liberties in a way the framers never would have thought possible.

The same instinct to expand its power and to establish dominance characterizes the relationship between this Administration and the courts and the Congress.

In a properly functioning system, the Judicial Branch would serve as the constitutional umpire to ensure that the branches of government observed their proper spheres of authority, observed civil liberties and adhered to the rule of law. Unfortunately, the unilateral executive has tried hard to thwart the ability of the judiciary to call balls and strikes by keeping controversies out of its hands - notably those challenging its ability to detain individuals without legal process - by appointing judges who will be deferential to its exercise of power and by its support of assaults on the independence of the third branch.

The President's decision to ignore FISA was a direct assault on the power of the judges who sit on that court. Congress established the FISA court precisely to be a check on executive power to wiretap. Yet, to ensure that the court could not function as a check on executive power, the President simply did not take matters to it and did not let the court know that it was being bypassed.

The President's judicial appointments are clearly designed to ensure that the courts will not serve as an effective check on executive power. As we have all learned, Judge Alito is a longtime supporter of a powerful executive - a supporter of the so-called unitary executive, which is more properly called the unilateral executive. Whether you support his confirmation or not - and I do not - we must all agree that he will not vote as an effective check on the expansion of executive power. Likewise, Chief Justice Roberts has made plain his deference to the expansion of executive power through his support of judicial deference to executive agency rulemaking.

And the Administration has supported the assault on judicial independence that has been conducted largely in Congress. That assault includes a threat by the Republican majority in the Senate to permanently change the rules to eliminate the right of the minority to engage in extended debate of the President's judicial nominees. The assault has extended to legislative efforts to curtail the jurisdiction of courts in matters ranging from habeas corpus to the pledge of allegiance. In short, the Administration has demonstrated its contempt for the judicial role and sought to evade judicial review of its actions at every turn.

But the most serious damage has been done to the legislative branch. The sharp decline of congressional power and autonomy in recent years has been almost as shocking as the efforts by the Executive Branch to attain a massive expansion of its power.

I was elected to Congress in 1976 and served eight years in the house, 8 years in the Senate and presided over the Senate for 8 years as Vice President. As a young man, I saw the Congress first hand as the son of a Senator. My father was elected to Congress in 1938, 10 years before I was born, and left the Senate in 1971.

The Congress we have today is unrecognizable compared to the one in which my father served. There are many distinguished Senators and Congressmen serving today. I am honored that some of them are here in this hall. But the legislative branch of government under its current leadership now operates as if it is entirely subservient to the Executive Branch.

Moreover, too many Members of the House and Senate now feel compelled to spend a majority of their time not in thoughtful debate of the issues, but raising money to purchase 30 second TV commercials.

There have now been two or three generations of congressmen who don't really know what an oversight hearing is. In the 70's and 80's, the oversight hearings in which my colleagues and I participated held the feet of the Executive Branch to the fire - no matter which party was in power. Yet oversight is almost unknown in the Congress today.

The role of authorization committees has declined into insignificance. The 13 annual appropriation bills are hardly ever actually passed anymore. Everything is lumped into a single giant measure that is not even available for Members of Congress to read before they vote on it.

Members of the minority party are now routinely excluded from conference committees, and amendments are routinely not allowed during floor consideration of legislation.

In the United States Senate, which used to pride itself on being the "greatest deliberative body in the world," meaningful debate is now a rarity. Even on the eve of the fateful vote to authorize the invasion of Iraq, Senator Robert Byrd famously asked: "Why is this chamber empty?"

In the House of Representatives, the number who face a genuinely competitive election contest every two years is typically less than a dozen out of 435.

And too many incumbents have come to believe that the key to continued access to the money for re-election is to stay on the good side of those who have the money to give; and, in the case of the majority party, the whole process is largely controlled by the incumbent president and his political organization.

So the willingness of Congress to challenge the Administration is further limited when the same party controls both Congress and the Executive Branch.

The Executive Branch, time and again, has co-opted Congress' role, and often Congress has been a willing accomplice in the surrender of its own power.

Look for example at the Congressional role in "overseeing" this massive four year eavesdropping campaign that on its face seemed so clearly to violate the Bill of Rights. The President says he informed Congress, but what he really means is that he talked with the chairman and ranking member of the House and Senate intelligence committees and the top leaders of the House and Senate. This small group, in turn, claimed that they were not given the full facts, though at least one of the intelligence committee leaders handwrote a letter of concern to VP Cheney and placed a copy in his own safe.

Though I sympathize with the awkward position in which these men and women were placed, I cannot disagree with the Liberty Coalition when it says that Democrats as well as Republicans in the Congress must share the blame for not taking action to protest and seek to prevent what they consider a grossly unconstitutional program.

Moreover, in the Congress as a whole - both House and Senate - the enhanced role of money in the re-election process, coupled with the sharply diminished role for reasoned deliberation and debate, has produced an atmosphere conducive to pervasive institutionalized corruption.

The Abramoff scandal is but the tip of a giant iceberg that threatens the integrity of the entire legislative branch of government.

It is the pitiful state of our legislative branch which primarily explains the failure of our vaunted checks and balances to prevent the dangerous overreach by our Executive Branch which now threatens a radical transformation of the American system.

I call upon Democratic and Republican members of Congress today to uphold your oath of office and defend the Constitution. Stop going along to get along. Start acting like the independent and co-equal branch of government you're supposed to be.

But there is yet another Constitutional player whose pulse must be taken and whose role must be examined in order to understand the dangerous imbalance that has emerged with the efforts by the Executive Branch to dominate our constitutional system.

We the people are - collectively - still the key to the survival of America's democracy. We - as Lincoln put it, "[e]ven we here" - must examine our own role as citizens in allowing and not preventing the shocking decay and degradation of our democracy.

Thomas Jefferson said: "An informed citizenry is the only true repository of the public will."

The revolutionary departure on which the idea of America was based was the audacious belief that people can govern themselves and responsibly exercise the ultimate authority in self-government. This insight proceeded inevitably from the bedrock principle articulated by the Enlightenment philosopher John Locke: "All just power is derived from the consent of the governed."

The intricate and carefully balanced constitutional system that is now in such danger was created with the full and widespread participation of the population as a whole. The Federalist Papers were, back in the day, widely-read newspaper essays, and they represented only one of twenty-four series of essays that crowded the vibrant marketplace of ideas in which farmers and shopkeepers recapitulated the debates that played out so fruitfully in Philadelphia.

Indeed, when the Convention had done its best, it was the people - in their various States - that refused to confirm the result until, at their insistence, the Bill of Rights was made integral to the document sent forward for ratification.

And it is "We the people" who must now find once again the ability we once had to play an integral role in saving our Constitution.

And here there is cause for both concern and great hope. The age of printed pamphlets and political essays has long since been replaced by television - a distracting and absorbing medium which sees determined to entertain and sell more than it informs and educates.

Lincoln's memorable call during the Civil War is applicable in a new way to our dilemma today: "We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country."

Forty years have passed since the majority of Americans adopted television as their principal source of information. Its dominance has become so extensive that virtually all significant political communication now takes place within the confines of flickering 30-second television advertisements.

And the political economy supported by these short but expensive television ads is as different from the vibrant politics of America's first century as those politics were different from the feudalism which thrived on the ignorance of the masses of people in the Dark Ages.

The constricted role of ideas in the American political system today has encouraged efforts by the Executive Branch to control the flow of information as a means of controlling the outcome of important decisions that still lie in the hands of the people.

The Administration vigorously asserts its power to maintain the secrecy of its operations. After all, the other branches can't check an abuse of power if they don't know it is happening.

For example, when the Administration was attempting to persuade Congress to enact the Medicare prescription drug benefit, many in the House and Senate raised concerns about the cost and design of the program. But, rather than engaging in open debate on the basis of factual data, the Administration withheld facts and prevented the Congress from hearing testimony that it sought from the principal administration expert who had compiled information showing in advance of the vote that indeed the true cost estimates were far higher than the numbers given to Congress by the President.

Deprived of that information, and believing the false numbers given to it instead, the Congress approved the program. Tragically, the entire initiative is now collapsing - all over the country - with the Administration making an appeal just this weekend to major insurance companies to volunteer to bail it out.

To take another example, scientific warnings about the catastrophic consequences of unchecked global warming were censored by a political appointee in the White House who had no scientific training. And today one of the leading scientific experts on global warming in NASA has been ordered not to talk to members of the press and to keep a careful log of everyone he meets with so that the Executive Branch can monitor and control his discussions of global warming.

One of the other ways the Administration has tried to control the flow of information is by consistently resorting to the language and politics of fear in order to short-circuit the debate and drive its agenda forward without regard to the evidence or the public interest. As President Eisenhower said, "Any who act as if freedom's defenses are to be found in suppression and suspicion and fear confess a doctrine that is alien to America."

Fear drives out reason. Fear suppresses the politics of discourse and opens the door to the politics of destruction. Justice Brandeis once wrote: "Men feared witches and burnt women."

The founders of our country faced dire threats. If they failed in their endeavors, they would have been hung as traitors. The very existence of our country was at risk.

Yet, in the teeth of those dangers, they insisted on establishing the Bill of Rights.

Is our Congress today in more danger than were their predecessors when the British army was marching on the Capitol? Is the world more dangerous than when we faced an ideological enemy with tens of thousands of missiles poised to be launched against us and annihilate our country at a moment's notice? Is America in more danger now than when we faced worldwide fascism on the march - when our fathers fought and won two World Wars simultaneously?

It is simply an insult to those who came before us and sacrificed so much on our behalf to imply that we have more to be fearful of than they. Yet they faithfully protected our freedoms and now it is up to us to do the same.

We have a duty as Americans to defend our citizens' right not only to life but also to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is therefore vital in our current circumstances that immediate steps be taken to safeguard our Constitution against the present danger posed by the intrusive overreaching on the part of the Executive Branch and the President's apparent belief that he need not live under the rule of law.

I endorse the words of (former Republican U.S. Representative) Bob Barr, when he said, "The President has dared the American people to do something about it. For the sake of the Constitution, I hope they will."

A special counsel should immediately be appointed by the Attorney General to remedy the obvious conflict of interest that prevents him from investigating what many believe are serious violations of law by the President. We have had a fresh demonstration of how an independent investigation by a special counsel with integrity can rebuild confidence in our system of justice. Patrick Fitzgerald has, by all accounts, shown neither fear nor favor in pursuing allegations that the Executive Branch has violated other laws.

Republican as well as Democratic members of Congress should support the bipartisan call of the Liberty Coalition for the appointment of a special counsel to pursue the criminal issues raised by warrantless wiretapping of Americans by the President.

Second, new whistleblower protections should immediately be established for members of the Executive Branch who report evidence of wrongdoing - especially where it involves the abuse of Executive Branch authority in the sensitive areas of national security.

Third, both Houses of Congress should hold comprehensive - and not just superficial - hearings into these serious allegations of criminal behavior on the part of the President. And, they should follow the evidence wherever it leads.

Fourth, the extensive new powers requested by the Executive Branch in its proposal to extend and enlarge the Patriot Act should, under no circumstances be granted, unless and until there are adequate and enforceable safeguards to protect the Constitution and the rights of the American people against the kinds of abuses that have so recently been revealed.

Fifth, any telecommunications company that has provided the government with access to private information concerning the communications of Americans without a proper warrant should immediately cease and desist their complicity in this apparently illegal invasion of the privacy of American citizens.

Freedom of communication is an essential prerequisite for the restoration of the health of our democracy.

It is particularly important that the freedom of the Internet be protected against either the encroachment of government or the efforts at control by large media conglomerates. The future of our democracy depends on it.

I mentioned that along with cause for concern, there is reason for hope. As I stand here today, I am filled with optimism that America is on the eve of a golden age in which the vitality of our democracy will be re-established and will flourish more vibrantly than ever. Indeed I can feel it in this hall.

As Dr. King once said, "Perhaps a new spirit is rising among us. If it is, let us trace its movements and pray that our own inner being may be sensitive to its guidance, for we are deeply in need of a new way beyond the darkness that seems so close around us."

Comments (611)

1. Al Gore remains a somewhat wooden speaker, but his speech was excellent. I only wish someone with true public-speaking ability had given it. My guess is that if, say, Barack Obama had given this same speech, people would be charging the White House with pitchforks.

   In any case, there's a video of the entire speech at the C-SPAN web site [c-span.org].

   Posted by cdupree at 01/17/2006 @ 02:46am

2. Like Cindy Sheehan, John Conyers and John Murtha- all people of great courage who had the conviction to stand up for what is right, despite the backlash. They are saying what MUST be said; Al Gore joined their ranks today. "Wooden", "grieving" or "old"- that's all moot against the many people remaining silent. Maybe they await the "right time"... but while they wait- we wait; democracy waits. Al Gore's speech was full of passion, truth and intelligence, and I hope he is the voice that gets the attention Cindy got in Crawford last summer. It's time to start pitching up the tents of justice.

   Posted by lairam at 01/17/2006 @ 04:35am

3. The former Vice-President's "image problem" isn't what his enemies say about him, but what his friends do.

   Aside from the Hard Left, who still cling to the "Florida was stolen, Bush was selected", the vast number of Democrats think Gore blew it in 2000 and stupidly so.

   He was sitting Vice-President for "8 years of peace and prosperity", running against a "moron, babbling silver-spooner ersatz cowboy" with a "gruff VP nominee one cheese-steak away from a massive coronary" and he STILL lost his home-state.

   Now with the taint of "loser" (from which no Dem Presidential nominee has recovered from since Adlai Stevenson), he's trying establish himself either as the "true voice" of the Democratic Party or even as a 2008 nominee prospect.

   The problem are: A. Nobody except the base to whom he panders, listens or cares about him...and B. If some Democrat Leader DID take up his "call", they'd elevate Gore and not themselves...which is something NO politician would ever do.

   Posted by Mask at 01/17/2006 @ 06:50am

4. Last night my 16 year old and I watched a time-shifted moment of great historical significance, courtesy of C-Span.

   This morning while preparing for work, a surf of the networks provided me with every detail of the Golden Globe Awards.

   Any man, woman, or child in colonial America knew more about their government than we do now.

   (But I think I may have just seen an eyelid twitch...)

   Posted by drhammer at 01/17/2006 @ 06:54am

5. In a way its almost sad what has happened to Al Gore. I cant help but look now and shake my head. Here is a former VP of the USA, reduced to being a DEANIAC-like attack dog. Much of what Gore says is Hyperbole, appealing only to Nation-types. One can only surmise is that he never quite got over his loss.

   My God what would Gore have done had he been POTUS on 911, with his statements since 2000, it makes me shudder to think that he was that close. Poor Gore, Mr. Irrelevent of US politics.

   Posted by CPT at 01/17/2006 @ 08:17am

6. This would be an entirely different world if Gore were POTUS instead of what we have now. The USA would not be seen as a war seeking totalitarian state in the making to the rest of the world. We the people wouldn't be in the middle of the biggest robbery of 'our' economy from the richest via a dictator in progress. Thousands of people would still be alive, perhaps millions not maimed physically or psychologically. There would be more social safety nets for the poor. A free and open press would still exist, sans faux. Storms such as Katrina would've been minimized without the appointed incompetent cronies. The world would be a safer and more peaceful place to live in. But for the foam mouthed war mongering chicken hawks spewing their dementedly skewed vision of their feared vision of life they live, we might actually see the light through their dark shadow cast blocking the way to a better life. Yes, I would prefer a Gore POTUS right about now since I can see it getting worse-- it's like seeing a drunk at the wheel on a crowded street.

   Posted by Bushfools at 01/17/2006 @ 08:53am

7. Could Gore be attempting a "Nixon '68" move?

   He's bright, but not THAT bright (most of his rep as a "great intellect" is bestowed by the Left because he's "right on the issues, especially the environmet")....could he be thinking that history is repeating itself and HE can win on that?

   In other words, if "Iraq=Vietnam" and "Bush=Johnson", could "Gore=Nixon"? The former Vice-President, who lost by a narrow margin, returns after 8 years of disaster by the opposition, and wins the office he was "supposed to win" years earlier.

   All it will take is a "secret Gore plan to end the war in Iraq" and, of course, the highly UNLIKELY prospect of history actually repeating itself as exactly as he hopes...hehe!

   Posted by Mask at 01/17/2006 @ 09:03am

8. Just by way of putting comments like that above of CPT into perspective, I heard the interview this morning on Rachel Maddow's program with Dr. Joseph Stiglitz, 2001 Nobel prize in Economics, explain his tally of the long-term costs of this useless and pointless based-on-lies war at $2 trillion, four times the outside estimate of the cost of "saving Social Security".

   Stiglitz' estimate mentions as a benchmark for comparison costs now well understood arising from Bush Sr.'s Gulf War. Applying those to the current idiocy, this quote from the Globe says:

   (http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2006 /01/08/economists_say_cost_of_war_could_top_2_trillion /?p1=MEWell_Pos4)

   [remove spaces inserted by rinky-dink Nation blog engine before use]

   ''There are 16,000 people with serious injuries," Stiglitz said. ''That number is predicted to double [by 2010], and every injured person has health costs, plus disability. That is an obvious but important example that represents costs in Iraq not reflected" in the official numbers, Those costs bring the price tag of the war up to about $650 billion, Stiglitz said, but that doesn't include broader economic factors such as the war's drag on the federal deficit.

   Below is a quote from Stiglitz' own article in the LA Times today, "War's stunning price tag" http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary /la-oe-bilmes17jan17,0,7038018.story

   [remove spaces inserted by rinky-dink Nation blog engine before use]

   Even more fundamentally, there is the question of whether we needed to spend the money at all. Thinking back to the months before the war, there were few reasons to invade quickly, and many to go slow. The Bush policy of threatened force had pressured Iraq into allowing the U.N. inspectors back into the country. The inspectors said they required a few months to complete their work. Several of our closest allies, including France and Germany, were urging the U.S. to await the outcome of the inspections. There were, as we now know, conflicting intelligence reports.

   Had we waited, the value of the information we would have learned from the inspectors would arguably have saved the nation at least $1 trillion -- enough money to fix Social Security for the next 75 years twice over.

   But, as I'm sure CPT is preparing to state, "what do these wacko pinko Nobel prize-winning economists know, anyway? They're just cheese-eating surrender-monkeys that hate America, right?"

   Posted by ProudPrimate at 01/17/2006 @ 09:04am

9. If Gore attempted a "Nixon '68" move, who would be his new Kissinger to tempt the new Nguyen Van Thieu to abandon the nearly agreed (new version of the) Paris Peace Talks, thus scuttling the election of (the new) Hubert Humphrey, at the mere cost of another four years of bloodshed and another 20,000 American lives (not to mention the Vietnamese lives which of course are meaningless)?

   Posted by ProudPrimate at 01/17/2006 @ 09:11am

10. BUSHFOOLS:

    well said, man

    Posted by ProudPrimate at 01/17/2006 @ 09:13am

11. I am mildly agog at the "Yes-man" perspex of those like CPT & Mask who find, much like their fearless leader, that laws and the Constitution are irrelevant, inconvenient, or both.

    The very fact that the WH sought an opinion of the legality of the then theorectical plan and was told it wouldn't fly...to then do it anyway and back-rationalize that the "call to war" somehow abrogates FISA - the very judicial entitiy created FOR the purpose - is a flaccid and false argument. Likewise, the torture deaths of those in American custody bespeaks the cruel & autocratic approach the "Dick-Dubya Show" bring to the table these days.

    Perhaps it IS time to see if "Big Al" is ready for prime-time again...see the petition to DRAFT GORE 2008 [petitiononline.com]

    Posted by leftofcenter at 01/17/2006 @ 09:34am

12. PROUD

    I don't think Gore can "pull it off"....my supposition is that HE thinks he can.

    And again, history almost never repeats itself exactly anyway. By the time 2008 rolls around, Repub and Dem will be on virtually the same page as far as Iraq goes--"Slow pull-out" and if Baghdad goes "Saigon-1975" by 2010 "so what".

    The only analogies that MIGHT be made are....Bush, like Johnson, returns to his ranch and maybe Karen Hughes becomes his "Doris Kearns Goodwin" apologist over the next 20-30 years. Dems post-Iraq, like Repubs post-Vietnam, start in on "We COULD have won Iraq, if we had done what WE thought should have been done". And ten years from now, some brash young director makes a movie about a CIA black ops guy going up the Tigris, taking material from Joseph Conrad's "Heart of Darkness", with a "cool Apache helo attack" sequence on Fallujah.

    Posted by Mask at 01/17/2006 @ 09:35am

13. LEFTOF

    In case I've never mentioned it to you here....I voted for Kerry (on judges mostly, as I figured he be too hamstrung by a GOP Congress to actually get any of HIS agenda passed).

    and I think your "online petition" just proved my point on Gore. He's getting the base (like you) on his side, while Hillary, Kerry, Richardson, and even Edwards are fighting for the table scraps of moderates and conservatives.

    Posted by Mask at 01/17/2006 @ 09:38am

14. Mask,

    I know how cynical and jaded you are so it is very hard for you to think that Gore's speech does not have ulterior motive.

    But please consider that perhaps from Gore's perspective he loves his country and his motive is simply to do his part to make the place he loves a better place.

    Perhaps, he has no leadership ambitions whatsoever.

    Posted by freedomplease at 01/17/2006 @ 09:43am

15. I guess Al Gore will never die, he will just become more and more irrelevant. Sure was a waste of time to put entire speech on blog. As to how the country would look if Gore would have won--no one knows--could be worse, could be better. But my guess would be that democrats would defend his actions and republicans would tout him as the worst President in American history---As to people not being killed if Gore had won--I disagee-the fact of the matter is that different people would have died and by different means. Presidential action or inaction,in matters of foreign intrigue,usually both cost lives.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 01/17/2006 @ 09:43am

16. Len,

    That is one of the stupidest things I've ever seen. I'll grant you that you don't know what would have happened, but the rest of us do. Had Gore been elected 9/11 would not have happened for the umpteen reasons that have been pointed out. By your analysis President's make no difference and therefore why not have a monkey as President....oh I forgot, we already do!

    Posted by freedomplease at 01/17/2006 @ 09:49am

17. Freedom,

    The point Len is making is that no Americans may be dead as of Iraq, but thousands of Iraqis surely would given the history of Saddam..or perhaps more Americans here.. we will never know, but speculate.

    As to Gore, I actually sat through his speech on C-Span,the man has the same speech giving talents as Bush...absolutely mind numbimg. He was actually good to my surprise at first but then wandered into ABU Grab, Iraq then drifted into all the problems of the world lay at Bush's feet and he charged straight into irrelevantcy(SP), which after suming up his speech, I and most Americans believe he fits comfortably.

    The issue he raises of presidencial power belongs in the courts as it is a constutional issue and not criminal, I think. For someone who sat in the VP office for 8 years it seems he should have had some influence, but apparently he didn't as all here think he would be better than Bush, yet history has no evidence Gore was even in Washington...he is dead. He had no impact for 8 years and it is foolish hopelessness to think he would have been a great president. He has no leadership skills or inspirational gifts. Mind numbing.

    Posted by john maasch at 01/17/2006 @ 10:11am

18. Free,

    The only people who think 9/11 would not happened under Gores watch live here.

    Bush was not the inspiration for 9/11, rather is is our open society and the fact we did nothing about terrorism for 15 years. We tolerated it from Beruit under Reagan to the Cole to the WTC the first time. No response. My 8th grade son can connect the dots. Why can't people on the left?

    Posted by john maasch at 01/17/2006 @ 10:14am

19. In a way its almost sad what has happened to Al Gore. I cant help but look now and shake my head. Here is a former VP of the USA, reduced to being a DEANIAC-like attack dog. Much of what Gore says is Hyperbole, appealing only to Nation-types. One can only surmise is that he never quite got over his loss.

    My God what would Gore have done had he been POTUS on 911, with his statements since 2000, it makes me shudder to think that he was that close. Poor Gore, Mr. Irrelevent of US politics.

    Posted by CPT 01/17/2006 @ 08:17am | ignore this person

    oh rah rah rah - how about addressing specifics rather that smug, macho, aping of right wing talking points? this obssesion with being "mainstream" (such being defined as "what i and roughly 51% of the voting public appear to have believed in the 04 elections"). this pro rastlin rant style of the right (we won! we won! you stupid losers! we won - might makes right - oops, i mean your outside the MAINSTREAM and therefore wrong!) is pathetic.

    CPT - i respect your intellect and must say that your posts usually show more cogent thought and sound reasoning. how about ripping what gore said apart point by point without resorting to conservative talking points?

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/17/2006 @ 10:28am

20. and i'll attempt to complete all my sentences....

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/17/2006 @ 10:29am

21. Perhaps, he has no leadership ambitions whatsoever.

    Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 01/17/2006 @ 09:43am

    So a man, raised in a political family, father a US Senator (AND, by the way, opponent of Civil Rights legislation!)...."legacy'ied" into a Senate seat...sought the Democrat Prez nomination in 1988 (introducing Willy Horton first, also, by the way)...who campaigned to get on Clinton's ticket as "Mr Marriage Fidelity and Young Moderate Southerner"....who fought (if poorly) for a tied election....

    "has no leadership ambitions whatsoever."???

    Posted by Mask at 01/17/2006 @ 10:29am

22. JM

    Bush & Gore on the same "speech level"? Al does tend to use words in the dictionary, and in their proper context I might add. So while any politician speaking longer than perhaps 15 mins, is by definition mind-numbing, at least Al G is making some cogent points.

    As to whether he would have made a great President...well, that does fall into "woulda, coulda, shoulda" land....but he could be no worse than the corrupt "Howdy-Doody" show we have at present - and likley better due (if for no other reason) to his intellectual prowess and statesman-like manner (as opposed to "Nyuk-nyuk" Bush)

    Posted by leftofcenter at 01/17/2006 @ 10:31am

23. JM,

    I am inclined to agree with your assertion that much of America thinks 9/11 was some instoppable manifest destiny, however, that simply points to the sickeningly sycophantic nature of the USA's MSM.

    For anyone looking at the actual facts the reality that a Gore Presidency would have created a different day on 9/11 is blaringly obvious.

    I can explain it to you if you want, but since I'm still spinning from your ridiculous assertion of yesterday that you do not want Walmart to have to pay healthcare but you also don't want the government getting involved it seems hardly worth explaining something like the Gore report which would require significantly more of your reasoning ability.

    Posted by freedomplease at 01/17/2006 @ 10:33am

24. Mask,

    No perhaps he does not have leadership aspirations.....any more.

    He's been there and it's been very easy (comparatively) to get there, for him. Perhaps he is prepared to serve his country, but not prepared to do all the mud slinging that it will take to be involved at the Presidential level.

    You have to admit that he has name recognition and thus could be in the Senate....but he isn't. You feel it is because he thinks it would be a step back towards a Presidential bid but I postulate it is because he would rather avoid the headaches.

    The biggest question is.....given the weakness of the Democratic field in 2004, and given the history, I think that if he had wanted to run then 2004 would have been the time.

    Anyway, this is speculative I will admit, however, I just want you to CONSIDER for a brief second that he may have loftier intentions than mere personal ambition. Once you've considered it you can go back to your cynicism, which I generally enjoy.

    Posted by freedomplease at 01/17/2006 @ 10:42am

25. Isn't it hilarious when those supporters of a party who chose a moronic half wit as a leader launch personal, scathing attacks on an individual who has more presidential genes in his dandruff than Bush has in his whole body.

    Bush can't hold a candle to Gore in integrity, intelligence, debating prowess or statesmanship. The singular absence of all four qualities is precisely why he's president, fronting the implementation of an extreme right wing agenda for which he's only the errand boy. As was plainly evident during the reading of "My Pet Goat", Bush couldn't scratch his arse if he wasn't told which hand to use.

    I only hope that there are decent people in the GOP who see the sense of what Gore said and get some backbone to stop the abuse of power.

    But I won't hold my breath. Integrity in that party seems to be a tad like the oil they went to war for, an increasingly rare commodity constantly increasing in price . . .

    Posted by inveresk at 01/17/2006 @ 10:46am

26. "The biggest question is.....given the weakness of the Democratic field in 2004, and given the history, I think that if he had wanted to run then 2004 would have been the time."

    I am recollecting that Mr. Gore did the statesmanlike thing and ruled himself out of a 2004 bid early so as not to re-run 2000 and reopen that wound. I am not surprised that this fact is overlooked by some here, as highmindedness is something that seems to be beyond the ken of our right wing friends.

    Posted by skeletonman at 01/17/2006 @ 10:49am

27. Free,

    You still don't get it..

    It isn't that I don't want Walmart to pay health care for workers, it I don't want GOVERNMENT to mandate it. Thats all.

    Gov already mandates minimum wage, when to work , how to work(conditions, act,,,,the last few places are how much a company can make as a profit...that is called USSR...Gov buearocrats top to bottom regulating everything for the good of the people.

    As for this statement,,"For anyone looking at the actual facts the reality that a Gore Presidency would have created a different day on 9/11 is blaringly obvious. "

    It is only blaringly obvious here.

    By the way, have you ever had to make a payroll? Sign BOTH sides of a check instead of only the back side of one? It may change your perspective .

    Posted by john maasch at 01/17/2006 @ 10:53am

28. JM,

    No you don't get it (sadly). Companies are for profit. They are generally rational actors. A company does not get the type of value from providing healthcare that it costs them and this will become more obvious to companies as our country ages and our healhcare gets most costly. They will not provide healthcare and they will attract employees in other ways.

    Company A will offer $10/ hour and no healthcare. Company B will offer $8/hour with healthcare. Young, healthy employees will opt to work for company A. Company B will attract older, less healthy and hypochondriac type employees. Company B will change their policy to compete with company A or they will go bankrupt (effectively company A will then replace them).

    Now one of the employees of company A suddenly gets AIDS. She didn't save her $2/hour for this eventuality and so she goes onto Medicaid.

    You've just unwittingly created a government run central healthcare system because Walmart acted like a company and tried to maximize its short term profits and all other companies were forced to follow in the competitive environment.

    You are just so naive as to think that other companies will not react to Walmart's competitive advantageous position. It doesn't work like that in the real world.

    Posted by freedomplease at 01/17/2006 @ 11:09am

29. This is exciting! I feel wonderful today because if the bloggers here at the Nation are typical of any significant percentage of the Democratic base, the Republicans can start breathing easier.

    Please, please, I'm begging you! Continue showcasing Al Gore in his speeches filled with misrepresentations, lies, distortions, hyperbole. Please, please continue pushing him to speak out.

    While you are at it, continue having Hillary call the Republican members of the House "Plantation Owners".

    Six months of this and the Democratic Party might well be on it's way to extinction.

    Posted by love liberty at 01/17/2006 @ 11:31am

30. MASK:

    I find your posts to be remarkably irrelevant, but similar (except in tone, where you are far less strident) to those posted by the various right-wing trolls that inhabit this website. While offering pointed criticisms of various topics, you not once offer specific thoughts on what Vice President Gore said. Do you actually disagree with him? If so, please provide specific points to discuss.

    Posted by trabaris at 01/17/2006 @ 11:41am

31. But, as I'm sure CPT is preparing to state, "what do these wacko pinko Nobel prize-winning economists know, anyway? They're just cheese-eating surrender-monkeys that hate America, right?"

    Posted by PROUDPRIMATE 01/17/2006 @ 09:04am

    Proud,

    Well, if CPT and the rest of conservatives have that reaction, it is only because of the absurdity of Stiglitz's argument. He makes dubious assumptions, creates a bogus "drag on the deficit" (hint: war causes productivity, jobs, and tax revenues which keep both the economy and the Fed operating), and discards compensating factors.

    For instance, the military costs are not suddenly created out of thin air where they did not previously exist. The military still pays it's active duty personnel regardless of a war or no war. The military still conducts ongoing training exercises and war games when no conflict exists. All these are costs that should be subtracted from any projections of additional costs.

    The assumption that military casualties will remain level for the next 5 years is an assumption that certainly the executive and military planners do not share.

    Finally, Stiglitz obviously bases his conclusions on his personal animosity towards the decision to go to war. All in all, a very biased and unreliable thesis.

    Posted by love liberty at 01/17/2006 @ 11:41am

32. LOVE LIBERTY:

    My thoughts, so recently posed for MASK, also apply to you. Instead of hyperble (generally labeling what V.P. Gore stated as lies, misrepresentations, etc.), how about offering something more thoughtful, with specific criticisms, together with supporting facts?

    Posted by trabaris at 01/17/2006 @ 11:44am

33. Freedomplease,

    JM has been trying to communicate to you the shortcomings of your hypothesis. Your latest attempt illustrates the lack of broader understanding or an unwillingness to acknowledge additional facts.

    Your example with worker A, leaves out a very important component. Why didn't worker A go out and purchase their own health care coverage. At the very least, why not purchase a low cost catastrophic coverage plan?

    Where is the personal responsibility of individuals in your considerations? Do only employers and/or the Government bear the responsibility for one's health?

    Posted by love liberty at 01/17/2006 @ 11:46am

34. Here's MY analogy for the situation, MBB:

    Your analogy is to Bush's wiretapping as One Fish Two Fish Red Fish Blue Fish is to The Declaration of Independence.

    Laws are a damned nuisance, aren't they? Good thing we have a President who has the sense and courtesy to disregard them when he needs to.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 01/17/2006 @ 11:53am

35. "By the way, have you ever had to make a payroll? Sign BOTH sides of a check instead of only the back side of one? It may change your perspective ."

    What a snotty statement.

    I've been both an employer and an employee. My perspective has been consistent throughout - I worked for a decent level of compensation and dignity as an employee, and wanted no less for my employees when I signed the checks. I can't believe that anyone would think that Walmart or any of its greedy ilk would do the same without having their feet held to the fire.

    I've lived in Maryland for almost 38 years, and can't remember being as proud of my state or delegate as I am now.

    Posted by drhammer at 01/17/2006 @ 11:54am

36. Where is the personal responsibility of individuals in your considerations? Do only employers and/or the Government bear the responsibility for one's health?

    Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 01/17/2006 @ 11:46am

    At my job I pay for a portion of my health care and my employer pays for a portion of my health care.

    Shared responsibility.

    Very American

    Posted by Will C. at 01/17/2006 @ 11:56am

37. Love Liberty,

    Because Person A is inherently greedy and short sighted, that is why she didn't do the right thing and either work for company B with less pay but benefits or use her "extra" money to buy herself benefits.

    Now as a society we will either watch her die of AIDS on a freezing cold park bench in front of our eyes or we will have mercy and take care of her. I know as a minister you'd rather see the silly bitch die painfully, but our society is a bit more forgiving and you know that we'll take care of her (with my tax money).

    So, would it be better to legislate citizens into providing a minimum healthcare safety net for themselves or would it be better to legislate companies into providing that minimum safety net for their employees. I'm not sold on either direction, but if you want to keep it out of the government's hands you better start drawing up legislation one way or another.

    Posted by freedomplease at 01/17/2006 @ 12:03pm

38. Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 01/17/2006 @ 12:03am

    My sweety's father was paying over seven hundred dollars a month for health care five years before he went on medicare. That same policy at my job would have cost a total of three hundred dollars a month and the company would pay half.

    At seven hundred dollars a month, if he was making walmart wages, he wouldn't have had health care.

    Way too expensive.

    Posted by Will C. at 01/17/2006 @ 12:09pm

39. Posted by TRABARIS 01/17/2006 @ 11:41am

    My specific thoughts on what Gore said?.....Okay

    "Vigilant adherence to the rule of law strengthens our democracy and strengthens America."

    Would he apply "vigilant adherance to the rule of law" to a President....who committted perjury to a grand jury?

    (See...there IS some reason to doubt the CONSISTANCY of Mr Gore's views on Presidents who violate the law)

    Posted by Mask at 01/17/2006 @ 12:11pm

40. Would he apply "vigilant adherance to the rule of law" to a President....who committted perjury to a grand jury?

    Posted by MASK 01/17/2006 @ 12:11am

    So out of the whole speech that's all you got?

    Gore didn't lie about the blow job.

    Don't tar him with it.

    Posted by Will C. at 01/17/2006 @ 12:17pm

41. MASK:

    That's all you can do? In short, you can offer no critism of the substance of Mr. Gore's speech? So obviously you agree with him. Happy to hear it. Perhaps you should be spreading the word at the various right wing websites you undoubtedly visit.

    Posted by trabaris at 01/17/2006 @ 12:23pm

42. MBB re your 1146 post-

    You overlook one key point - in order to put the scumbag away for good, in the absence of direct evidence that a crime is being committed (i.e., the officer witnesses an unfolding event, etc), the search must be reasonable in the eyes of the law, and must therefore be conducted under the auspices of a warrant. To search without benefit of a warrant would be irresponsible on the part of the officer, as it would allow the perp to challenge his arrest in court and get away, in your example, with murder.

    Dubya and the posse seem to have forgotten this in their rush to circumvent the law, but as they seem to be determined to hold anyone without access to the courts (including American citizens) anyway, I suppose that matters little in your eyes.

    Posted by skeletonman at 01/17/2006 @ 12:25pm

43. IBBEBL

    What do you mean? I voted for Gore in 2000, i meant what I said sincerely.

    I voted for Gore in 2000, in spite of my conservative leanings, because I thought Bush lacked the foriegn policy experience. Gladly, i was wrong though most here would disagree.

    Had Gore been elected, he well might have gone the path of Clinton lobbing missiles at abandon camps or worse, Carter and done nothing. This was the Clinton model, not get involved in anything too messy, avoid blood, try not to piss off or offend anyone. So its reasonable Gore would have done the same, though not for sure.

    But regardless 911 HAPPENS NO MATTER WHO IS IN OFFICE, anyone who thinks to the contrary is fooling themselves. Terrorists were not a high priority to Clinton, ONLY AFTER they attacked, were they, and they attacked often 93 WTC bombing, Khobar towers in Saudi, embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the USS Cole. He approached each as a law enforcement issue, although after 911, I like to think he would re-evalauted.

    Posted by CPT at 01/17/2006 @ 12:26pm

44. DRHAMMER ,

    I am not snotty, just factual. You, too, have made a payroll and should therefore understand my point more than most. The fact you don't agree is somethinbg I can respect and honor.

    I don't want a silent partner who contributes nothing but is also my biggest expense and raises my cost more than anything or anyone else(THE GOVERNMENT ).And my customers pay the price, not me.

    We can agree to disagree and I will be happy to buy you lunch someday, with or without martinis...tax deductable, of course... :)

    Posted by john maasch at 01/17/2006 @ 12:28pm

45. Terrorists were not a high priority to Clinton, ONLY AFTER they attacked, were they, and they attacked often 93 WTC bombing, Khobar towers in Saudi, embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the USS Cole.

    Posted by CPT 01/17/2006 @ 12:26am

    Then I guess old Gee Dubya was even more Clinton then Clinton

    Posted by Will C. at 01/17/2006 @ 12:28pm

46. Willc,

    "Where is the personal responsibility of individuals in your considerations? Do only employers and/or the Government bear the responsibility for one's health?

    Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 01/17/2006 @ 11:46am

    At my job I pay for a portion of my health care and my employer pays for a portion of my health care.

    Shared responsibility.

    Very American"

    Actually, you are wrong there,..your employer pays the portion of your health care he would normally be paying you anyway. He doesn't pay for any of it as the cost is all past on. YOU are paying for your own health care whether you know it or not.

    Posted by john maasch at 01/17/2006 @ 12:31pm

47. Will,

    The cost is the cost.

    We can argue about whether the cost would be lower with greater or lesser buying power but that is a different discussion.

    The USA spends over $6,000per citizen per year on healthcare. If half the citizens are employed that means each employed citizen is paying $12,000/year for health.

    At the moment, as you point out, the lower wage earners that are a vital cog in our economy, cannot afford to pay the full burden of those costs, and at the moment, they generally do not have to as their employers pay a large proportion.

    The argument that LL and perhaps JM are making is that if companies abandon healthcare, the market (for employees) will adjust and employers will pay each employee about $12,000/year more and then those employees can take care of the business themselves.

    They are aware that the $12,000/employee will not be evenly spread and they are aware that even with an elevated income many individuals, without legislation, would choose to spend rather than save that "extra" money.

    Posted by freedomplease at 01/17/2006 @ 12:35pm

48. Actually, you are wrong there,..your employer pays the portion of your health care he would normally be paying you anyway.

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 01/17/2006 @ 12:31am

    Idiot statement Maasch. My employer as we speak is driving down wages in order to maximize those tax free dividends for the majority shareholders.

    saying that I would be paid that extra 150 dollars a month anyway doesn't jive with reality.

    I always find it intersting how theory and the real world never seem to mesh with you guys

    Posted by Will C. at 01/17/2006 @ 12:37pm

49. The USA spends over $6,000per citizen per year on healthcare. If half the citizens are employed that means each employed citizen is paying $12,000/year for health.

    Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 01/17/2006 @ 12:35am

    That's not an accurate statement. The 6000 dollars a year figure is a mean. That includes all health care expenditures to include emergency room care for guys without health care divided by the citizenry.

    But that's not important. My illustration demonstrates that old guy on his own pays more than double for what old guy working for a business pays and that's not including the employer contribution.

    It is an inherently unjust system.

    "Establishing Justice" is a core component of the liberal agenda.

    Posted by Will C. at 01/17/2006 @ 12:46pm

50. Will, Try to run a business and you will learn real fast. It is simple.

    Freedom has it exactly right regarding your health care.

    I, for one, have had heath care for years by choice...I played the same odds the insurance company play....

    Follow me, WILL,...

    My premiums were $ 900 a month for family of 5 with $ 3000. deductable, after which 80/20 rules applies. In a worse case senario I am out of pocket with premiums, deductables and 20%... about $15,000 a year BEFORE any claim is totally covered. The insurance co's bet I won't collect at my age and my kids ages. They were and are right for the most people. I put that money away and use it for heath care needs as they arise and negoiate for a cash price. I am now older and my parts are starting to show signs of wear and abuse, so I have a catastrophic care policy.

    It works for me, maybe not all, but for me. One has to STUDY THE OPTIONS..

    Posted by john maasch at 01/17/2006 @ 12:47pm

51. Will,

    "Establishing Justice" is a core component of the liberal agenda. "

    In other words, establishing what YOU deem just with other peoples resources...

    That is what I hear you say..

    Posted by john maasch at 01/17/2006 @ 12:49pm

52. Will,

    My statemenrt should read I have had NO HEALTH CARE FOR YEARS... Sorry

    Posted by john maasch at 01/17/2006 @ 12:50pm

53. Those fucking assholes! If I were you, I'd get even with them by quitting and living on welfare the rest of my life.

    Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 01/17/2006 @ 12:48am

    Mary Mary

    I enjoyed ignoring you much better. If you are going to be a retard please don't engage me

    Posted by Will C. at 01/17/2006 @ 12:51pm

54. Wiil,

    I made my choice about my health care... not government, Liberals Do gooders or conservative hacks...ME, my point, ME!!!!!!!!!!!

    Posted by john maasch at 01/17/2006 @ 12:51pm

55. Got to go to work and catch a flight,

    Need to earn premiums...:)

    Posted by john maasch at 01/17/2006 @ 12:54pm

56. In other words, establishing what YOU deem just with other peoples resources...

    That is what I hear you say..

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 01/17/2006 @ 12:49am

    The money that goes into the till comes from a broud cross section of the community. If the community is not happy that some of their dollars are going to employee health care they are free to shop somewhere else.

    Isn't it great how capitolism works

    Posted by Will C. at 01/17/2006 @ 12:55pm

57. WILL and TRABARIS

    ???.....so IGNORE Gore's line about "vigilant adherence to the rule of law"?

    and just concentrate on ...what?

    Posted by Mask at 01/17/2006 @ 12:55pm

58. Maybe you think national security is just some big game. Terrorists have rights, damn it! They have a right to speak with American citizens without the government listening in. And any defense of America is illegitimate if we don't follow every law to the letter. If Bush doesn't wait to get a court order then by God the Terrorist have every right to bomb us.

    Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 01/17/2006 @ 12:33am

    Man! Something is in the water being drunk by the conservatives on this site. You and John Maasch are overreacting to a really frightening degree. My very tiny point was one that has been made a few dozen times on this website: laws were in place to allow the President to do what is needed AND to ensure, through a court, that our civil liberties are protected to at least a small degree. He went around this court, which is a violation of the law. Your arguments are in no way connected to our security as a nation or to your rant about my supporting terrorists' rights or thinking that this is a game.

    Gee, 2006 is starting off really swell. As LL would say, if the points being made by those on the Right are no better than what we are seeing on this sight, then I thank God that this is an election year.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 01/17/2006 @ 12:58pm

59. TJ,

    If you thank Allah instead of God that riles 'em up even better!

    Posted by freedomplease at 01/17/2006 @ 1:00pm

60. Freedom,

    I recently stumbled upon a quote from a European film director (name escapes me) that was something like, "I am an atheist by the grace of God."

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 01/17/2006 @ 1:03pm

61. John Maasch: "He had no impact for 8 years and it is foolish hopelessness to think he would have been a great president. He has no leadership skills or inspirational gifts. Mind numbing."

    This post is either mind numbingly ignorant or intellectually dishonest. Clinton gave Gore lots to do. Gore was in charge of the mandate to reduce the size of government and he did. Clinton gave Gore the job of running a commission on terrorism and airport security and Gore completed that and presented it to congress. In the mid-90's even conservative publications and pundits agreed that Clinton had given Gore more power and more to do than most presidents in the past.

    But, never mind the facts, Muusch, if they get in the way of a good conservative argument.

    Posted by BBatten at 01/17/2006 @ 1:03pm

62. My premiums were $ 900 a month for family of 5 with $ 3000. deductable, after which 80/20 rules applies.

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 01/17/2006 @ 12:47am

    There again you are an idiot. The health care industry is gouging you because you are out there on your own. Yet at the same time you are part of a larger group called Americans.

    Single payer health care recognizes that you are part of this group and is motivated to supply health care instead of profits.

    Your premiums drop giving you more money for you business. Giving all small business owners more money for their businesses.

    It kills me you guys would rather pay through the nose rather than entertain the idea that just maybe health care should be taken out of the hands of greed

    Posted by Will C. at 01/17/2006 @ 1:04pm

63. If it is technical violation of the law to listen in on conversations of citizens conversing with al Queda members (know enemy anyone?) people are going to say the law is a pile of shit and we aren't going to punish him for breaking a piece of shit law when he was trying to protect us just like we elected him to do.

    You have only your credibility and electability to lose.

    Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 01/17/2006 @ 11:46am

    MBB: have a look at today's NYT lead story.

    http://tinyurl.com/8a69a

    The NSA warrantless wiretaps produced THOUSANDS of leads which were then sent to the FBI for investigation. From the thousands of tips sent each month, the FBI found:

    "But the results of the program look very different to some officials charged with tracking terrorism in the United States. More than a dozen current and former law enforcement and counterterrorism officials, including some in the small circle who knew of the secret program and how it played out at the F.B.I., said the torrent of tips led them to few potential terrorists inside the country they did not know of from other sources and diverted agents from counterterrorism work they viewed as more productive."

    This indeed is a radical departure from the "thousands of lives saved' as Cheney said.

    Think of the enormity of the program.....thousands of leads each month....since September 2001. Thousands of leads per month sent to the FBI? How many taps did not develop into a lead? This all translates into a shitload of illegal spying and tapping. On Americans!

    All in all, more info is coming out and a case will be built to show that Bush authorized spying on anybody he damn well pleased.

    And, no FISA is not a piece of shit law. It serves us all and is meant to be obeyed.

    Posted by doumer at 01/17/2006 @ 1:06pm

64. When Muusch hears, "liberty and Justice" all he thinks about is redistribution of wealth. But, I'm guessing that when he hears "tax breaks for the wealthy and for corporations" he hears economic stimulation. You see, to people like Muusch, redistribution of working class money to the wealthy is a great thing.

    Posted by BBatten at 01/17/2006 @ 1:06pm

65. TJ,

    I love that quote.

    Thanks.

    Posted by freedomplease at 01/17/2006 @ 1:09pm

66. ???.....so IGNORE Gore's line about "vigilant adherence to the rule of law"?

    and just concentrate on ...what?

    Posted by MASK 01/17/2006 @ 12:55am

    Why would we ignore it? Your attempt to drag the blowjob into the discussion is of course laughable. If only because a one time lie to a grand jury in no way compares to a policy abomination that has the potential to carry on for the rest of time.

    But like I said before, if that phrase is all you have to slam Gore with, then you don't have much.

    Do you?

    Posted by Will C. at 01/17/2006 @ 1:12pm

67. LOVE LIBERTY:

    My thoughts, so recently posed for MASK, also apply to you. Instead of hyperble (generally labeling what V.P. Gore stated as lies, misrepresentations, etc.), how about offering something more thoughtful, with specific criticisms, together with supporting facts?

    Posted by TRABARIS 01/17/2006 @ 11:44am

    Trabaris,

    I started to do so yesterday, even pasting a copy into a word file so I could go point by point. What I discovered was that the entire speech is so filled with distortions and misrepresentations that it would take up far too much space in a posting.

    But, in short form, his assertions of blatant criminal wrongdoing in the wiretapping are based out of nothing but rumor and inuendo, and have been previously discredited by the courts. His charge about widespread spying on US citizens is unsubstantiated. This will all go before the courts again, but I am confident with the same results.

    His charge that Bush has actively endorsed torture, that the "President has also declared that he has a heretofore unrecognized inherent power to seize and imprison any American citizen that he alone determines to be a threat to our nation", that he intentionally lied to Congress about the information on Iraq, "When President Bush failed to convince Congress to give him all the power he wanted when they passed the AUMF, he secretly assumed that power anyway, as if congressional authorization was a useless bother.

    Gore panders to the worst kind of demagoguery when he quotes a leftist Yale Law Dean The Dean of Yale Law School, Harold Koh, said after analyzing the Executive Branch's claims of these previously unrecognized powers: "If the President has commander-in-chief power to commit torture, he has the power to commit genocide, to sanction slavery, to promote apartheid, to license summary execution."

    Making false statements about the new medicare drug program (which BTW we shouldn't even have Fed involvement in-I blame Bush for increasing the size of Govt by trying to pander to the left). The truth if you dig is that government bureaucracy and software glitches caused the problems that are very real to low income medicare patients. But Gore doesn't provide the truth.

    Gore includes his usual rantings about global warming (didn't hear him include the news out of Germany that plants contribute 10-30% of supposed global warming).

    The speech was classic Gore. He jumps on the corruption bandwagon, conveniently leaving out examples like his own escapades with Chinese Buddhist monks.

    Al Gore is a classic liberal hypocrite and I heartily encourage the left to keep promoting his speeches.

    Posted by love liberty at 01/17/2006 @ 1:18pm

68. Guess which way Roberts went.

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/17/2006 @ 1:29pm

    Which way

    Posted by Will C. at 01/17/2006 @ 1:31pm

69. Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/17/2006 @ 1:34pm

    So much for states rights, freedom of religion, ect.

    To a wingnut there can never be enough suffering

    Posted by Will C. at 01/17/2006 @ 1:37pm

70. The good guys won again.

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/17/2006 @ 1:38pm

    Perhaps it is the shape of things to come.

    :)

    Posted by Will C. at 01/17/2006 @ 1:40pm

71. The irresponsibility and intellectual drunkenness of the Radical Right is criticized well by Gore, yet more demonstrations of this lunacy appear on this site. So be it.

    Bush's secret spying on fellow Americans needs to be fully investigated and the results digested by the American people. Bush's violation of democratic laws and principles cannot stand, if we are to preserve our liberty.

    Posted by jkrogman at 01/17/2006 @ 1:41pm

72. So much for states rights, freedom of religion, ect.

    Posted by WILL C. 01/17/2006 @ 1:37pm

    Exactly! States' Rights is just a meaningless phrase for those who disagree with federal policies on civil rights. Since Roe v. Wade has come up in blogs this and last week, think about how this might go down now: overturn it and declare it is an issue for the states to decide; then, wait for a state to make it law, wait for the challenge to reach the Supreme Court, and the Thomas, Alito, Roberts, Scalia and whoever has replaced Stephens will declare abortion to be unprotected by the Constitution.

    It's not States' Rights. It's the Right's Rights that count.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 01/17/2006 @ 1:42pm

73. WILL C. To allow terminally ill people to continue suffering. Voted for life of course. An omen of whats to come on Roe. v Wade.

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/17/2006 @ 1:34pm

    Frank,

    I agree that the majority voted on the technical merits that this is a states' issue. What is sad is that we now have a society where doctors and political groups are seeking to kill patients and play God.

    Posted by love liberty at 01/17/2006 @ 1:43pm

74. If Dr. Kavorkia lived in Oregon, he'd be a free man.

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/17/2006 @ 1:39pm

    He well might, but then again, I think there is a fair chance he will rot in hell.

    Posted by love liberty at 01/17/2006 @ 1:45pm

75. It's the Right's Rights that count.

    Posted by TJBEHRENS1 01/17/2006 @ 1:42pm

    As we have seen from our debate over warrantless spying, it's only a policy of strict construction when it comes to abortion.

    The wingnuts have no problem reading "warrantless searches" into "Commander in Chief"

    No commander I ever met had the inherent right to ignore laws or regulations simply because the bullets started flying.

    You'd think that Nuremburg would have settled that issue.

    Posted by Will C. at 01/17/2006 @ 1:53pm

76. I'm glad the real Al Gore is emerging from behind the "I am a robot running for office" persona. I've tremendous respect for the real Al Gore -- he's thoughtful and very intelligent. In some ways, I see him as a tragic figure. He would have made a brilliant scientist or engineer, and if it weren't for his family history, he probably would have pursued a technical career and been happier and more successful in it. On the other hand, while I don't want to play woulda-coulda-shoulda, I do think our country missed out on a great president in Al Gore.

    The New Yorker published a nice interview with Gore in 2004. Here's a link:

    http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040913fa_fact

    Be sure to listen to the song too

    http://www.cartoonbank.com/newyorker/slideshows/040913algore.html

    Posted by 9patch at 01/17/2006 @ 1:56pm

77. I agree that the majority voted on the technical merits that this is a states' issue. What is sad is that we now have a society where doctors and political groups are seeking to kill patients and play God.

    Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 01/17/2006 @ 1:43pm

    When doctors and patients groups start lying in the bushes and dragging patients in to euthanize them, your statement might have a shred of reality attached to it.

    If a doctor helps me end my life at my request, he's just ensuring that no further harm will come to me.

    Posted by Will C. at 01/17/2006 @ 1:57pm

78. Mary, ok, now knowing what you know about Bush's credibility, would you vote for him again?

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/17/2006 @ 1:30pm

    Frank,

    Given the alternatives of Gore or Kerry, absolutely without any hesitation. That does not mean I support Bush 100%. He has let Congress get away with far too much social spending. The expansion of Medicare and Federal Aid to Education are two big boondogles just to start. Bush has not taken a strong stand on protecting the borders and cracking down on illegal immigration. He should have been tougher on Iran and Syria. He should have taken a more supportive role with Israel and their fight against terrorism. Bush should have pushed stronger for the repeal of the 16th amendment and the implementation of an alternative to the repressive tax system.

    There are a number of other issues where I have disagreement with Bush. However, he remains better than any alternative over the past 17 years.

    Posted by love liberty at 01/17/2006 @ 2:07pm

79. LL, Did you see the movie, 'Million Dollar Baby'? Won the Oscar for best picture last year. Directed by Republican Clint Eastwood.

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/17/2006 @ 1:59pm

    Frank,

    No, for 2 reasons. 1) I don't care about boxing and 2) I had heard about the story line and saw no reason to see it. I saw an interview with Eastwood in which he said that politics aside, he felt it was a great story to film. That is his choice as it was mine to not see it.

    Posted by love liberty at 01/17/2006 @ 2:10pm

80. I have some personal experience in my family with dealing with a grandmother who was stricken with a painful and crippling disease that they only really diagnosed after her death.

    My grandfather with prayer and consultation with the family elected to let my grandmother die at home in bed (in my grandfather's arms) by cutting off her food and water. She died within 48 hours of that action.

    For those that will argue a comparison to Schiavo, there is little if any. My grandmother was 82 years old, and weighed less than 70 pounds when we made the decision.

    I do not believe assisted suicide is moral despite some well intentioned people. I do believe that it is moral if a terminal patient does not wish to have others utilize extraordinary means (life support systems) to keep them alive. It may seem like a subtle difference to some, but I believe it is a crucial difference.

    Posted by love liberty at 01/17/2006 @ 2:19pm

81. "What is sad is that we now have a society where doctors and political groups are seeking to kill patients and play God."

    It does no service to either side of the argument to suggest that this phenomena is driven by doctors and politicians.

    Another perspective might suggest that we have a society where patients and other citizens are seeking help from doctors and political groups in securing the right to end their lives once all hope of quality of life is gone.

    Posted by drhammer at 01/17/2006 @ 2:20pm

82. I do not believe assisted suicide is moral despite some well intentioned people. I do believe that it is moral if a terminal patient does not wish to have others utilize extraordinary means (life support systems) to keep them alive. It may seem like a subtle difference to some, but I believe it is a crucial difference.

    Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 01/17/2006 @ 2:19pm

    Sounds good. Now if you wouldn't mind keeping your morality out of my doctors office we can all go about our business. It's a freedom of religion thing.

    You however are still free to suffer to the bitter end.

    Enjoy

    Posted by Will C. at 01/17/2006 @ 2:23pm

83. CPT,

    How many kids to you get to sign up yesterday on MLK day?

    Big day was it?

    Posted by freedomplease at 01/17/2006 @ 2:28pm

84. Frank,

    I'm sure you know that Al Gore never claimed to have invented the internet. Gore sponsored critical legislation that fostered the development of the world wide web:

    .. when few people outside academia or the computer/defense industries had heard of the Internet, and he sponsored the 1988 National High-Performance Computer Act (which established a national computing plan and helped link universities and libraries via a shared network) and cosponsored the Information Infrastructure and Technology Act of 1992 (which opened the Internet to commercial traffic).

    http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp

    Why he should be mocked for taking credit for that is beyond me.

    Posted by 9patch at 01/17/2006 @ 2:29pm

85. Why he should be mocked for taking credit for that is beyond me.

    Posted by 9PATCH 01/17/2006 @ 2:29pm

    Bearing false witness is a conservative family value

    Posted by Will C. at 01/17/2006 @ 2:31pm

86. Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/17/2006 @ 2:33pm

    They always talk about them

    Maybe it's time we started listing them

    Posted by Will C. at 01/17/2006 @ 2:34pm

87. Frank,

    Yeah, I knew that. Still, I figured it wouldn't hurt to respond with a good, factual quote.

    As far as I can tell, Limbaugh's drug abuse has discredited him, but there is an endless supply of loud-mouthed windbags ready to step up and take his place.

    Ultimately, the problem isn't Limbaugh and his ilk -- the problem is the millions of people who think loud-mouthed windbags are a reliable source of information.

    Posted by 9patch at 01/17/2006 @ 2:39pm

88. Mary, you mistakenly think your money is being redistributed to the poor. Actually, what has happened is a huge redistribution of working class wages to the wealthy. In 1983, payroll taxes were hiked in an effort to shore up Social Security for the boomers. Over the next 18 years, although congress raided this money to run government, a Social Security surplus was built up which could handle the boomers' retirement. Bush and his people then gave trillions in tax money back to the wealthy with his cuts. This is income redistribution to the wealthy. And, when I say wealthy, I'm not talking about professionals making over 100K. I'm talking about the super-rich. It's immoral and disgusting -- the biggest "bait and switch" fraud in American history. Add up all of your petty concerns about the poor getting some of "your" money and it doesn't amount to a hill of beans compared to what the truly wealthy stole from the working class.

    Posted by BBatten at 01/17/2006 @ 2:40pm

89. Will, Hipocracy should be at the top of the list.

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/17/2006 @ 2:41pm

    I vote for Despicable.

    Posted by Will C. at 01/17/2006 @ 2:45pm

90. I agree that the majority voted on the technical merits that this is a states' issue. What is sad is that we now have a society where doctors and political groups are seeking to kill patients and play God.

    Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 01/17/2006 @ 1:43pm | ignore this person

    Sorry to be a late poster LL, but as a physician, I think that you should rethink these words. What gives you the cheek to presume to know what I think about assisted suicide? What's that bit about 'judge not?' I think that the religion of which you purport to be a minister has a bit to say on that.

    Posted by skeletonman at 01/17/2006 @ 2:48pm

91. I know that earlier on this thread there was an argument about whether the Iraq war will cost $2T or some figure less. I think we can all agree it's a high number.

    To those that still think it's worth it (and there aren't many of you left), perhaps you should read this:

    US tries to loosen Shiite grip in Iraq By Charles Levinson, Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor Tue Jan 17, 3:00 AM ET

    Here's the link

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20060117/ts_csm/ogov_1;_ylt=AimWh82b.UE3vEkq 6OWIvaZX6GMA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

    In short, we've spent an awful lot of lives, limbs and cash in order to create an envirnment of the will of the Iraqi people and now we don't like the results we're changing the rules of the game (again).

    And you think we have leadership?

    Posted by freedomplease at 01/17/2006 @ 2:51pm

92. LL, In your mind, what's the difference in ending the life of a terminally ill person or sending a missle into the home of innocent women and children who were otherwise, quite healthy? The end result is the same isn't it?

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/17/2006 @ 2:29pm

    Frank,

    that is too inane to even by typed by you. But, you might listen to someone other than MoveOn types that the Pakistan government says that beteen 4-5 of those killed were Al Qaeda and that Zawhahiri was known to be invited to the house for that event but may not have shown up.

    Pakistan: 4 or 5 Terrorists Died in Strike

    By RIAZ KHAN

    PESHAWAR, Pakistan (AP) - At least four foreign terrorists died in the purported U.S. airstrike aimed at al-Qaida's No. 2 leader in a Pakistani border village, the provincial government said Tuesday.

    The Bush administration, meanwhile, called Pakistan a valued ally in the war on terror Tuesday and pledged to continue pursuing al-Qaida leaders amid concerns that the airstrike has strained ties between the two countries and could provoke more anti-American sentiment.

    The statement issued by the administration of Pakistan's semiautonomous tribal regions bordering Afghanistan also said that between 10 and 12 foreign extremists had been invited to the dinner at the village hit in Friday's attack.

    It was the first official confirmation by Pakistani authorities that foreign militants were killed in the attack on the village of Damadola. Women and children also died, triggering outrage in this Islamic nation.

    The statement did not identify who the foreigners may have been or who was the target of the missile strike.

    Pakistani intelligence officials have said Ayman al-Zawahri, Osama bin Laden's top lieutenant, had been invited to a dinner in the targeted village of Damadola to mark an Islamic holiday but did not show up and sent some aides instead.

    http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?flok=FF-APO-1104&idq=/ff/stor y/0001%2F20060117%2F1316505637.htm&sc=1104&photoid=20060117ISL112

    http://pakistanalq.notlong.com

    Posted by love liberty at 01/17/2006 @ 2:53pm

93. Posted by WILL C. 01/17/2006 @ 1:12pm |

    WILL....could you kindly point to where in my posts, I referenced a "blowjob"?

    Also, did the Arkansas and US Supreme Courts revoke Pres. Clinton's law license over "receiving oral sex" or something else?

    Something that somebody (like fmr VP Gore claims to be) "vigilantly adhering to the rule of law", might object to?

    Posted by Mask at 01/17/2006 @ 2:54pm

94. Mary, it's great that you know the "invented the internet" thing is a lie, but then you go on to cite the Love Canal. This is another distortion just like the internet. Gore never said he discovered Love Canal. He never said he was the model for Love Story.

    Many people voted for Bush because they thought he was a "good guy." Many people thought Gore was a creep. How exactly did they get these perceptions? Because, we don't really know Bush or Gore. How would people get the impression Gore was a creep without the help of the media? On the other hand, how would people get the impression Bush was a guy you'd like to go to a barbecue with? Why do people call his estate in Texas a "ranch?" He has no horses -- he's afraid of them. He owns no cattle or pigs. A ranch is a place with ranch animals. Why does the media refer to this estate as a "ranch?" The media spent a lot of time criticizing Gore's outfits. Remember? Why was there no media to mention that Bush wore cowboy boots and sometimes a cowboy hat, but did not ride horses. It would not have been difficult to paint Bush as a "poser" but the media wasn't interested in that angle.

    Posted by BBatten at 01/17/2006 @ 2:56pm

95. WILL....could you kindly point to where in my posts, I referenced a "blowjob"?

    Posted by MASK 01/17/2006 @ 2:54pm

    he lied about a blowjob.

    You were aware of that right?

    Posted by Will C. at 01/17/2006 @ 2:56pm

96. SKELETONMAN, Ah, a physician,. So that's where the handle 'Skeletonman comes from. You're an orthopedist.

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/17/2006 @ 2:53pm | ignore this person

    Actually, no, Frankie G, that's what my daughter calls me. I am an osteopathic doc, though, so out of the mouth of babes....

    Posted by skeletonman at 01/17/2006 @ 2:56pm

97. Love Liberty, would Jesus agree with killing 17 civilians, some of which were women and children, so that we could possibly kill 4 or 5 terrorists?

    Posted by BBatten at 01/17/2006 @ 2:57pm

98. Sorry to be a late poster LL, but as a physician, I think that you should rethink these words. What gives you the cheek to presume to know what I think about assisted suicide? What's that bit about 'judge not?' I think that the religion of which you purport to be a minister has a bit to say on that.

    Posted by SKELETONMAN 01/17/2006 @ 2:48pm

    SK,

    Isn't that a little oversensitive? I did not know you were a doctor, did not accuse you specifically of anything related to this subject, and was replying specifically to those including the doctors who support this action.

    If it does apply to you then my statement stands towards you also.

    Posted by love liberty at 01/17/2006 @ 2:58pm

99. Also, did the Arkansas and US Supreme Courts revoke Pres. Clinton's law license over "receiving oral sex" or something else?

    Something that somebody (like fmr VP Gore claims to be) "vigilantly adhering to the rule of law", might object to?

    Posted by MASK 01/17/2006 @ 2:54pm

    Did those punishments not answer to the rule of law?

    And, can you quote me where Gore objected to those punishments?

    Posted by Will C. at 01/17/2006 @ 2:59pm

100. Love Liberty, would Jesus agree with killing 17 civilians, some of which were women and children, so that we could possibly kill 4 or 5 terrorists?

     Posted by BBATTEN 01/17/2006 @ 2:57pm

     BB,

     I have made the same response on numerous occasions to a similar question by liberals here. War unfortunately affects even the innocent (like children). The adults at this gathering do not appear to be innocent as they had invited Al Qaeda members to the house.

     But specifically, Jesus does authorize war against evil. He is the Word of God (John 1:1), and He is the one who revealed God's commands to Israel in dealing with evil nations. He is the one Paul says taught him (Galations 1:11-17 and verified by Peter (2 Peter 3:15,16 who said Paul's letters were scripture). Paul makes clear that the Lord authorizes war against evil in Romans 13. Jesus Himself will lead the ultimate battle against evil as shown in Revelation 19.

     Any death of the innocent is too many and is tragic. There would sure be less of it if the terrorists didn't constantly hide behind women and children.

     Posted by love liberty at 01/17/2006 @ 3:06pm

101. It would be rude for a foreigner to intrude in a domestic brawl, if it weren´t that the scaling use of violence and the recriminations following the original contention has overreached the picket fence and invaded the neighbours backyard. I find discouraging that most of the argument on Mr Gore´s speech is based on ad hominem attacks,being that what he says implies both of your political parties wether they took or not bribes from Mr. Abramhoff. Reality can´t be thwarted, and you can´t fool everyone all the time, consecuently, maybe the US citizens choose to be so,as well as to forgo their bloodly obtained civil liberties on behalf of an unknown from what future threat. If this is so, the not distant future shall prove Mr Gore, Mr Murtha,and Mr Lincoln (were he alive) and many more to be right,if so, I´m afraid you´ll have to fight a new civil war, if not for your sake at least for the rest of the world that watches in awe and fear

     Posted by Eduardo at 01/17/2006 @ 3:08pm

102. Zero,

     It is indefensible to only those people that cannot spin it to defend it......just look at Mary's example of a a kid rapist and a policeman sans warrant to see how far some will go to defend this obvious neglect of the Constitution.

     Posted by freedomplease at 01/17/2006 @ 3:08pm

103. I´m afraid you´ll have to fight a new civil war, if not for your sake at least for the rest of the world that watches in awe and fear

     Posted by EDUARDO 01/17/2006 @ 3:08pm

     Hey, Rio Bravo is already unfurling the Flag of Treason (Stars and Bars).

     Sadly it might only be a matter of time.

     Posted by Will C. at 01/17/2006 @ 3:11pm

104. Love Liberty,

     Jesus Fucking Christ!

     I've taken enough of your bible thumping bullshit to last me a lifetime.

     THIS IS THE USA!! The law of this land is not the frigging bible.

     It is the Constitution.

     I could give a fuck what the bible says....if it said I could go and steal cars and have sex with hookers....I still wouldn't since I try to follow the law of the land.

     Posted by freedomplease at 01/17/2006 @ 3:14pm

105. You see Will, this is another of your usual errors, it´s not the South part of the Rio Bravo who´s sworn allegiance to your flag and constitution but you citizens, your representatives and your present President

     Posted by Eduardo at 01/17/2006 @ 3:23pm

106. LL

     You made a blanket statement about doctors wanting to kill their patients, and you expect someone NOT to react to that? I say again, you really ought to rethink what you have said; we physicians were, are and ever will be human beings first, doctors someplace thereafter.

     I will make the assumption that as a pastor, you visit the sick; have you ever looked in a dying person's eyes and prayed for their suffering to end? Have you ever wished for the power to do just that? Agonized with a family watching a loved one gasp for every breath, seeing the fear in the eyes of the dying as they drown in 'air hunger?' Have you ever held the hand of the dying and tried to answer the question of why their pain must go on?

     Have you ever stopped to consider that those of us who practice medicine and have confronted such thoughts - and yes, such requests - might just respect (far more than you can possibly imagine) the fact that our art probably has at least as much power to end life as we do to prolong it? Have you ever stopped to consider what it might be like to have such power thrust upon you, with everyone expecting that you will somehow know what to do? Do you believe that any (or at least, many) of us want such power, think we have the knowledge to make such judgements, the right to take such actions?

     Perhaps you should think about stuff like that before another assinine blanket statement like that leaves your lips/brain/keyboard.

     Posted by skeletonman at 01/17/2006 @ 3:23pm

107. Posted by EDUARDO 01/17/2006 @ 3:23pm

     Eduardo

     Sorry of the confusion. Rio Bravo is a wingnut poster on this sight.

     Please accept my apology

     Posted by Will C. at 01/17/2006 @ 3:25pm

108. correction... for

     Posted by Will C. at 01/17/2006 @ 3:26pm

109. I've taken enough of your bible thumping bullshit to last me a lifetime.

     THIS IS THE USA!! The law of this land is not the frigging bible.

     It is the Constitution.

     I could give a fuck what the bible says....if it said I could go and steal cars and have sex with hookers....I still wouldn't since I try to follow the law of the land.

     Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 01/17/2006 @ 3:14pm

     FDP,

     So, when someone poses a question to me about Jesus, my source for Jesus should instead come from where? I haven't found any good quotes lately from Jesus at MoveOn, or even in the Constitution. So where in your enlightened, respect all people's views, should I have found the answer to that specificity?

     Oh, you probably would suggest that I just accept that Christians must always accept an opposing view as the only correct one?

     Posted by love liberty at 01/17/2006 @ 3:27pm

110. Skeletonman,

     You misunderstood the context of my original statement on doctors. The context was about those doctors who supported the lawsuit that went to SCOTUS. If I worded it poorly, I apologize.

     However, from the response you made, it appears that it does apply to you. I will resist the impulse to judge.

     Posted by love liberty at 01/17/2006 @ 3:31pm

111. LL: "War unfortunately affects even the innocent (like children). The adults at this gathering do not appear to be innocent as they had invited Al Qaeda members to the house."

     The bombing took place in a remote village in the Northwest Provinces of the sovereign state of Pakistan. Not Afghanistan, not Iraq. The US is not at war with Pakistan (not yet anyway)

     No doubt you will respond that it is THE WAR ON TERROR. Getting back to the blog itself,if we had reliable intel of a number of terrorists gathering, would we be justified in bombing a house in Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait etc? How about a house in Canada, Britain, Netherlands etc? Remember, terrorists are everywhere, are they not?

     Tell me why it is ok to do so in Pakistan but perhaps wouldn't be so wise to do so in Canada?

     Posted by doumer at 01/17/2006 @ 3:32pm

112. one of the most puzzling aspects of the bush supporters is the unfathomable nearsightedness that seems to pervade their arguments ...

     Posted by ZERO 01/17/2006 @ 3:29pm

     Zero,

     While understanding and appreciating some of the arguments you are making about future political leadership change, many conservatives like myself are indeed cognizant of that danger.

     What we perceive as a greater danger is terrorism. Therefore we are willing to take that risk for the sake of letting current and future administrations have the tools necessary to combat this threat.

     Posted by love liberty at 01/17/2006 @ 3:34pm

113. Willc,

     Thanks for the name calling,

     "There again you are an idiot. The health care industry is gouging you because you are out there on your own. Yet "

     I paid no premiuims. I optd out of the system and KEPT my money. My net health expenses were near zero and the insurance companys didn't get my checks..

     I played the same odds they did, betting on not making a claim.

     I am not recommending it for everyone, but I used a little common sense.

     Some rare on this site it seems at times..lots of emotion tho, like Braaten.

     Braaten,

     Yeah, I admit, Gore is a genius.

     Posted by john maasch at 01/17/2006 @ 3:35pm

114. Tell me why it is ok to do so in Pakistan but perhaps wouldn't be so wise to do so in Canada?

     Posted by DOUMER 01/17/2006 @ 3:32pm

     Doumer,

     Because the cooperation between US and Canada is much better. In Pakistan, we have Musharref and that is about it. He lives in fear himself of the Pakistani Intelligence Service and has survived several assassination attempts in the past few years.

     Posted by love liberty at 01/17/2006 @ 3:36pm

115. Thanks for the name calling,

     Posted by JOHN MAASCH 01/17/2006 @ 3:35pm

     Your welcome.

     And John that was one short flight. And, where did you fly to?

     Across the street?

     Posted by Will C. at 01/17/2006 @ 3:37pm

116. I paid no premiuims. I optd out of the system and KEPT my money. My net health expenses were near zero and the insurance companys didn't get my checks..

     Posted by JOHN MAASCH 01/17/2006 @ 3:35pm

     So you are the bread winner for a family of five and you opted out of health care.

     Why do we trust you people with children again?

     Posted by Will C. at 01/17/2006 @ 3:39pm

117. "However, from the response you made, it appears that it does apply to you"

     LL

     Read it again, champ. I don't want that kind of power, and having been there, retain incredible respect for just how hard it is for people to die.

     I know of no 'happy medium,' and I resent it when people like you come along and try to make an extraordinarily difficult moral issue into something so simple.

     Am I being clear now?

     Posted by skeletonman at 01/17/2006 @ 3:41pm

118. Because the cooperation between US and Canada is much better. In Pakistan, we have Musharref and that is about it. He lives in fear himself of the Pakistani Intelligence Service and has survived several assassination attempts in the past few years.

     Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 01/17/2006 @ 3:36pm

     You didn't answer the question LL. Which countries can we unilaterally bomb and in which would it be wrong to do so?

     Posted by doumer at 01/17/2006 @ 3:47pm

119. Doumer -

     I think LL is checking with the Big Guy to find out just Who Would Jesus Bomb

     Posted by skeletonman at 01/17/2006 @ 3:49pm

120. Will,

     I paid my health care out of my pocked..my children are all healthy and well rounded people and kind and generous. I love with all my might and I take good care of them.

     I teach them my values and how to be productive. I teach them how to build wealth and not to just make money. I teach them that they are blessed and to be generous and volenteer, as they have abundance. I teach them if they wait for government or rely on others for their happiness or security they will be unsatisfed all the time. I teach them that the word "fair" does not exist, for nothing in life is fair. I teach them to watch out for those who lots of ideas but no track record. I saved them from publics schools and from religous nuts.

     I am sure none of this means anything here, but we do ok at my houyse. We have lost everything before and have worked hard to get it back. We continue to grow.

     We for the most part are happy. I hope you are, too.

     Posted by john maasch at 01/17/2006 @ 3:50pm

121. John

     you risked their lives and your families fortune to save a couple bucks.

     Now that is some twisted greed.

     Posted by Will C. at 01/17/2006 @ 3:52pm

122. Will,

     Why do you trust people like me with children?

     Because I take resposibility for them and like me someday, they will have to pay for all those other people who don't and demand money and services from the next generation. They will be the ones who will have to pay for all the redistubutions schemes guys like you come up with to make everything equal.

     You will need my children..be grateful and say thaks for a change.

     Posted by john maasch at 01/17/2006 @ 3:53pm

123. Actuallt, I think the end of the world for the left would be if someone like Dean or Gore was actually elected. There would be such an uprising that the left maybe burried for years..IMO, admittedly. :) Posted by JOHN MAASCH 01/17/2006 @ 10:22am | ignore this person

     Maasch,

     I haven't yet read this entire thread, but had to chuckle at the seeming contradiction – "If someone like Dean or Gore was actually elected" (a majority rules thing) and "There would be such and uprising" (why would the majority rise against itself?). Then, I remembered – Gore won the election in 2000. Thus, you make a good point.

     Posted by seattlescribe at 01/17/2006 @ 3:56pm

124. Will,

     I am sitting in an airport waiting for a connection..I am on my way to Tampa.

     Posted by john maasch at 01/17/2006 @ 3:57pm

125. JM,

     Well JM, let me be the first to thank your children and their children in turn for paying for the war that we've chosen to fight but not raise any of the money for.

     It's mighty kind of them. Hopefully, they are not yet of voting age because I like the idea that we are only taxing those that still have no representation!

     Posted by freedomplease at 01/17/2006 @ 3:57pm

126. You will need my children..be grateful and say thaks for a change.

     Posted by JOHN MAASCH 01/17/2006 @ 3:53pm

     What will I need them for John? If they follow your value system they will gamble with my life to save a couple of bucks just like you gambled with their lives.

     I don't know why I should say thank you to that.

     Posted by Will C. at 01/17/2006 @ 3:58pm

127. Seattle,

     Meaning that if majority elected him and actually won the office, I believe he would become another 1 termer.

     Not that hard to undersgtand.

     Posted by john maasch at 01/17/2006 @ 3:58pm

128. John Maasch Thanks for the name calling,

     "There again you are an idiot. The health care industry is gouging you because you are out there on your own. Yet "

     I paid no premiuims. I optd out of the system and KEPT my money. My net health expenses were near zero and the insurance companys didn't get my checks..

     I played the same odds they did, betting on not making a claim.

     I am not recommending it for everyone, but I used a little common sense.

     Of course, if your condition deteriorated to a point where emergency care was required, you'd be covered at the taxpayers' expense if you couldn't afford would what then be rather large bills (larger than if you sprang for an earlier diagnosis). Now if you want to sign a statement saying that you will refuse even critical care if you don't have the money for it, I suppose that would be different. However, I don't see you doing that. Also, of course, there are the 40-45 million people who can't afford their own insurance and who don't get insurance from work (or can't afford their share of the premiums), but you don't seem to have accounted for them.

     Posted by brunowe at 01/17/2006 @ 3:59pm

129. AH, Will, never mind...just send me the bill.

     Posted by john maasch at 01/17/2006 @ 3:59pm

130. Posted by WILL C. 01/17/2006 @ 2:59pm |

     Sorry, WILL....but a state Supreme Court and the US Supreme court can revoke a lawyer's law license for JUST "lying about a blowjob"?

     I realize that can get you in trouble with the wife, but never realized it was illegal to JUST "lie about a blowjob"?

     Now....it MIGHT be a different case if it was ....under oath....in grand jury testimony....and then in "vigilant adherence to the rule of law" the SEVEREST form of punishment should be imposed, no?

     Posted by Mask at 01/17/2006 @ 4:02pm

131. AH, Will, never mind...just send me the bill.

     Posted by JOHN MAASCH 01/17/2006 @ 3:59pm

     Why? You're not going to pay it.

     You'll just leave it for some future generation to deal with

     Posted by Will C. at 01/17/2006 @ 4:02pm

132. BRUNOWE,

     No, I would have had to liquidate assets and pay.

     However, I went and read the acuarial tables and the mathanmatical charts and equations which are used to predict costs and claims and you would be surprised at the low risk.

     As I said, it is not for everyone, but it worked for me.

     I am now coverd by MSA and catastrophic care.

     Gotta go, next flight.

     Posted by john maasch at 01/17/2006 @ 4:04pm

133. No, Will, I pay it all.

     Posted by john maasch at 01/17/2006 @ 4:05pm

134. JM,

     How do you (and I might add I did the same thing for 12 years; no Dr visits, no premiums paid, shame on me-LOL) dare think about living life with no Health Insurance, especially government forced? It was totally irresponsible for my parents to raise me without health insurance (oh yeah, didn't really exist for most and my dad paid cash, it was just as irresponsible for me to bring my first 2 sons into the world with no health insurance and silly of me to pay cash to the Dr. and hospital for their births. Or perhaps equally silly of a Dr friend of mine who only takes cash-how dare he!

     Liberals, the supposed lovers of choice, except when that choice is not the one they like.

     Posted by love liberty at 01/17/2006 @ 4:08pm

135. Meaning that if majority elected him and actually won the office, I believe he would become another 1 termer. Not that hard to undersgtand. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 01/17/2006 @ 3:58pm | ignore this person

     Maasch,

     Thanks, I'm beginning to see the light. (ha,ha).

     Posted by seattlescribe at 01/17/2006 @ 4:10pm

136. Now....it MIGHT be a different case if it was ....under oath....in grand jury testimony....and then in "vigilant adherence to the rule of law" the SEVEREST form of punishment should be imposed, no?

     Posted by MASK 01/17/2006 @ 4:02pm

     Vigilant adherence to the rule of law means that everyone answers for their crimes and the punishment fits the crime... as per the rule of law.

     Clinton did that.

     I'm still waiting for that quote where Gore objected to Clintons punishment.

     Posted by Will C. at 01/17/2006 @ 4:10pm

137. Personally I think that if you lie about a blowjob under oath, you should get your pee pee slapped but not be allowed to swear. And if you do, they slap it again...

     But that's just my opinion

     Posted by Will C. at 01/17/2006 @ 4:10pm

138. You didn't answer the question LL. Which countries can we unilaterally bomb and in which would it be wrong to do so?

     Posted by DOUMER 01/17/2006 @ 3:47pm

     Doumer,

     I think I have just enough intelligence to know I don't have enough CIA intel to make that determination. So as is proper, I leave it to the President to make those decisions. I heard that was his job.

     But, I would presume that he and his advisors look at these possible attacks on a case-by-case basis (as it should be).

     Posted by love liberty at 01/17/2006 @ 4:11pm

139. No, Will, I pay it all.

     Posted by JOHN MAASCH 01/17/2006 @ 4:05pm

     Hmm, but "All" would include the health care you didn't pay for for your own family.

     Are you lying to me John?

     Posted by Will C. at 01/17/2006 @ 4:12pm

140. Marybretbrad Interesting quote from Christopher Hitchens in Slate:

     Which is my third point. If all goes even reasonably well, and if a combination of elections and prosperity is enough to draw more mainstream Sunnis into politics and away from Baathist nostalgia, it will have been proved that Bin-Ladenism can be taken on--and openly defeated--in a major Middle Eastern country. And not just defeated but discredited. Humiliated. Is there anyone who does not think that this is a historic prize worth having? Worth fighting for, in fact?

     Several problems with that. Firstly, the Sunnis only came into the recent election because of Shiite promises to revisit portions of the constitution such as oil-revenue sharing and the ability of the Shiites to create a super-region. Now that the election is over and the religious Shiites seem to have won, they are retreating from that promise. Secondly, the Sunnis may have entered as a parallel to insurgency rather than as a replacement. Even if was the latter, the triumph of the pro-Iran religious Shiites doesn't bode well for them staying on that path.

     This reasoning is probably one of the reason that, by the accounts I've seen, Hitchens got slammed by Scott Ritter in their debate.

     Posted by brunowe at 01/17/2006 @ 4:14pm

141. LL,

     It's good of you to leave the actual decision of which country to the President, however, I think the question is which country would you be outraged if the President unilaterally bombed.

     Obviously not Pakistan.

     Yes, it appears Canada is off limits to you.

     Where is your line with Bush as President and how would that line change with Hillary as President. Would it be OK for her to bomb an asprin factory in Somalia?

     Posted by freedomplease at 01/17/2006 @ 4:22pm

142. Liberals, the supposed lovers of choice, except when that choice is not the one they like.

     Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 01/17/2006 @ 4:08pm

     But then it's really not an issue of choice. You got lucky that no one got whacked in a car accident and ended up with half a mill in hospital bills.

     Because when you declare bankruptcy, I end up paying for it through my premiums.

     So much for personal accountability

     Posted by Will C. at 01/17/2006 @ 4:23pm

143. You will need my children..be grateful and say thaks for a change.

     Posted by JOHN MAASCH 01/17/2006 @ 3:53pm

     I'm "grateful" that your kids (and mine) are being left the legacy of mountains of debt, distrust from the entire world, future acts of terrorism from the new and improved Iraq created jihadists, curtailment of rights, job outsourcing, environmental degradation, blanket religiosity and a host of yet to be determined trauma. Tell your kids I say thanks. Such a legacy we are leaving is it not Maasch?

     Posted by doumer at 01/17/2006 @ 4:23pm

144. FREEDOMPLEASE:

     "I could give a fuck what the bible says....if it said I could go and steal cars and have sex with hookers....I still wouldn't since I try to follow the law of the land."

     If LL can connect the biblical dots to present Jesus as a war monger, you could probably find scripture to back this up as well.

     Posted by rain man at 01/17/2006 @ 4:30pm

145. http://www.tarrytownmusichall.org/podcasts.html

     It's posted as an MP3 file.

     Posted by brunowe at 01/17/2006 @ 4:53pm

146. I have a couple of helpfull sugestions in case anybody is interested in the subject. As far as medicare is concerned if you were willing to pay 6000 u$ a year, you could get all of your teeth replaced with titanium-porcelain implants every three years, and have the CEO of medicare invite you and the missus to golf and brunch every other weekend to chek on them. As for the bombing question - which by the way has never seemed to be much trouble- I suggest Caracas,which has been already bombed by the Brits., and you can´t be any less. The choice would have the added benefit of counting with Mr. Robertson´s and the Christian Coalition hearty approval who are in speaking terms with the almighty. As for the Venezuelans, dont worry, most of them aren´t much fairier than the Pakistanies. There is even an heretic assertion that they were both created by a minor god.

     Posted by Eduardo at 01/17/2006 @ 5:18pm

147. Is it too late to give dubya the spanking he so richly deserves?

     Just a thought

     Posted by skeletonman at 01/17/2006 @ 5:37pm

148. Mary, so far you have come up with about 4 or 5 stories about Gore that you thought were true but were not. The latest is this Naomi Wolf thing. According Naomi Wolf, her consulting fees for helping Gore had absolutely nothing to do with what he was wearing. She claims that subject was never covered in her dealings with the Gore election team or Gore himself. This idea that she was dressing him is, again, part of the right wing slime machine and a complete lie.

     I guarantee you that each and every item you have expressed about Gore is a lie or at best, a distortion of reality. Has it occurred to you that a thinking person might begin to question her sources of information when confronted with the fact that these sources have been lying? How many more myths must be busted before you see what's going on here?

     Posted by BBatten at 01/17/2006 @ 5:38pm

149. Posted by WILL C. 01/17/2006 @ 4:10pm

     You shouldn't have to wait long, WILL....

     Gore will pretty soon AMEND his speech to include that, once my point hits him in the form of about 1000 blogs.

     He'll then be asked if such a light punishment for grand jury perjury would fall into his defintion of "vigilant adherence to the rule of law".

     and his other comments about "Presidents who break the law" and WHICH laws he's REALLY concerned about...and WHICH Presidents he's REALLY concerned about breaking them.

     BTW, do you realize if almost ANYBODY else on the Democratic side had made this speech, they'd be in the same pickle...trying to explain their "tough on Presidential crime" (now) stance...versus their stance in 1998?

     Posted by Mask at 01/17/2006 @ 5:39pm

150. Mask,

     Gore's the enemy. He is a very evil man for having been Clinton's VP.

     Oh and while we're at it, Cindy Sheehan is the enemy too.

     Valerie Plame is definitely the enemy.

     Max Cleland is a non patriotic scumbag (with no arms and legs).

     Get a grip!

     Posted by freedomplease at 01/17/2006 @ 5:46pm

151. Mask, you continue to engage in an intellectually dishonest argument. Namely, equating Clinton's "crimes" with Bush's constitutional crimes. It is not a constitutional crime to lie about a sexual affair. It is a constitutional crime to violate the nation's wiretapping laws, to lie to congress about budgetary matters, to use intelligence apparatus for political purposes and to transfer money for war without the consent of congress.

     Clinton, as you must be aware, was caught in what prosecutors call a "perjury trap." When being depositioned about matters pertaining to a woman with whom he may have had an affair, he was asked a question about another issue. That is all that happened and you know it ( or if you don't know that, you're incredibly unqualified to even have this discussion.)

     The crimes Gore is talking about are profoundly rooted in our constitutional system - what are the constitutional checks to executive power. To compare these crimes to Clinton's situation is just plain silly and obfuscatory (which is probably your goal.)

     Posted by BBatten at 01/17/2006 @ 5:49pm

152. LOVE LIBERTY wrote, responding to a "what would Jesus do" inquiry regarding the recent strike in Pakistan that killed civilians but not the terrorist we were going for:

     I have made the same response on numerous occasions to a similar question by liberals here. War unfortunately affects even the innocent (like children). The adults at this gathering do not appear to be innocent as they had invited Al Qaeda members to the house.

     But specifically, Jesus does authorize war against evil. He is the Word of God (John 1:1), and He is the one who revealed God's commands to Israel in dealing with evil nations. He is the one Paul says taught him (Galations 1:11-17 and verified by Peter (2 Peter 3:15,16 who said Paul's letters were scripture). Paul makes clear that the Lord authorizes war against evil in Romans 13. Jesus Himself will lead the ultimate battle against evil as shown in Revelation 19.

     Okay, let's summarize: we can kill you if we think you are a danger to us, our religion justifies it.

     That's what they call jihad.

     We are on the same level as our terrorist enemies. We need to elevate. We can begin by insisting our leaders obey the law.

     Posted by MyParadigm at 01/17/2006 @ 5:51pm

153. "We" are not on the same level. Love Liberty and his fellow religious conservatives are.

     Posted by BBatten at 01/17/2006 @ 5:57pm

154. Gore will pretty soon AMEND his speech to include that, once my point hits him in the form of about 1000 blogs.

     He'll then be asked if such a light punishment for grand jury perjury would fall into his defintion of "vigilant adherence to the rule of law".

     Posted by MASK 01/17/2006 @ 5:39pm

     Oh! So you can't find a quote in which Gore protested Clintons punishment. Then I guess you were just blowing it out your ass with the accusation.

     And if you're all in a tizzy over the punishment that my favorite president got, blame the Ken Star wannabee that agreed to the plea bargain.

     That was his decision, not Al Gores

     Posted by Will C. at 01/17/2006 @ 6:04pm

155. and his other comments about "Presidents who break the law" and WHICH laws he's REALLY concerned about...and WHICH Presidents he's REALLY concerned about breaking them.

     BTW, do you realize if almost ANYBODY else on the Democratic side had made this speech, they'd be in the same pickle...trying to explain their "tough on Presidential crime" (now) stance...versus their stance in 1998?

     Posted by MASK 01/17/2006 @ 5:39pm

     You're lying Mask. Gore didn't say tough, he said vigorous.

     "vigilant adherence to the rule of law"?

     Posted by MASK 01/17/2006 @ 12:55am

     I think we can all agree that Clinton was the most vigorously pursued President in recent history.

     Just think. 50 Mill to get a plea bargain about one lie about one blowjob.

     You guys sure know how to get the "shtick", don't ya?

     Posted by Will C. at 01/17/2006 @ 6:11pm

156. Oh and I forgot to mention that the Grand jury he lied to was for a case that so lacked merit that it was laughed out of court.

     Not that the fact excuses Clinton's behavoir. It just raises the question of trumped up wingnut charges

     Posted by Will C. at 01/17/2006 @ 6:13pm

157. You're lying Mask. Gore didn't say tough, he said vigorous

     correction... vigilant

     Posted by Will C. at 01/17/2006 @ 6:15pm

158. I really enjoyed the way Gore framed the fear factor--how the chicken hawks in power are running around trying to scare everyone ‘diminishes' the life and death struggles of the framers of the constitution, civil war, WW I &II, Korea, Vietnam, all the vets, (I'm paraphrasing of course from memory) and none used the excuse of being so chicken they had to sacrifice our civil liberties. Well not until now. That one struck a cored. Plus of course how these chicken hawks are using fear to cover up their own incompetence. Sweet and yet it's so true.

     Posted by Bushfools at 01/17/2006 @ 6:19pm

159. BUSHFOOLS

     Funny, I believe Lincoln, FDR and Wilson did far more than BUSH would ever dream of doing, as far as Civil Liberties is concerned.

     Lincoln closed down newspapers that were feverntly anti-war and jailed hundreds of Americans without charges.

     FDR interned thousands of Americans, merely because they were of Japanese descent.

     Wilson got the Sedition act and jailed Eugene Debs for making an anti-war speech.

     Truman attempted to draft striking rail workers, for disrupting a crucial industry during a time of war.

     And niether of the above mentioned leaders had to worry about nuclear terrorism or the threat of a chemical or biological attack.

     But I guess we are just making more of it than what there really is, right?

     I understand why Gore feels this way, the Clinton Administration was famous for not taking terrorism to seriously, they preferred arresting the triggermen and said, "SEE, we got the guys" They just ignored everyone else, because it was too hard to get to go in and get them, they didnt want to piss anyone off or offend anyone. Heaven forbid.

     There is a good reason Gore is JUST making speeches. Thank God

     Posted by CPT at 01/17/2006 @ 6:42pm

160. I understand why Gore feels this way, the Clinton Administration was famous for not taking terrorism to seriously, they preferred arresting the triggermen and said, "SEE, we got the guys" They just ignored everyone else, because it was too hard to get to go in and get them, they didnt want to piss anyone off or offend anyone. Heaven forbid.

     Posted by CPT 01/17/2006 @ 6:42pm

     If only they had gone on vacation and let something really catastrophic happen.

     Damn them.

     Posted by Will C. at 01/17/2006 @ 6:45pm

161. When they call you inaccurate, you've been nuanced. When they call you angry, you've won the debate.

     Posted by ash at 01/17/2006 @ 6:48pm

162. CPt: "the Clinton Administration was famous for not taking terrorism to seriously,"

     Man, you need to read the 9-11 report. Clinton was much more involved in the terrorist threat. He told the Bush people when they took over that Bin Laden would be their biggest challenge. He suggested they follow the lead of the Hart-Rudman commission on terrorism. Bush ignored Hart-Rudman and said Cheney would develop his own group. Cheney never did. Clinton had daily breifings on terrorism. Bush never had a meeting about terrorism in the entire 9 months he held office before 9-11. Those are the facts, CPT.

     Posted by BBatten at 01/17/2006 @ 7:02pm

163. Clinton "shook the trees" and held everyone's feet to the fire. Gore ran a commission on airline safety against terrorism and presented its results to congress (republicans ignored it.) Bush got 55 specific warnings from the FAA and a PDB titled "Bin Laden determined to strike in the U.S." and promptly went on a 30-day vacation.

     Posted by BBatten at 01/17/2006 @ 7:04pm

164. BUSHFOOLS

     Funny, I believe Lincoln, FDR and Wilson did far more than BUSH would ever dream of doing, as far as Civil Liberties is concerned.

     Lincoln closed down newspapers that were fervently anti-war and jailed hundreds of Americans without charges.

     (Hopefully we don't get to the point of another civil war plus I do not believe Lincoln would appreciate being compared to someone that could care less about keeping the country together, how ironic.)

     FDR interned thousands of Americans, merely because they were of Japanese descent.

     (Yep, we sure do learn from our mistakes don't we.)

     Wilson got the Sedition act and jailed Eugene Debs for making an anti-war speech.

     (Yep, we sure do learn from our mistakes don't we.)

     Truman attempted to draft striking rail workers, for disrupting a crucial industry during a time of war.

     (Yep, we sure do learn from our mistakes don't we.)

     And neither of the above mentioned leaders had to worry about nuclear terrorism or the threat of a chemical or biological attack.

     (Yep, we are very very scared--better make some more mistakes.)

     But I guess we are just making more of it than what there really is, right?

     (wrong)

     I understand why Gore feels this way, the Clinton Administration was famous for not taking terrorism to seriously, they preferred arresting the triggermen and said, "SEE, we got the guys" They just ignored everyone else, because it was too hard to get to go in and get them, they didn't want to piss anyone off or offend anyone. Heaven forbid.

     There is a good reason Gore is JUST making speeches. Thank God

     Posted by CPT 01/17/2006 @ 6:42pm | ignore this person

     If only they had gone on vacation and let something really catastrophic happen.

     Damn them.

     Posted by WILL C. 01/17/2006 @ 6:45pm | ignore this person

     That's a good one.

     Sorry gots to go will be back later.

     Posted by Bushfools at 01/17/2006 @ 7:06pm

165. The Bush family has been doing business with the Bin Laden family since the mid 80's. They have welcomed many Saudis into their homes. 15 of the 19 9-11 terrorists were Saudis....

     And CPT has this idea that Clinton didn't want to "piss anyone off or offend anyone." Unfrickingbelievable!

     Posted by BBatten at 01/17/2006 @ 7:07pm

166. Bush got 55 specific warnings from the FAA and a PDB titled "Bin Laden determined to strike in the U.S." and promptly went on a 30-day vacation.

     Posted by BBATTEN 01/17/2006 @ 7:04pm

     But more people would rather sit down and have a beer with Gee Dubya.

     Stay focused.

     Posted by Will C. at 01/17/2006 @ 7:08pm

167. :)

     Posted by Will C. at 01/17/2006 @ 7:08pm

168. BBATTEN/Will C

     If Clinton did soooo much about terrorism, then why were struck in 93 at the WTC, Khobar Towers in 96, Kenya and Tanzania embassies, and the Cole?

     I guess the bodycounts werent enough for him to get UBL, much eaiser to get the triggermen

     Not to mention the domestic terrorism of Oklahoma, the Olympics?

     Yeah I guess Clinton's policy was comprehensive alright, all around....reactive.

     .

     Posted by CPT at 01/17/2006 @ 7:11pm

169. And each and every cultist who proclaims that he'd like to "have a beer" with Bush doesn't seem to know that he's a dry drunk who cannot be allowed to be near any kind of liquor because he can't hold it. Again, unfrickingbelievable!

     Posted by BBatten at 01/17/2006 @ 7:12pm

170. So, CPt, setting aside the fact that the Clinton administration found, convicted and jailed all of the '93 WTC terrorists, do you really want to get into comparing body counts? Because you lose that one -- the bigger the body count the bigger the loser, right?

     And, the '93 WTC attack came 30 days into Clinton's term. There is no record of Clinton or any member of his administration blaming the previous administration for this attack. Could you say the same thing about the current Bush administration? And, try to remember that unlike Bush, Clinton actually tried to kill bin Laden. You cultists like to complain that democrats aren't helping in the fight. Remember, the day that Clinton was 45 minutes late in his attempt to kill bin Laden, he had been stuck in deposition all morning testifying about oral sex. Were congressional republicans helping Clinton fight terrorism or were they just fighting Clinton?

     You're on shaky ground here, cultist.

     Posted by BBatten at 01/17/2006 @ 7:18pm

171. Posted by CPT 01/17/2006 @ 7:11pm

     If Clinton did soooo much about terrorism, then why were struck in 93 at the WTC,

     I guess it's tough to pick a wingnut with a truck bomb out of a crowd

     Khobar Towers in 96, Kenya and Tanzania embassies, and the Cole?

     Sovereign states outside US juristiction, and once again, truck bombs and one boat bomb

     I guess the bodycounts werent enough for him to get UBL, much eaiser to get the triggermen

     First recognised UBL in '96

     Not to mention the domestic terrorism of Oklahoma, the Olympics?

     Wingnut fanatics, one truck bomb, one pipe bomb

     Yeah I guess Clinton's policy was comprehensive alright, all around....reactive.

     perhaps you would like to enlighten us on how you infiltrate a small group of people at some random location in the world and determine that they are a threat.

     Think of all the bank robberies and car jackings we could prevent

     Posted by Will C. at 01/17/2006 @ 7:21pm

172. Again, unfrickingbelievable!

     Posted by BBATTEN 01/17/2006 @ 7:12pm

     But he'll at least be sober and will stop and help you change your tire

     Posted by Will C. at 01/17/2006 @ 7:23pm

173. Will, Bush change a tire? I'd bet $100 that he couldn't even pull that off.

     Posted by BBatten at 01/17/2006 @ 7:25pm

174. I'd bet $100 that he couldn't even pull that off.

     Posted by BBATTEN 01/17/2006 @ 7:25pm

     He might if he knew what a lug nut was.

     Perhaps his reflection in the hub cap will clue him in

     Posted by Will C. at 01/17/2006 @ 7:27pm

175. Frank, thanks, but I often feel out of my league reading your remarkably well-researched posts. I'm just happy to see people defending reality.

     Posted by BBatten at 01/17/2006 @ 7:31pm

176. WILL C.

     If only they had gone on vacation and let something really catastrophic happen.

     Damn them.

     Posted by WILL C. 01/17/2006 @ 6:45pm | ignore this person

     They actually did, FDR was PLAYING with his STAMP COLLECTION!!!! When Pearl Harbor happened!!!

     DAMN Him, if only he had been READING the many reports about the JAP NAVY heading into the Pacific!!!

     LINCOLN; was HAVING TEA when the ATTACK on FT SUMTER occurred,

     DAMN him, he should have been MANNING the WATCHTOWER approaches to the FORT when the Confederates emplaced their cannons.

     TRUMAN was having a SNACK!! When the North Koreans came across!!!!!

     DAMN him, he should have been ORDERING MacArthur to check the recon aircraft photos for the NK army massing along the border!!!!

     DAMN these loafers!!!

     Now that was GOOD! lol

     PS

     Your right Lincoln would have been pissed at Bush for not DOING enough to quell hyperbolic BS, like shutting down the Nation or throwing Gore, Clinton, Murtha, and Pelosi in jail. Like he did an OHIO DEMOCRAT member of Congress. FACT.

     Posted by CPT at 01/17/2006 @ 7:32pm

177. There is no credible defesne of Bush when it comes to his attention, or more accurately lack of, to terrorism before 9/11. Michael Moore points this out rather conclusively in Fahrenheit 9/11. Only after the wTC was attacked did he start to pay attention and then he proceeded to fuck things up beyond belief. What, another three years of this idiot?

     Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/17/2006 @ 7:24pm | ignore this person

     Micheal MOORE?!?!?! Nuff said

     Posted by CPT at 01/17/2006 @ 7:33pm

178. It would be a safe bet that Bush has never changed a tire in his life. It's amazing to me to compare our current Bush to Clinton. In a very real sense, they are opposites. Clinton is the product of meritocracy and Bush is the product of aristocracy. Clinton had to do it all by himself on the basis of his brains, talent and drive. Bush was given everything -- legacies, free money for business, fabulous wealth and political power -- he's never had to do anything by himself, on the basis of his own talent. And they frickin love him. These Bush cultists would have been Torries during the Revolutionary War.

     Posted by BBatten at 01/17/2006 @ 7:35pm

179. CPT:

     Give it a rest man. You are quickly running out of talking points and it shows.

     "And niether of the above mentioned leaders had to worry about nuclear terrorism or the threat of a chemical or biological" attack.

     "But I guess we are just making more of it than what there really is, right?"

     Maybe your boy has other ideas about this:

     "The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him." --Washington, D.C., Sept. 13, 2001

     "I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." --Washington, D.C., March 13, 2002

     Interesting comments CPT, coming from your commander in chief.

     "I understand why Gore feels this way, the Clinton Administration was famous for not taking terrorism to seriously,"

     Gotta wonder who took terrorism more seriously, don't we CPT?

     Posted by doumer at 01/17/2006 @ 7:36pm

180. And the only cogent argument CPT seems to have is "Lincoln would have done it." Republicans will trash even their greatest president to make a cheap political argument.

     Posted by BBatten at 01/17/2006 @ 7:37pm

181. Frank, it's much easier for the intellectually lazy to dismiss Michael Moore than it is to read what he has to say.

     Posted by BBatten at 01/17/2006 @ 7:40pm

182. WILL C

     "I guess it's tough to pick a wingnut with a truck bomb out of a crowd"----93 WTC

     Uh, its a van full of explosives and it was Arab islamo facists

     "Khobar Towers in 96, Kenya and Tanzania embassies, and the Cole?

     Sovereign states outside US juristiction, and once again, truck bombs and one boat bomb "

     They were US embassies, hence US territory, Khobar Towers was a Air Force barracks on an Air base...force protection measures were scaled down so as to not offend the Saudis, who ordered that? hmmm clinton.

     The Cole, intell was available, GEN FRANKS took alot of criticism for State DEPT warnings that were never given to him.

     Posted by CPT at 01/17/2006 @ 7:41pm

183. Posted by CPT 01/17/2006 @ 7:32pm

     Yes they should have done more; it was their job to defend the nation against attack (though Korea isn't a state of our union). But short of digging up their corpses and chastising them, there's nothing I can do.

     You wingnuts on the other hand consistently run on the premise that you're strong on national defense. 55 FAA warnings, One PDB titled bin laden determined to attack within the US and one bitchin vacation latter... not so much

     And we must take into account that the country was so completely undefended on 9/11 that old Gee Dubya couldn't even launch a response until it was too late.

     and bin laden is still on the loose

     yikes!

     Posted by Will C. at 01/17/2006 @ 7:42pm

184. CPT: "Air base...force protection measures were scaled down so as to not offend the Saudis, who ordered that? hmmm clinton.

     Bush ordered all military bases be removed from Saudi Arabia. Who ordered that? Osama bin Laden.

     Posted by BBatten at 01/17/2006 @ 7:43pm

185. I meant to say "who demanded that." Face it, CPT, Osama's main demand was that we get our military bases out of Saudi Arabia. Bush capitulated to his demand. That actually doesn't sound too strong on terrorism to me.

     Posted by BBatten at 01/17/2006 @ 7:45pm

186. DOUMER

     If you are going to intentionally misrepresent fine.

     You cant handle the truth!! Nichols in a Few Good Men.

     FRANKGIT/BBATTEN

     Been to Moore website before, not impressed, its not lazy, just practical. I dont like him nor do I respect Mr. Moore.

     He made alot of money...good for him.

     Posted by CPT at 01/17/2006 @ 7:46pm

187. Hey CPT, I'm still waiting to see if you want to compare body counts. Who allowed the most Americans to be killed by terrorists? Who allowed the terrorists to carry out a successful attack on our soil?

     Posted by BBatten at 01/17/2006 @ 7:47pm

188. Posted by CPT 01/17/2006 @ 7:41pm

     "I guess it's tough to pick a wingnut with a truck bomb out of a crowd"----93 WTC

     Uh, its a van full of explosives and it was Arab islamo facists

     right, wingnuts with a truck bomb

     "Khobar Towers in 96, Kenya and Tanzania embassies, and the Cole?

     Sovereign states outside US juristiction, and once again, truck bombs and one boat bomb "

     They were US embassies, hence US territory, Khobar Towers was a Air Force barracks on an Air base...force protection measures were scaled down so as to not offend the Saudis, who ordered that? hmmm clinton.

     Well Cpt unless the wingnuts planned the bombing in the embassy, the fact that our embassy's are US territory don't help much

     The Cole, intell was available, GEN FRANKS took alot of criticism for State DEPT warnings that were never given to him.

     Foriegn port. Most countries don't like it when we fire up every little boat that comes too close.

     Posted by Will C. at 01/17/2006 @ 7:47pm

189. BBATTEN

     Fine, I said it before we capitualted to his demand that we get out of Saudi, he should stop now right?

     You see, I told that appeasement stuff doesnt work

     Posted by CPT at 01/17/2006 @ 7:47pm

190. BBATTEN

     Body counts? Thats all its about with you, numbers? Such a narrow way of looking at it. This isnt the stock market.

     Fine, numbers of attack on US property, lets see Clinton 5 Bush 1. Hows that number.

     So if I try and kill your family and fail, its ok? to try FIVE times.

     But the ONE time I succeed, NOW your outraged?

     Posted by CPT at 01/17/2006 @ 7:53pm

191. Fine, numbers of attack on US property, lets see Clinton 5 Bush 1. Hows that number.

     Posted by CPT 01/17/2006 @ 7:53pm

     You forgot to count all the IED's blowing up in Iraq.

     Once again, Bush comes out on top

     Posted by Will C. at 01/17/2006 @ 7:54pm

192. OK, CPT, we're getting somewhere. You just agreed that Bush sought appeasement as a way of dealing with terrorism. And, you have added that this hasn't worked. You're making fine progress, CPT.

     Posted by BBatten at 01/17/2006 @ 7:55pm

193. CPT, all you're doing is showing how your sick mind works. To me, body counts are much more important than property. You evidently have another priority -- property.

     Posted by BBatten at 01/17/2006 @ 7:56pm

194. Will C

     " "You wingnuts on the other hand consistently run on the premise that you're strong on national defense. 55 FAA warnings, One PDB titled bin laden determined to attack within the US"

     You have to admit, HINDSIGHT is grand.

     Later

     Posted by CPT at 01/17/2006 @ 7:59pm

195. BBATTEN

     "To me, body counts are much more important than property. You evidently have another priority -- property."

     Their OBJECTIVE was NOT property destruction, it was mass casualties. Thats the way my mind works.

     Posted by CPT at 01/17/2006 @ 8:01pm

196. Will C.

     Including Wars? FDR takes the cake

     Posted by CPT at 01/17/2006 @ 8:02pm

197. Hindsight??!!! CPT, you are either intellectually dishonest or clinically insane. Those warnings were forsight, not hindsight. If Clinton had ignored those warnings, you'd be screaming like a little girl.

     Posted by BBatten at 01/17/2006 @ 8:02pm

198. You have to admit, HINDSIGHT is grand.

     Later

     Posted by CPT 01/17/2006 @ 7:59pm

     Not hindsight, but rather promises you have been making for the past two decades plus.

     And when push came to shove, you guys dookied in your drawers.

     way to go, we knew we could count on you

     (last sentence sarcasm)

     Posted by Will C. at 01/17/2006 @ 8:03pm

199. Oh, good god, CPT has reached a new wingnut low. He's blaming Roosevelt for WWII. How can I even argue with such a jackass.

     Posted by BBatten at 01/17/2006 @ 8:04pm

200. Will C.

     Including Wars? FDR takes the cake

     Posted by CPT 01/17/2006 @ 8:02pm

     Yup

     He won

     Posted by Will C. at 01/17/2006 @ 8:04pm

201. Oh, good god, CPT has reached a new wingnut low

     Posted by BBATTEN 01/17/2006 @ 8:04pm

     It's always blame america first with these wingnuts

     Posted by Will C. at 01/17/2006 @ 8:05pm

202. Posted by CPT 01/17/2006 @ 12:26am | ignore this person

     really?

     how could gore have been so much worse than w capt? how much worse would 9/11 have been?

     ok, yeah, i know - u guys or someone has this all redeeming information that such and so was invloved in this and that and something or the other was in direct communication with someone and this is just all too sesitive for the general public to handle so just trust us and dont ask too many questions because, silly, naive you dont understand and someone might get their cover blown and we dont go there (unless agent has blabbery dissident spouse) and so on and so on and so on....

     but if proof of incompetence or perfidy is clamped down under the veil of secrecy which comes with mr. gore's allegation of never ending war mongering, how do you or i or anyone without top secret security clearance KNOW anything?

     i could go into the usual litany of of anti war evidence, but you have heard it all before. but at risk of sounding rese like, something stinks to high hell here and if it smells like it and looks like it and is all squishy and fly encusted, well....maybe we are keeping too many secrets.

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/17/2006 @ 8:11pm

203. CPT:

     "If you are going to intentionally misrepresent fine.

     You cant handle the truth!! Nichols in a Few Good Men."

     Misrepresent what: bush's exact words? You are delusional pal.

     take a good hard look at where you are going with your reasoning. Schtumping for total embarassment? Ahmadinejad is schlepping Bush and flipping off Israel and the US says "Europe...please help".

     The big stick aura has worn off. The military is being stumped with a dead end "war". A war of rhetoric and nothing else.

     Shit, when even Bob Barr and Chris Hitchens are throwing in the towel, you are still waving your flag.

     When Putin, your pal's eye to eye bud tells Ukraine and Europe that HE calls the shots. What happens? The same old shit. Big oil sees it as an opportunity to bump prices. And it does. Small skirmish in Nigeria and again...same shit...they raise prices.

     face it CPT. You are nothing but a small bit player with the clout of a wet fart. Call yourself what you will...you don't....like me...fit into the equation. We are ALL expendable to your master's whims. Unlike you, however, I will not squat in the dirt, lower my head and sign off.

     Posted by doumer at 01/17/2006 @ 8:16pm

204. CPT is easy but at least he didn't run like most of the wingies.

     Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/17/2006 @ 8:17pm

     it was more of a scampering

     Posted by Will C. at 01/17/2006 @ 8:20pm

205. You are nothing but a small bit player with the clout of a wet fart.

     Posted by DOUMER 01/17/2006 @ 8:16pm

     Excellent imagery

     Posted by Will C. at 01/17/2006 @ 8:22pm

206. He knew a war president would be re-elected, especially after 9/11.

     Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/17/2006 @ 8:26pm

     That was the one mistakes dear old dad made. After the euphoria of the Gulf War Victory wore off, people took cold hard look at how the man ran the country.

     They didn't like what they saw.

     Hell even the wing nuts here admit that Gee Dubya is fucking up the country. But as long as they have their illusion of War, fear wins,

     Everytime

     Posted by Will C. at 01/17/2006 @ 8:35pm

207. Legacy, yeah. Quick summary: nearly as many soldiers killed in Iraq as civilians on 9/11, a trillion tax dollars wasted on an unwinnable war, so-called War on Terror resulting in a worldwide net rise in anti-Western terrorism, huge tax cuts resulting in mediocre economic growth, volatile energy prices, massive corruption scandal, inexcusable hurricane damage, unqualified cronies appointed to important government positions ...

     Did I miss anything?

     Posted by MyParadigm at 01/17/2006 @ 8:36pm

208. furthermore, i do have a problem with this allegation of a state of war, as defined by the constitution, with a non national entity, and that this alleged (undeclared) state of war, considering the nature of it, warrants this kind of undemocratic activity. our founding fathers and everyone else up to around 1900, could have used this same logic for the same purposes in regard to the near constant state of warfare which existd between the united states and native american tribes on the frontier. was that not war? was that not incredibly dangerous to those american citizens then populating those territories?

     again, dont want to get all rese here, but you know, i was thinking of rooseveldt, of how it appears the us government may have had some knowledge of the imminent pearl harbor attack, and knowing the american public wont sanction large scale war without dire provokation, didnt exactly do everything it could have to stop the suprise attack...who knows? in light of history, perhaps was not such a bad idea, if indeed it actually was an idea, a set of circumstances...and perhaps it was not...

     but we do know that some of these 9/11 were under surveillance...

     i'm not necc saying anything was some kind of mephistophelian plot, but when the very people who had pre2000 advocated a form of us military preemption i seriously doubt the american public would have gone along with then appear to have possibly botched their job of preventing soimething like 9/11 from happening, what do you expect some folk to start thinking? too much secrecy breeds conspiracy theories, which become subject to ridicule by those alledging paranoia, and then it becomes possible to actually do those things alledged by nutty conspiracy theorists...

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/17/2006 @ 8:37pm

209. Did I miss anything?

     Posted by MYPARADIGM 01/17/2006 @ 8:36pm

     Yes, it's all Bill Clinton's fault

     Posted by Will C. at 01/17/2006 @ 8:38pm

210. more than 10 times iraqis killed than civilians on 911.

     Posted by loveloki at 01/17/2006 @ 8:38pm

211. bbatten, from what i read in richard clark's book, u r absolutely correct about clinton's daily briefings on terrorism and bush's nonexistent briefings on terrorism. prior to 911, the bush administration constantly made fun of richard clark and laughed behind his back about his silly obssession with obl.

     Posted by loveloki at 01/17/2006 @ 8:41pm

212. more than 10 times iraqis killed than civilians on 911.

     Posted by LOVELOKI 01/17/2006 @ 8:38pm

     But I ask you. Is that now justification for the Iraqi's to get Gee Dubya dead or alive?

     Or wasn't there enough dammaged real estate?

     or enough prime time coverage?

     or enough blood thirst?

     Posted by Will C. at 01/17/2006 @ 8:47pm

213. will, good point. exactly when will it be ok for someone else to start publicly screaming, (to use bush & co.'s favorite phrase), we're gonna take 'em out. that's all they have to say about this pakistan thing. we were trying to "take 'em out"

     Posted by loveloki at 01/17/2006 @ 8:52pm

214. frank, has rush been saying negative things about bush lately? my ex says he has. i can't stomach listening to him even for one second to find out. i did see oreilly yesterday though and he was cutting on bush and complaining about our policy of trying to get oil from the middle east instead of developing alternative energy sources. i almost died of shock. is the sky falling?

     Posted by loveloki at 01/17/2006 @ 8:58pm

215. No, but chickenshit faux journalists are covering their asses. Both of those turkeys have legal bills, you know.

     Posted by MyParadigm at 01/17/2006 @ 9:04pm

216. CPT

     watching frontline on pbs - "private warriors"

     any opining on the topic?

     by the way, i may oppose the war and detest the leadership you so often defend, but never confuse my opposition to this situation with anything but the highest estimation of your personal courage. and honor.

     assuming, of course you are telling the truth about who you are, etc... sory - it is the internet, after all...lol

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/17/2006 @ 9:17pm

217. "Will and BB, You guys are quite a tag team. You didn't even need me. Well that would have been piling on. CPT is easy but at least he didn't run like most of the wingies."

     Is it not amazing, how reasonable people, relatively reasonable can see the information and come out with completely different outlooks?

     I thought I won that exchange pretty easily.

     Posted by CPT at 01/17/2006 @ 9:42pm

218. I thought I won that exchange pretty easily.

     Posted by CPT 01/17/2006 @ 9:42pm

     Time to fly in a hoist the banner

     Posted by Will C. at 01/17/2006 @ 9:44pm

219. correction... and

     Posted by Will C. at 01/17/2006 @ 9:45pm

220. 300+ private contractors killed in iraq

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/17/2006 @ 9:48pm

221. KBR, ESS, Blackwater

     contractors, subcontractors

     what a wierd brave new world we live in

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/17/2006 @ 9:52pm

222. IBBEBL.

     Private Warriors?(contractors) Well, at first I wasnt all that keen on them, but all I know is that when it was the middle of winter in some God-forsaken shithole at firebase sitting at 6,500ft above sea-level in AFGHAN and the heating unit broke, 75 miles in the middle of "Indian Country" near the Pak border, this good ole boy with a fishing cap came out there to fix it.

     The posters here can rail against them all they wish, I wont.

     Caught a little bit of the frontline thing.

     You are right it is the net, understand being cautious, key i have learned, posers on the net are inconsistent.

     Posted by CPT at 01/17/2006 @ 10:11pm

223. IBBEBL

     Yeah dont try to figure out who works for who and who is a subcontractor thing. That it will drive you nuts.

     I knew KBR were the cooks, cleaned the shitters.

     I knew Blackwater were the ex-military private security guys

     I dont remember what ESS did.

     And someone else took care of the heating and air units and the showers.

     They used to say the shower and sink water was good to wash with, but they said NOT to drink it. I never quite figured that one out

     Posted by CPT at 01/17/2006 @ 10:15pm

224. Anyone remember those thrilling days of yesteryear, when w. was hawking the second coming of 'Star Wars'? Hell, it was the only thing he could put two sentences together. That and tax cuts.

     Those were the days...

     Posted by lefthookjab at 01/18/2006 @ 12:40am

225. Your right Lincoln would have been pissed at Bush for not DOING enough to quell hyperbolic BS, like shutting down the Nation or throwing Gore, Clinton, Murtha, and Pelosi in jail. Like he did an OHIO DEMOCRAT member of Congress. FACT.

     Posted by CPT 01/17/2006 @ 7:32pm | ignore this person

     So we should keep making the same mistakes even bigger? I believe I may have remembered what Gore stated somewhat off as he mentioned and I didn't, regrets and corrections per the checks and balances, the theme of his talk. The irony I mentioned before was that of the current cammander in thiefery being a divider not a uniter unlike the efforts of the other and regretably one got a hole put in his head by someone elses hand while the other has one just naturally.

     Posted by Bushfools at 01/18/2006 @ 01:26am

226. Anybody here worried about crazy religious leaders trying to run a country and take over the world by killing off or invading an enemy?....No kiddies, of the left,

     Iran..any thoughts about the threats coming from their glorious leader? or is all Bush, all bash , all the time?

     Posted by john maasch at 01/18/2006 @ 01:27am

227. Iran..any thoughts about the threats coming from their glorious leader? or is all Bush, all bash , all the time?

     Posted by JOHN MAASCH 01/18/2006 @ 01:27am | ignore this person

     Good turn of a phrase. However I do remember N. Korea making a lot of noise too and seems like the BC BS regime preferred that the locals step in to deal. Seeing as we 'chose' to move in next door, seems awfly hard to call on them locals again but there you are. Unless the BC BS regime wants to increase taxes on the rich, I definitely don't want my great great grandkids in indentured servitude for their natural life time because this idiot wants to feed this MIC monster he's created. Its his monster and it's going to eat him.

     Posted by Bushfools at 01/18/2006 @ 01:48am

228. RB's-- Asymmetrical, totally: lying about a blow job - vs - lying us to war/lying about spying on US citizens/lying about healthcare costs/lying about 9/11/ lying about just about everything in general… What can I say apart that I'm sleepy and have to get up early per two jobs and being a single parent and as addictive as this is, gots to get sleep, nite all that's left, er, no pun intended…….

     Posted by Bushfools at 01/18/2006 @ 02:05am

229. for WILLC and the rest who don't seem to get Gore's hypocrisy about "vigilant adherence to the rule of law"....

     It's not about "lying about sex versus lying about war"...Want to say BOTH sides are automatically guilty....OK, fine with me...but THIS is how it breaks down then-

     Clinton committed perjury to a grand jury and Bush violated the Constitutional protections of the 4th Amendment with "NSA-Spygate"....there, happy?

     Now, the problem is Gore is STILL a hypocrite on his "vigilant adherence" because what he's saying is "Bust that guy for robbing that bank ...but ignore the fact that the counterfeiter I worked for got a $50 fine".

     It ain't going to play, because Gore has NO credibility on lecturing people on the need for a tough stance on crimes committed by Presidents!

     Posted by Mask at 01/18/2006 @ 06:53am

230. If one cannot or will not see the imbalance in your arguement then you're simply unbalanced and you carry no weight.

     Posted by Bushfools at 01/18/2006 @ 07:46am

231. should read: If 'you' cannot or will not see the imbalance in your arguement then you're simply unbalanced and you carry no weight.

     Sounds like Gore was asking for a 'measured' consideration of the situation and he still is-- very consistant.

     Posted by Bushfools at 01/18/2006 @ 08:04am

232. FOOLS

     "So we should keep making the same mistakes even bigger?"

     Well quite frankly Lincoln, wasnt making a mistake, his actions were necessary.

     In the same notion, Bush is not making a mistake, listening to people calling AQ numbers. Its not the end of all things, as some have portrayed it. In the big picture its really quite benign.

     Posted by CPT at 01/18/2006 @ 08:20am

233. MASK writes,

     It ain't going to play, because Gore has NO credibility on lecturing people on the need for a tough stance on crimes committed by Presidents!

     Once again, MASK plays the hypocrisy card to the point of tedium that is hurtling fast toward the vanishing point. So, MASK, if the same words that were attributed to Gore were actaully stated by --- oh, I dunno, Vincent Foster in a seance, or the Dalai Lama, or a man in a wide tie on his way to work --- what would you say to the argument , MASK? Again: the Argument, the ARGUMENT, it's all about the A-R-G-U-M-E-N-T, and NOT some strenous reification that says more about the reifer than the ostensible object of your comments ...

     Posted by GlennC.Lemon at 01/18/2006 @ 08:40am

234. GLENN

     No, it's not "just about the A-R-G-U-M-E-N-T" in the world of REAL politics....it's about the messenger as well as the message.

     How's Gore going to respond the first time some interviewer asks what I've asked "Mr Vice President, how 'vigilant' do you want 'adherence to the rule of law' for Presidents?....can SOME things be taken with less 'vigilance' than others?"

     Then, Gore has to explain why perjury before a grand jury was "just about sex and no big deal"...and how violating the 4th Amendment is "more egregrious"....and then the counter-question comes "So there ARE things that you'd be 'less vigilant' about...than others?"

     Posted by Mask at 01/18/2006 @ 08:51am

235. Rio

     The tired old Clinton thing....ho-hum. It is a simple economy of scale issue here. Which is a more grievous error with respect to running a country: A) screwing an intern, B) screwing the country?

     WingNuts

     Doesn't this hue and cry against dissenting opinions kinda make Hillary's point for her? (...and for the record, I am NOT a Hillary fan, but a point is a point.)

     Posted by leftofcenter at 01/18/2006 @ 09:05am

236. C(A)PT(AIN & TENNILE) writes,

     In the same notion, Bush is not making a mistake, listening to people calling AQ numbers.

     The State must indeed take an interest in surveilling people "calling AQ numbers" (although the most egregious intelligence failure of this sort occurred almost a year into Bush's regime, following his month long vacation).

     There is a need for surveillance and intelligence gathering. Next point: It is embbarrassing to have to explain this out to C(A)PT(AIN & TENNILE), in much the same way that it is embarrassing to have to tell a nominal adult that vigorous flatulence at the dinner table is vulgar, or that strenous nose-picking in public is "tres gauche". But C(A)PT(AIN & TENNILE) has willingly thrust himself into this situation, so I will explain as if to a retarded child who is having difficulty keeping his pants on: All the State need do is obtain a WARRANT (even after the fact) via already established procedures to evidence that it is IN FACT investigating people "calling AQ numbers" and NOT going on Nixonian expeditions in the laundry hamper against its legitimate political opposition. A warrant; oversight from a competant court; checks on uninhibited power; and, for vast public benefit, investigation of real bad guys rather than harrassment of the citizenry in Nixonian fashion. If they do not obtain said warrant, then it is they who have already committed a crime.

     By the way, C(A)PT(AIN & TENNILE), I quite enjoyed watching the trenchant WILL C thoroughly demolish your patent and laughable puppy shit about blogging on company time, the Tora Bora fiasco, and so on before you (cough, ahem) "had to go to dinner". You would be well-served to do more impersonations of the silent C(A)PT(AIN), and a great deal less of TENNILE ...

     Posted by GlennC.Lemon at 01/18/2006 @ 09:09am

237. MASK,

     Your answer is a dodge. (1) Gore (for whom I never voted, by the way) had already distanced himself from Clinton circa 1999, very likely to the detriment of his own presidential aspirations. And (2) If the aforementioned man-in-a-wide-tie-on-his-way-to-work detours through a TV studio for an interview and makes Gore's arguments (rather than emanating from Gore's mouth), what do you say in that case?

     Posted by GlennC.Lemon at 01/18/2006 @ 09:27am

238. Glen,

     There is no sense in trying to actually talk about policy with Mask. He, and much of the cabal, are entirely about the packaging.

     In his world:

     Gore has no credibility. Thus it is irrelevant what he says.

     Cindy Sheehan has no credibility so her point is irrelevant.

     I'm not sure about Mask, but the cabal, on Monday was also on about the philandering that MLK did, thus, equivocating that MLK had no credibility and negating his point.

     In some respects Mask has a point. Our electorate is so vapid that packaging is EVERYTHING.

     You and I see that as destructive to our democracy, Mask doesn't.

     Posted by freedomplease at 01/18/2006 @ 09:49am

239. Now MASK, whatever happened to your "common man" rhetoric, wherein most people will intuitively side with Bush as he pretends to defend the nation? Wouldn't these people be able to tell the difference between lying about sex and trashing the Constitution?

     Gore will have no problem defending his statements about vigilance. All he has to do is go populist. In fact, he can easily turn on his attackers, asking why the Republican were so intent on catching Clinton in a lie, and then giving Bush a pass on things that are much, much worse.

     Posted by MyParadigm at 01/18/2006 @ 09:51am

240. (One at a time...hehe)

     Posted by GLENNC.LEMON 01/18/2006 @ 09:27am |

     No, no dodge....what WILL Gore say to such a question?

     "What President Clinton did was wrong...but not 'as wrong' as what President Bush has done."....Okay....so it's not "vigilant" adherence to the rule of law....it's "measured" adherence to the rule of law.

     Posted by Mask at 01/18/2006 @ 10:12am

241. I listened to Al Gore's excellent speech and had just one regret and that was that all the major networks hadn't carried it live so that everyone would have had the opportunity to hear it. Thank you Cspan for carrying it live!

     Posted by excarver at 01/18/2006 @ 10:12am

242. Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 01/18/2006 @ 09:49am |

     You can talk "policy" all you want...but if it's about "alternative energy" and the one making the speech is Bobby Kennedy, Jr, who drives around in a limo, flies a private jet, and doesn't want wind farms built off his Uncle Ted's house in Hyannisport.....the "policy talk" is going to flop.

     Same with Gore.

     Posted by Mask at 01/18/2006 @ 10:13am

243. and finally

     Now MASK, whatever happened to your "common man" rhetoric, wherein most people will intuitively side with Bush as he pretends to defend the nation? Wouldn't these people be able to tell the difference between lying about sex and trashing the Constitution? -----MYPARADIGM

     Actually MY, if you look at the polls (Gallup most recently), the "common man" IS on Bush's side on "NSA-Spygate" with numbers in the high 50s and low 60s saying it would be "okay" for the Government to spy on international calls by Americans.

     It's why the tepid response from OTHER Democrats (who aren't appealing to the "base") on it. If it comes off as "Democrats want to protect the rights of terrorists, while Republicans and Bush want to protect US from terrorists"...it's 2002 all over again this November.

     Posted by Mask at 01/18/2006 @ 10:19am

244. Mask,

     I agree with you. In our Madison avenue soundbite world the flop is inevitable on the packaging. It matters not one iota what might be inside the packaging.

     You and your ilk want to continue the debate being about the packaging. Me and my ilk would like to get beyond that.

     How far do you think Roosevelt would get in today's political climate? We both know the answer and I think it's a shame and you think it's alright. That's our difference.

     Posted by freedomplease at 01/18/2006 @ 10:21am

245. Some comments on Gore: (1)He DID win the election in 2000. The Republicans knew it, and that is why they sued to stop the recount in Florida. The five Republican votes on the U.S. Supreme Court, in a disgraceful act of judicial activism overruling states' rights, installed Boy George in the White House. It was an act that will live in infamy, putting the lie to conservatives phony complaints about judicial activism. (2) Gore has no credibility among progressives. As a Senator, he was a standard corporate big-military AIPAC-worshipping pro-nuclear Democrat. (I voted for Nader) If Gore or Kerry had any balls, they would have fought their stolen elections. Instead, they wanted to be good establishment players, and went limp instead of fighting. So progressives don't listen to clowns like Gore or kerry. Or superhawk Hillary. They are the problem, not the solution. And that's tellin' it like it is.

     Posted by philbq at 01/18/2006 @ 10:43am

246. You and your ilk want to continue the debate being about the packaging. Me and my ilk would like to get beyond that.

     Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 01/18/2006 @ 10:21am

     "My ilk" and "your ilk", FREE?...."Either with us or against us"

     Actually if you take off the "black or white blinders" a second, maybe I could explain that MY POINT throughout all of this was quite similar to PHILQ's, that Gore has no credibility, not that I don't want it investigated as to whether Bush broke the law or not.

     But the "packaging" is going to be VERY important to "sell" this...and the "salesman" is tarnished.

     Keep your "ilk's" high-minded morality and desire to "get beyond that"....but you won't get beyond it, if the people put out as the "lecturers on virtue in politics" have little themselves.

     Posted by Mask at 01/18/2006 @ 10:55am

247. Phil,

     1. Gore won popular vote..did not win election. My 7 th grader understands this.

     2.Everyone also knows Florida SC changed count rules in middle of game. Elections are not "do overs". On a personal note, If you can't figure out how to put an "X" in a box, I don't want you voting on anything, especially after sample ballots published in media before election.

     3. Any concern about early call so people went home from polls in the pan handle where 1000's vote never cast?(GOPers) I thought not.

     4.The country sighed a relief sigh after 9/11 that Gore wasn't the president. One could hear it every where.

     You gotta stop this 2000 stolen crapp. No buyers, even the media. Gore screwed in himself into the beach.

     Posted by john maasch at 01/18/2006 @ 10:57am

248. Posted by PHILBQ 01/18/2006 @ 10:43am

     PHIL, I think you're going to be MONUMENTALLY disappointed the next Presidential elections as well.

     There won't be ONE "pure candidate" on the ballot for the Democrats....not Hillary the Hawk or Richardson or Warner or Edwards or even Russ Feingold (who proved his status on the John Roberts hearings). Better just deal with that!

     Posted by Mask at 01/18/2006 @ 10:58am

249. Mask,

     Your point would be valid if it was William making the speech, but Gore didn't do any of the lying and does not seem to have complained about the punishment for the crime.

     It's kind of like the point that you tried to make about Reid accepting money from Abramoff clients. Accepting campaign contributions from an Indian tribe in a legal and NON binding way is absolutely nothing like accepting $56,000 golf trips to Scotland or having your wife employed at some inflated price level by a shell company that the lbbiest has set up, etc.

     Your ilk know damn well that Reids actions and Delay's actions are completely different just as your ilk know that being a VP when a President is convicted and punished for a crime is nothing like wire tapping US citizens and never applying for a warrant.

     But hey, if we muddy the waters enough the vapid electorate will never figure out the difference right?

     PHILBQ,

     Are you against Nuke as an energy source?

     Posted by freedomplease at 01/18/2006 @ 11:08am

250. Mask,

     The GOP will also be disappointed as they have no conservative candiates to date. Should be am interesting election.

     Posted by john maasch at 01/18/2006 @ 11:09am

251. Question for anyone,

     Id it crime to wiretap without a warrent or is it a crime to use it?

     Posted by john maasch at 01/18/2006 @ 11:10am

252. You know, it get's really tiring reading reactionary rhetoric that goes beyond hypocrisy. A few months ago I posted a semihumorous Koolade Klub Rules of Engagement, got grief from the charter members of said Klub, and yet the rules keep being adhered to: kill/smear the messenger, change the topic, bring up Bill, bring up God, nitpick and then spin like crazy...

     Let's try applying the Koolade Klub Kode of Konduct to President Bush: Bush can't argue about military aspects of any kind since he illegally avoided military service; Bush can't argue about criminal matters involving drugs or alcohol since he was once a drug-sniffing drunk; Bush can't argue about a woman's right to choose since he isn't a woman; Bush can't argue about end of life issues since he has never had a terminal illnes (terminal stupidity isn't an actual disease); Bush can't argue about Constitutional issues since apparently the Constitution is one more thing he hasn't read; Bush can't argue about election reform because he's never been elected (I can hear them howling now!); Bush can't argue about working conditions since he's never worked...

     Posted by Turk33 at 01/18/2006 @ 11:16am

253. Turk,

     WOW, Are you into the KOOL AID?

     Posted by john maasch at 01/18/2006 @ 11:21am

254. The fact that Bush snorted lines and got a DWI make him MORE qualified to be President (in my personal opinion) than if he had been a squeaky clean goody two shoes. The Swift boat type attack machine was right not to make those indiscretions an issue but then they kind of lost sight of that righteousness when the problems were in candidates of the other ilk.

     Posted by freedomplease at 01/18/2006 @ 11:25am

255. John,

     WOW, are you into truth and the Constitution? From your arguments, you qualify as a member in good standing of the Koolade Klub - strict, unwavering, unquestioning faith and adherence to President Bush. By the way, in your response you used Klub Kode #3 - change the topic; & Klub Kode #4 - smear the messenger. Good job! Just keep avoiding the substance and you're little coccoon will remain intact.

     Posted by Turk33 at 01/18/2006 @ 11:47am

256. Mask

     You can talk "policy" all you want...but if it's about "alternative energy" and the one making the speech is Bobby Kennedy, Jr, who drives around in a limo, flies a private jet, and doesn't want wind farms built off his Uncle Ted's house in Hyannisport.....the "policy talk" is going to flop.

     Same with Gore.

     ....or like Bush and honest government, or Cheney and special interests....?

     Posted by leftofcenter at 01/18/2006 @ 11:52am

257. JM

     re: "question for everyone"

     is it a crime to counterfeit currency, or just to spend it?

     Posted by leftofcenter at 01/18/2006 @ 11:54am

258. JOHN MAASCH - or maybe it's LEN MOSSE, or perhaps it's a LEN MAASCH and a JOHN MOSSE (?) - in any event, MISH-MAASCH, you don't what the fuck you're talking about, which is your enduring signature as much as your retarded whateverthefuckitisname.

     2.Everyone also knows Florida SC changed count rules in middle of game.

     What the fuck are you talking about? What Hollywood film/Anne Coulter fabrication are you using as a counterfeit currency for reality? FSC ruled each county would have authority to work out a standard (reasonably, as they did not use all the same voting devices to begin with). The "change" in procedure was evident further upstream where the 5 SCOTUS judges trashed their long-established judicial philosophy (States' rights, hostility to Equal Protection, precedent) to make a ruling that they explicitly "cabined" as unsuitable for precedent.

     Elections are not "do overs".

     Who the fuck said they were? Counting the ballots cast is quite sufficient, thank you, as acknowledged in the hand-recount law that GW Bush signed as Gov of Texas. You are aware, by the way, that the first and the last lawsuit (and most in between) to supress the vote counting were filed by Bush's team? That Bush's post-election expenditure exceded Gore's by a factor of 4 (12.8 M USDs to 3.2) to airdrop in lawyers, activists, and hacks? That "monomaniacal" Gore had to be physically restrained from making a concession speech in TN in the wee hours of 5 November because he had seen on TV that he lad "lost"? Just wondering ...

     On a personal note, If you can't figure out how to put an "X" in a box, I don't want you voting on anything, especially after sample ballots published in media before election.

     Harry Truman once said that he felt bad for ther great mass of people who had no idea what had really transpired in the course of their lifetimes. He could have been talking about you, JOHN MIS-MAASCH-MOSSE or whateverthefuck you inist on being called: chained to the wall, transfixed with the shadow play in the Platonic cave, succumbing to the delusion that you know something about what goes on in the world around you, and doing so with considerable belligerence.

     And now some readmeat to arouse JOHN MAASCH-ISTAN's proto-IslamoFacsist instincts on popular representation: While we are on the topic of voting, what did you make of Scalia's remark at the time that citizenship of the US is not coterminus with a right to vote?

     4.The country sighed a relief sigh after 9/11 that Gore wasn't the president. One could hear it every where.

     Hearing vioces, JOHN MAASCH? Could be your robust beerfart reverbarating around the living room (7th grader, watch out: TOXIC FUMES designed to stunt your physical/intellectual growth, above and beyond your dismal genetic inheritance). Or perhaps you are hearing the same "vioces" that say you don't advocate torture --- even when some proto-IslamoFascist illiberal unfit-for-Western-liberty asshole, curiously enough writing under your name, unmistakably posited such.

     Fucking JOHN MAASCH ...

     Posted by GlennC.Lemon at 01/18/2006 @ 11:59am

259. mr maasch, is it a crime to make meth or does it only become a crime when you use it?

     Posted by loveloki at 01/18/2006 @ 11:59am

260. and everyone says he was just listening to al queda (sp)? calls. do we know this?

     Posted by loveloki at 01/18/2006 @ 12:01pm

261. Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 01/18/2006 @ 11:52am |

     Actually, LEFT.....YES....exactly like that.

     You seem to be under the impression that I (like some here) have certain politicians I think are "honorable and have credibility" and others I think do not.

     I don't.....don't trust Bush, don't trust Cheney....don't trust Gore, don't trust Feingold!

     Posted by Mask at 01/18/2006 @ 12:01pm

262. condi's on tv talking about iran today. where are we going to get the money and soldiers to go after this country? and if everyone is so against this theocracy, why are we trying to create one here? the georgie theocracy with his direct line to god.

     Posted by loveloki at 01/18/2006 @ 12:05pm

263. are we going to let the rest of the world help with this problem in iran. actually listen to them-- or are we going to tell them all to go fuck themselves again?

     Posted by loveloki at 01/18/2006 @ 12:07pm

264. Maasch, you keep trying to spread the lie that nothing was done after the first WTC attack. all the perps of that attack are in jail. justice has been served. now the attackers of the second WTC bombing, they are at large, but I don't hear any carping about that failure by St.Bush.do you use these techniques in your business dealings?

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/18/2006 @ 12:27pm

265. Good Grief:

     In the past 24 hours this site has turned into a shrine for 3 of the countries worst, Bill Clinton, Al Gore and Michael Moore.

     Clinton-pathological liar, perhaps most immoral president in our history

     Al Gore-maybe most conceited and arrogant politician in past 40 years, also given to lying as a way of life

     Michael Moore-perhaps the biggest scam artist in recent political history (I wonder if he and Abramoff are cousins?)

     With role models like these, is it any wonder that the Democrats have become so marginalized in American politics?

     Now we have Hillary with her racist pandering and the media barely yawns.

     Posted by love liberty at 01/18/2006 @ 12:41pm

266. LL,

     In the last 24 hours you come back with name calling. Kinda silly since both major parties are full to the rim with _____________ (fill in the blank with insulting stereotypes).

     Hillary's comments were ridiculous and I have seen them across the spectrum of channels and print outlets. Seek and ye shall find. Or don't seek and cry liberal media conspiracy.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 01/18/2006 @ 1:22pm

267. TJ,

     There was no name calling of any bloggers, merely pointing out that some of the leftist bloggers had descended into relying upon 3 thoroughly discredited politicians to justify their positions.

     And right and left should criticize Hillary's comments, as they should if someone on the right says something in the same racist vein.

     Posted by love liberty at 01/18/2006 @ 1:31pm

268. Love the Appearance of Liberty

     "3 thoroughly discredited politicians?"

     By whom? The "liberal" media? By the totally unbiased pitbulls Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly, Rove, and the rest of the reactionaries? You and yours disagreeing with someone because you don't like their message doesn't immediatley count them out of the discussion. You only wish it did. It would make your version of reality that much more secure.

     Posted by Turk33 at 01/18/2006 @ 1:37pm

269. Love Liberty,

     It's the same old tune from you every day. Your first post of the day is always an attempt to insult all the previous posts. I'm aware that the purpose it not some sophmoric attempt to rile us up but simply to frame the rest of the debate in your direction.

     I've stopped playing your game, soon the rest will and you'll have to discuss our issues or no issues at all.

     Let's try this ISSUE. When will the Senate Intelligence Committee do some work on Phase II which has been promised ad nuseum but never delivered (it did shut the Senate down on November 1, 2005 though)?

     Posted by freedomplease at 01/18/2006 @ 1:43pm

270. Zero,

     I think that Nixon stood head and shoulders above Clinton as a president. I would note that I was very unhappy with many of Nixon's decisions that were too liberal for most Republicans (wage freeze, removing gold standard, EPA).

     But Clinton is a morally bankrupt individual.

     Posted by love liberty at 01/18/2006 @ 2:00pm

271. As I drove to my 2nd job in bumper-to-bumper traffic, I had time to ponder the ponderous inside out upside down world of the far right's logic, or rather lack of symmetry in the stream of it. I concluded that my contortion in following it was not that it was so nuanced and esoteric but rather that it was flat or two dimensional, while I see in three. Thus I realized that my inability to eliminate a lot of what I see, know and feel, in order to squeeze into an emaciated entangled knotted circle, was not a flaw but a developmental skill I should keep--not loose. (A thought for the media at large.)

     Posted by Bushfools at 01/18/2006 @ 2:09pm

272. I teach Design. I'll venture an analogy (or is it metaphor, parable?) to what I know and hope it translates into understanding the far right's logic. In order to see objects with volume or visualize depth one needs to experience (consciously or un) the concept of ‘value' or ‘tone'- variations of gray. As we interact with light, a greater range of contrast appears to move objects forward, so one sees texture and detail close up, lower range of grays fall back in space as in atmospheric perspective. Tone/value gives one the ability to acknowledge objects as far away as apposed to close up. Some people are labeled near sighted while others are far sighted if their eyes flexibility is limited to one shape or another. If you have good to excellent eyesight your eyes are able to adjust back and forth to see ‘depth' in three dimensions as one moves through the world and determines where objects fit on the plane in relation to oneself. However lacking the visual concept of value(s) via ones natural development, one is restricted to the simple shapes of black and white, the things a child first sees, and loosing the subtly to see the difference between a sphere and a circle. This restriction to nuance precludes acknowledging or having the ability to acknowledge exactly where something is in space as there's little depth perception without grays, sans overlapping and foreshortening of course. And lastly the ability to see detail of surfaces is greatly diminished without being aware of or having the ability to process the various values.

     Posted by Bushfools at 01/18/2006 @ 2:13pm

273. Ok, my previous post was an analogy to having the ability to see where things are in space as it relates to the far right's inability to see variations of gray, but what about a metaphor as to why most can't see size relationships or compositional proportions. Well let's see, as a design concept, asymmetrical balance is used to discuss ratios or comparisons of differing elements, as in how many feathers equal a single once of gold visually. All the while acknowledging one understands that they're different and not the same, thus the asymmetrical use. However, in the far right's topsy-turvy world gone flat and twisted, asymmetry equals symmetry. There is no difference between gold and feathers, it's enough that they're on the same flat plane. This is because if they can't see but in black and white, the tonal element of subtle glimmering metallic gold to the soft thin lightness of the feathers is lost in the either or flat conclusions of not seeing forms as forms, their subtle surface value nor the plenary reason for the comparison in perspective.

     Posted by Bushfools at 01/18/2006 @ 2:16pm

274. Bushfools,

     It isn't good to smoke funny cigarettes and drive.

     Posted by love liberty at 01/18/2006 @ 2:22pm

275. Bushfools,

     I will assume your intentions were good in positing a response. One does not need to see gray when someone is trying to kill you (ie the terrorists). You kill them or they kill you.

     You are highlighting one of the crucial errors or shortshightedness of the left in the ongoing debate in this country on a wide range of issues. Most conservatives do not view it as an "I'm right your wrong" debate. The greatest reason for division in this country between right and left is simply a difference of view on how to achieve resolution of the vast number of issues facing us.

     Every genuine conservative wants clean air and water, a good education, jobs that provide family independence and security, peace with our neighbors, responsible government, and equal opportunity for all citizens.

     The divide is on the how. Until liberals come to recognize and operate in an attitude of mutual respect for differing opinions, we as a country are doomed to see this continued slide in lack of cooperation and escalating animosity between the two viewpoints.

     I posit this equally towards any conservative who is unwilling to understand the real nature of the debate.

     Posted by love liberty at 01/18/2006 @ 2:38pm

276. Why did Abramoff charge two different clients $25,000 a piece for lunch with the president if Bush doesn't even know Abramoff?

     Texas Observer

     I mean Bush and McClellan would never lie about that kind of thing right?

     Posted by freedomplease at 01/18/2006 @ 3:06pm

277. Have you all seen the GOP's new strategy to "reduce" lobbying inflence? They actually have devised a plan that says after you've wined and dined me (or taken me to Scotland on a $56,000 golf trip), you now have to give me a campaign contribution.

     Is anyone still in any doubt as to why this congress has the approval rating it is currently enjoying?

     Posted by freedomplease at 01/18/2006 @ 3:18pm

278. "it relates to the far right's inability to see variations of gray" Posted by BUSHFOOLS 01/18/2006 @ 2:16pm

     ????

     And the far LEFT has that ability? Really? Well, yes, when it comes to people who commit some crimes; nobody is "really guilty...it's society's fault"...unless of course it's "corporate crime", which 99% of all corporations commit (ex-Ben & Jerry's).

     But on the rest...pretty black and white with them. Don't support affirmative action as they do...racist (no grey there). Don't support inefficient welfare programs as they do.....hate poor (nope, still no grey). Don't want to trust the UN with our national security....warmongering imperialist (not even any "tan") Don't think universal health care will work in the US?....want people to die in the streets (bit of "beige"?....nope)

     Disagree with them on any issue?.....racist, bigot, homophobe, greedhead, fascist, theocrat, Bush'bot, stooge, moron, sexist, oppressor.

     Did I miss the "grey" somewhere???

     Posted by Mask at 01/18/2006 @ 3:19pm

279. We have nothing to fear but fear itself was the powerful message delivered by Al Gore. I voted for him in 2000 but didn't think much of him at the time. I love the hell out of him now. He's really found his voice. I would easily take him over Hillary Clinton and John Kerry in '08.

     Linked text [intrepidliberaljournal.blogspot.com]

     Posted by trebor007 at 01/18/2006 @ 3:25pm

280. TREBOR

     Could you point to the lines where Gore referenced "nothing to fear but fear itself" or anything like that?

     Posted by Mask at 01/18/2006 @ 3:36pm

281. I've never seen anybody post anything here that wasn't doctrinaire on some level, and that includes Mask. When Mask is challenged on his capitalist ideology, he hauls out the old tired illustration or example of widgets, as if contemporary capital in the United States has anything to do with terms of actual production. From there, he falls into the same tired denunciations of socialism we get from third year students of political science. It's party line thinking, just party line thinking that's a little more flexible. But it's still doctrinaire.

     Posted by bkarloff at 01/18/2006 @ 3:42pm

282. LL

     re: political shenanigans...

     Yeah, Them damned lying ammoral Left-wingers... After all, its not like the bible-thumping POTUS is an ex-drug user flagrantly violating the Constitution. Ooops...he is, my bad!

     Posted by leftofcenter at 01/18/2006 @ 4:00pm

283. BK

     You really know you've struck oil when they pretend you don't exist!

     Posted by leftofcenter at 01/18/2006 @ 4:01pm

284. LOC,

     Where did I reference political shenanigans?

     Posted by love liberty at 01/18/2006 @ 4:29pm

285. Posted by MASK 01/18/2006 @ 06:53am

     for WILLC and the rest who don't seem to get Gore's hypocrisy about "vigilant adherence to the rule of law"....

     It's not about "lying about sex versus lying about war"...Want to say BOTH sides are automatically guilty....OK, fine with me...but THIS is how it breaks down then-

     No one is guilty for Clinton's behavior other than Clinton. After all this isn't Saddam's Iraq.

     Clinton committed perjury to a grand jury and Bush violated the Constitutional protections of the 4th Amendment with "NSA-Spygate"....there, happy?

     And only Clinton paid for his actions: not happy

     Now, the problem is Gore is STILL a hypocrite on his "vigilant adherence" because what he's saying is "Bust that guy for robbing that bank ...but ignore the fact that the counterfeiter I worked for got a $50 fine".

     working for a guy counterfeiting behind your back and robbing a bank are to very different things. The latter means you go to jail and the former means you go look for a new job.

     It ain't going to play, because Gore has NO credibility on lecturing people on the need for a tough stance on crimes committed by Presidents!

     Sure he does, and because gore said "vigilant" and not "tough" then you are still a lying sack of shit.

     How many times do I have to point that out?

     Posted by Will C. at 01/18/2006 @ 5:02pm

286. To further my previous analogy of the far right's view of the world as it relates to design concepts, and in so doing, explain methods used for compensating per the lack of seeing shades of gray. As this relates directly to grasping perspective and creating balance, I'll make a unique proposal. The far right, like students with a learning disability, need either an accommodation to level the playing field or a way to learn how to (over) compensate for their inability to see tone or value. Since the distortion in part negates the ability to notice the need for an accommodation, I'll skip that one and move right into explaining the over compensation. As stated previously, the far right's inability to see grays flattens out reality and distorts space via seeing everything simply in black and white. However, some may have developed the concepts of 'foreshortening' and/or 'overlapping' in order to create a type of perspective. Relying on just one or both of these concepts without the ability to see shades of gray will cause various distortions. The primary one is that they do not believe that shades of gray really do actually exist. (They ridicule those that do as talking superstition and myth. Naturally those with the ability to see values with all the various levels of subtlety feel like the fault is their own at first. Eventually those that see the grays discuss it amongst themselves creating communities, as those communities that don't, plan on making laws prohibiting any use related to the shades of gray, since the concept doesn't really exist-- nor should it, as it's viewed as against nature, country and/or god.)

     Posted by Bushfools at 01/18/2006 @ 5:32pm

287. Another distortion is caused via overlapping. Overlapping without seeing grays sometimes causes shapes to merge into one big shape rather than several distinctly different forms with various tones and in distinctly different distances from one another. This causes enormous blind spots understanding distance. (Thus the confusion with different cultures and countries, thus Iraq merges into Afghanistan...) (This also affects seeing subtleties in color as in maps of blue and red where they are all really tertiary variations of purple.)

     Posted by Bushfools at 01/18/2006 @ 5:35pm

288. This obvious Bush-dupe Mask, said he voted for John Kerry.

     Bill Clinton has nothing to do with Bush spying on Americans, torturing people, and plunging America into the worst quagmire since Vietnam on the basis of a pack of lies.

     Bill Clinton got a blowjob and he said under oath it wasnt sex.

     Ken Starr didnt press charges after Clinton left office, he could have. Ken Starrs reason - it would give the wrong message to children if the President were charged with a crime.

     Ken Starr didnt press criminal charges against Clinton, he could have, he was a right-wing partisan, he hated Clinton, he thought Clinton was a terrible President, and as the lead attorney for Brown and Willliams tobacco company he hated Bill Clinton for trying to save teenagers from being killed by the tobacco companies. Yet, he didnt press criminal charges, he said it would send the wrong message.

     Bill Clinton is not the one signing LAWS passed by 90 Senators, with a signging statement saying "screw you, 90 Senators".

     Posted by reidsucks at 01/18/2006 @ 5:55pm

289. Overlapping without shades of gray can also distort time. Because objects at a distance merge with objects closer to an individual, the ability to tell when one is going to arrive at a particular object becomes so unpredictable as to be arbitrary. (Thus one hears what eventually amount to stupid statements like: Mission Accomplished, Brownies doin' a heck of a job, I'm taking a short vacation,…)

     Posted by Bushfools at 01/18/2006 @ 5:55pm

290. bushfools, that is beautiful. you should write a book.

     Posted by loveloki at 01/18/2006 @ 6:37pm

291. Coming soon...

     Bush spied on peace activists and political opponents -

     Bush spied on domestic phone calls, not just overseas -

     Conservatives defending the above with Clinton & the kitchen sink

     Posted by reidsucks at 01/18/2006 @ 6:44pm

292. Reid, of course, had they been spying legally they would have gotten the warrants

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/18/2006 @ 6:46pm

293. Ken Starr CHOSE not to file criminal charges against Bill Clinton, when Clinton left office. He could have, he was partisan enough, yet he didnt do it. Why?

     George Bush is torturing people, starting wars based on lies, attending "HOLIDAY" events with Jack Abramoff (not Christmas), and here he is spying on all his friends making sure they dont leak the truth to the American people.

     Posted by reidsucks at 01/18/2006 @ 6:46pm

294. Now I'll discuss the design concept of ‘foreshortening' without shades of gray and how it distorts the far right's perception of reality. One will develop the concept of foreshortening early on in childhood. Unlike overlapping where one can play hide and seek by simply covering a toy with your hand and the child believes the toy has literally disappeared from existence, as in if you can't see it, it doesn't exist (i.e., prewar intel, budget, torture, illegal spying…). Overlapping is very dynamic. Without this concept when a child sees someone approach, the person's head appears to the child to be blowing up like a balloon ready to explode and thus a very startled child. Thus one will learn to compensate size with distance via shades of gray when one sees the detail on the form's surface. This development is extremely important. Imagine if you will, these big black shapes, without shades of gray to distinguish distance, time and size--are constantly coming at you. Wouldn't that make you extremely paranoid? It would me if I were not able to make those necessary subtle distinctions. Thus the fear factor and why the BC BS regime voices their fears constantly. The far right's inability to see shades of gray, tones/values, should be seen as a special disability by those of us that do, not as a choice they can make.

     And finally, I'd like to state that I strongly believe that the far right, whether or not they would ever be able to admit it, need the help of those that can see in shades of gray, the far left, left, moderates and progressives-- in order to clean up this enormous mess. Eventually if we are successful, we may be able to then afford to fund research into finding a cure for this disability and perhaps even education and all our people will stop living in fear and distortion simply because they're unable to see in shades of gray.

     Posted by Bushfools at 01/18/2006 @ 7:10pm

295. i really wish clinton would have said, "none of your business."

     Posted by loveloki at 01/18/2006 @ 7:11pm

296. bushfools, once again, beautiful. please write a book.

     Posted by loveloki at 01/18/2006 @ 7:13pm

297. Posted by BUSHFOOLS 01/18/2006 @ 7:10pm

     should read: 'Foreshortening' is very dynamic. Without this concept when a child sees someone approach, the person's head appears to the child to be blowing up like a balloon ready to explode and thus a very startled child.

     Posted by Bushfools at 01/18/2006 @ 7:21pm

298. bushfools, once again, beautiful. please write a book. Posted by LOVELOKI 01/18/2006 @ 7:13pm | ignore this person

     Thanks, I plan to when I edit my time down to doing just one job, when my daughter is out of college in 2 1/2 more years.

     Posted by Bushfools at 01/18/2006 @ 7:29pm

299. Yes, we should not think of Al Gore as the career public servant whose strength was his dedication and commitment to ecological responsibility and a sustainable energy policy, but instead reduce his life to one of failure and irrelevance because he "lost" the 2000 election (by positive 500,000 votes) and served as vice president for a man who lied to a grand jury about having sex with a consenting woman. Or we can characterize him as a liar if we're intellectually lazy and it makes us feel better, though the real fabrications are found only in the misrepresentations of his accusers (Eric Alterman from this magazine did good work regarding Gore's supposed history of lying).

     As American industries continue to decay and lose market shares to competitors, and our number one employer is a low wage retail chain that relies on cheap goods from Chinese sweat shops- our bloated military will become more of an economic necessity. All of you apologists for state-sponsored military aggression will have much to cheer about.

     And someone was comparing Clinton to Republican presidents for title of worst leader: my vote after GW, is Reagan. How can you top a guy who campaigns on tough leadership against our "enemies" and then immediately begins to secretly sell them military weapons?! Or during the Iraq/Iran war, how the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency was secretly providing members of The Iraqi general staff detailed info on Iranian troop deployments, knowing that Iraq was using poison gas against the Iranian troops. Reagan even tried to blame the gassing of Kurdish villagers by Hussein, on the Iranians. And this is for you LoveLiberty: How do you justify the horrors of Central America during the 1980s and early 90s? Your support of brutal death squads: like the Atacatl Battalion in El Salvador. Liberty, I'm aware of you mentioning your wife having grown up there. My girlfriend just came back from a town 30kms or so from El Mozote: site of the 1981 massacre of the entire village, more than 200 men, women and children. Murdered by the Salvadoran govt using American helicoptors, guns, and bullets- and also the troops were trained by the American military. And now we are killing Middle eastern men, women and children...And LL, if you are dedicating your work towards those living in poverty and misery, I commend your personal achievements, but your personal work appears greatly contradicted by your political support for these vicious and corrupt political hacks who ALWAYS place their own business and economic interests ahead of any concern for humanity.

     Posted by Oustbush at 01/18/2006 @ 7:29pm

300. Bushfools,

     Interesting read. I think you have been spending some time looking at black spots on white papers perhaps?

     :)

     Posted by john maasch at 01/18/2006 @ 7:48pm

301. Outsbush,

     So, then the answer is we need a left wing Savior? Then all will be "righted" in the world, so to speak? Ah, someone like, ah, Dean?or Hillary? or who? in your mind would be the one to save America from Satan(BUSH)?

     I REALLY need to know.

     Posted by john maasch at 01/18/2006 @ 7:51pm

302. I think you have been spending some time looking at black spots on white papers perhaps?

     :)

     Posted by JOHN MAASCH 01/18/2006 @ 7:48pm

     you mean reading.

     I think so too

     you should try it John

     Posted by Will C. at 01/18/2006 @ 7:58pm

303. Wllc,

     You don't like me do you?

     Posted by john maasch at 01/18/2006 @ 8:01pm

304. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 01/18/2006 @ 8:01pm

     like has nothing to do with it

     Posted by Will C. at 01/18/2006 @ 8:03pm

305. Hate?, Apathy? any human emotion involved? surely not lust......fear?

     Posted by john maasch at 01/18/2006 @ 8:06pm

306. Come on will, lighten up..If you lived next door to me you would be on my couch drinking my beer...and fiuring out where to eat dinner...

     Posted by john maasch at 01/18/2006 @ 8:11pm

307. Hate?, Apathy? any human emotion involved? surely not lust......fear?

     Posted by JOHN MAASCH 01/18/2006 @ 8:06pm

     Hate has nothing to do with it

     Apathy has nothing to do with it

     Lust has nothing to do with it

     Fear has nothing to do with it

     Posted by Will C. at 01/18/2006 @ 8:15pm

308. Come on will, lighten up..If you lived next door to me you would be on my couch drinking my beer...and fiuring out where to eat dinner...

     Posted by JOHN MAASCH 01/18/2006 @ 8:11pm

     I don't drink

     and you don't pay attention

     Posted by Will C. at 01/18/2006 @ 8:16pm

309. I will give you a glass of water and

     pay attention....sure, just depends on what..

     Posted by john maasch at 01/18/2006 @ 8:23pm

310. I just don't happen to agree with you or your ideas and beliefs. It doesn't mean I don't pay attention or have compassion or respect for you. I just disagree.

     Posted by john maasch at 01/18/2006 @ 8:24pm

311. pay attention....sure, just depends on what..

     Posted by JOHN MAASCH 01/18/2006 @ 8:23pm

     I recommend starting with the little things

     Posted by Will C. at 01/18/2006 @ 8:26pm

312. I just don't happen to agree with you or your ideas and beliefs. It doesn't mean I don't pay attention or have compassion or respect for you. I just disagree.

     Posted by JOHN MAASCH 01/18/2006 @ 8:24pm

     anything else?

     Posted by Will C. at 01/18/2006 @ 8:28pm

313. no,

     How have I offened you?

     Posted by john maasch at 01/18/2006 @ 8:29pm

314. How have I offened you?

     Posted by JOHN MAASCH 01/18/2006 @ 8:29pm

     you come by quite often

     Posted by Will C. at 01/18/2006 @ 8:34pm

315. My existance here offends you?

     Posted by john maasch at 01/18/2006 @ 8:35pm

316. My existance here offends you?

     Posted by JOHN MAASCH 01/18/2006 @ 8:35pm

     No

     it doesn't

     Posted by Will C. at 01/18/2006 @ 8:36pm

317. LL

     Was referring to your mixed personal/political at: Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 01/18/2006 @ 12:41am

     Posted by leftofcenter at 01/18/2006 @ 8:36pm

318. So what do you mean? Maybe if you answer in more than a few words I may understand

     Posted by john maasch at 01/18/2006 @ 8:38pm

319. So what do you mean? Maybe if you answer in more than a few words I may understand

     Posted by JOHN MAASCH 01/18/2006 @ 8:38pm

     your making assertions that aren't true.

     making you aware of your error is all that is neccesary

     Posted by Will C. at 01/18/2006 @ 8:41pm

320. "your making assertions that aren't true. "

     Such as..

     Posted by john maasch at 01/18/2006 @ 8:42pm

321. My existance here offends you?

     Posted by JOHN MAASCH 01/18/2006 @ 8:35pm

     No

     it doesn't

     Posted by WILL C. 01/18/2006 @ 8:36pm

     Pay attention

     it wasn't that long ago

     Posted by Will C. at 01/18/2006 @ 8:43pm

322. andall that necessary for what?

     Posted by john maasch at 01/18/2006 @ 8:44pm

323. andall that necessary for what?

     Posted by JOHN MAASCH 01/18/2006 @ 8:44pm

     illustration

     Posted by Will C. at 01/18/2006 @ 8:46pm

324. Will C & John Maasch - Get a room, go to direct email or just stop this inane back and forth

     Posted by Fishbite at 01/18/2006 @ 8:48pm

325. Thanks for the lesson..

     dinner time.

     Posted by john maasch at 01/18/2006 @ 8:48pm

326. Fishbite,

     good point, I am done, sorry

     Posted by john maasch at 01/18/2006 @ 8:49pm

327. Outsbush,

     So, then the answer is we need a left wing Savior? Then all will be "righted" in the world, so to speak? Ah, someone like, ah, Dean?or Hillary? or who? in your mind would be the one to save America from Satan(BUSH)?

     I REALLY need to know.

     Posted by JOHN MAASCH 01/18/2006 @ 7:51pm

     John,

     Yes, the probability will be greatest that my political preference will be found on the left... though nobody really jumps out at me, perhaps Feingold will have to suffice. I don't know. I think that the best president we've had over the past hundred years or so was FDR, and he was forced to adopt policies that positively affected ordinary people's lives because unregulated capitalism destroyed the economy beyond anything we had ever witnessed. Bush is making a good case for major reforms, as he is even alienating conservatives with his radicalism. I understand that you believe in free market capitalism, but it is a myth: those in power always use the state to their advantage, all that crap about "get the gvt off our backs" is pure garbage. All governments protect and subsidize their industries with taxpayer dollars. And as much as I would have preferred a Gore 2000 victory (I didn't vote for him), Bush is stirring up the apathy among the American people. I sucks that things had to deteriorate to this degree for people to begin waking up and feeling any sense of democratic obligation or responsibility. I realize that standard political protocol is to pull a voting lever every 4 yrs and then let the big boys govern us as they please; us commoners should stay out of the way and not interfere in the systematic looting of our national wealth and resourses (deregulation, abolishing taxes paid by the wealthy, etc.)

     Posted by Oustbush at 01/18/2006 @ 8:50pm

328. Thanks for the lesson..

     dinner time.

     Posted by JOHN MAASCH 01/18/2006 @ 8:48pm

     I've taught nothing

     and you've learned nothing

     remember to chew before you swallow

     Posted by Will C. at 01/18/2006 @ 8:50pm

329. Correct will, you have taught nothing.

     Posted by john maasch at 01/18/2006 @ 9:09pm

330. Correct will, you have taught nothing.

     Posted by JOHN MAASCH 01/18/2006 @ 9:09pm

     Glad I could clear that up

     Posted by Will C. at 01/18/2006 @ 9:12pm

331. Please John Maasch and Will C. Can't we all just get along?

     Posted by blue photon at 01/18/2006 @ 10:14pm

332. Sure he does, and because gore said "vigilant" and not "tough"

     Posted by WILL C. 01/18/2006 @ 5:02pm

     Interesting "difference", WILL....so you just want to be "vigilant" about Bush...not "tough" on him?

     Posted by Mask at 01/18/2006 @ 10:34pm

333. Interesting "difference", WILL....so you just want to be "vigilant" about Bush...not "tough" on him?

     Posted by MASK 01/18/2006 @ 10:34pm

     yes

     But the thing of interest is how you insist on changing Gore's words.

     But then you can't make your argument without the slight of hand

     Posted by Will C. at 01/18/2006 @ 10:49pm

334. WILL

     I have used Gore's EXACT words..."Vigilant adherence to the rule of law is essential"....YOU want "vigilant" to mean something else.

     Something where Clinton committing perjury is a minor offense, and a slap on the wrist (his law license revocation...which BTW ended yesterday...ironic timing) punishment and Gore's failure to fully comment on that.....STILL gives him credibility to say that line about Bush.

     I also haven't even GOTTEN to this one..."A president who breaks the law is a threat to the very structure of our government."

     Except for perjury, right, Al?

     Posted by Mask at 01/19/2006 @ 06:55am

335. I'll try to put this as simply as posible, not because there are those of you that can't grasp complex thoughts (there are), but because I want to limit the spin as much as possible. Here goes.

     Is it legal, according to our Constitution and Legislative actions over the past 200 + years, for the President or anybody in his employ, to eavesdrop on American citizens without a warrant?

     This is a yes or no question. It requires no discussion of the following: Gore, Clinton (either one), Lincoln, Carter, Bush, etc. Have at it.

     Posted by Turk33 at 01/19/2006 @ 10:10am

336. Dammit, Turk!

     Are you blind?!

     Take away the faceless electronic bile spewing and the partisan "Nyaah nyaah nyaah" and the terrorists have won...

     Posted by drhammer at 01/19/2006 @ 10:20am

337. Turk,

     I can hear the sound of the birds chirping while we wait for the RIGHTeous answer to that question.

     Posted by freedomplease at 01/19/2006 @ 10:26am

338. I started trying to read all this stuff but I got stopped by a phrase in John Nichols' original piece which is quite astonishing in its self-delusion: "The Bush-Cheney interregnum."

     As in, the temporary, accidental interruption of the natural state of things, to wit, a Democratic president.

     You have to be BONKERS to imagine that that is the case. I mean, let's take 1968 as the beginning of the modern era. And let's give the left the benefit of the dispute and say they won 2000 and even, if you add Gore and Nader together, crossed the 50% mark.

     The fact remains that the Republicans have WON the presidency six out of ten times. (Oh shut up about Ohio and Diebold, you're being a nut. Bush beat Kerry by a comfortable margin.) Several of those elections were by pretty substantial margins which gave the Republicans a share of the vote in the mid to high 50s. NO single Democratic presidential candidate has won more than 50% of the vote since Jimmy Carter (who got a whopping 50.1%). And one guy who won twice did so with figures well below 50% in three-way elections which otherwise tilted strongly right (Bush + Perot and Dole + Perot are both well over 50%).

     2000 maybe looked like the beginning of a revival of progressive politics. And then in September 2001, reality smacked it hard in the face and the Democrats have done everything they can to make people want the hardnosed foreign outlook of the GOP. Until you understand that sort of thing, you understand nothing about the electorate you're trying to win, and will have to content yourself with ridiculous fantasies about things like impeachment, which I see as a topic of conversation has now caught fire and spread from one issue of The Nation to... the next issue of The Nation.

     Posted by Mgmax at 01/19/2006 @ 10:33am

339. MGMAX

     There is absolutely nothing stopping a Democrat from becoming President WITH a 50+% margin of the vote (electoral and popular)...

     except the liberal base of the Democratic Party.

     As long as they insist that their candidates bow and scrape during the primaries at the old altars of the "anti-war movement", the unions, the NEA, "urban leaders", "civil rights 'leaders'", etc. and put themselves out of the mainstream before they even reach the Convention....where they get hit AGAIN with an array of speakers on the podium sounding like Norman Thomas reborn.

     Clinton won on THREE things....1. Dems were tired of being out of office for 12 years and the liberal base thought Bill was "kidding" about being a "New Democrat".

     2. He himself tried to sound more conservative than Bush-41.

     and 3. Perot. Everybody denies it, but if Perot hadn't been in it...a lot of those fiscal cons who worried about the deficit would have done a "lesser of two evils" and voted Bush. Especially since, if you'll remember, Clinton TOO was promising a "middle class tax cut" along with his new "investments" (We STILL live with that double-talk).

     In 2008, Dems have a good shot at it....UNLESS, guys like "The Nation" start calling the Candidate (whoever he or SHE is) a "Republican-lite" or sell-out and try to push them over into "Populism Land" (population: Al Gore and John Edwards).

     We'll see....

     Posted by Mask at 01/19/2006 @ 10:51am

340. Maxi, so you're cool with the warrantless spying, the illegal war, the imperial presidency, the torture, the kidnapping, not to mention the previous' pres' impeachment

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/19/2006 @ 10:51am

341. Is it legal, according to our Constitution and Legislative actions over the past 200 + years, for the President or anybody in his employ, to eavesdrop on American citizens without a warrant?

     Still waiting...

     Posted by Turk33 at 01/19/2006 @ 11:07am

342. So far Turk has waited one hour and fifteen minutes for a straight answer to a straight question.

     I thought the right(eous) was all about straight talking plainspeak?

     Posted by freedomplease at 01/19/2006 @ 11:19am

343. Turk & Free

     Comes under the "inconvenient facts" category I'm afraid....thus the din is underwhelming!

     Posted by leftofcenter at 01/19/2006 @ 11:36am

344. two hours.

     Posted by freedomplease at 01/19/2006 @ 12:09pm

345. 3. Perot. Everybody denies it, but if Perot hadn't been in it...a lot of those fiscal cons who worried about the deficit would have done a "lesser of two evils" and voted Bush.

     I don't deny it. All you have to do to see who Perot took his votes from is look at WHERE he got votes-- the libertarian West and Southwest. His strongest states were the strongest Republican states-- places like Wyoming and Kansas (even with Dole running). Without Perot, no Clinton in '92, and even a dubious, tired candidate like Dole in '96 has to be assumed the presumptive winner. The Republicans just start with a five to seven point advantage out of the box, which is why they just have to motivate their base and win a smidgen of the middle, while the Democrats have to woo a big block from the middle (nearly impossible for the reasons you say).

     Posted by Mgmax at 01/19/2006 @ 12:18pm

346. MGMAX

     Easiest prediction in the world to make...somebody here at "The Nation"...come October 2008, even with the MOST "DLC/centrist/Third Way" Democrat as nominee...will publish an article essentially saying "Ok, **** isn't that great, but we SHOULD vote for him/her, and then 'hold their feet to the fire' in a way that we DIDN'T under Clinton....After all, the alternative is disasterous for the American people."

     And if they don't...and they try to sound like some of the bloggers or Daily Kos or some of the fringe hosts on Air America...two things will happen.

     1. The Dem wins anyway...and the liberal base is then proven to be irrelevant and easily ignored.

     2. The Dem loses...and the DNC goes through yet another 4 years like the last, of "real Democrats" blaming the "Republican-lites" for the loss and "centrists" blaming the "kook fringe" for the loss.

     Posted by Mask at 01/19/2006 @ 12:36pm

347. correction..."two things will happen"...should be "can happen"

     Posted by Mask at 01/19/2006 @ 12:36pm

348. MGMAX & Mask,

     Other than trying to avoid Turk's question, what is your point?

     Hu fucking ray if the Republicans win. Yip de fucking do if they lose. Republicrat and Democans are the same thing to most of the posters on this website.

     We're idealists, dreamers. We want real change not just a change in the packaging. We don't care whether the box is wrapped in red or blue we want a different box and if it takes more than our whole life for the electorate to see it the way we do then so be it.

     Strategizing about how to change the color of the wrapping is your distraction and passion. Not mine. I'd rather have no box at all than more of the same old boxes.

     Posted by freedomplease at 01/19/2006 @ 12:46pm

349. MBB

     Go look up the definition of 'eavesdrop' (here is a link to dictionary.com) then report back to us on Turk's question.

     Posted by skeletonman at 01/19/2006 @ 1:12pm

350. or perhaps, I should save you the trouble of cutting and pasting:

     eavesdrop (v): to listen secretly to the private conversation of others.

     Posted by skeletonman at 01/19/2006 @ 1:15pm

351. any input on the new obl tape? the fact that 3 or 4 high ranking al queda men killed in pakistan?

     Posted by loveloki at 01/19/2006 @ 1:16pm

352. MBB re: your 1315 post (for some reason I cannot cut and paste myself at the moment).

     Your example of Bill Smith is EXACTLY what FISA was designed to guard against. Your boy has circumvented the law and continues to do so.

     Posted by skeletonman at 01/19/2006 @ 1:18pm

353. MBB,

     Since I have read your answer to Turk I assume you will only be happy when America is as totalitarian as Stalinist Russia was.

     The type of change I advocate you couldn't even fathom.

     Posted by freedomplease at 01/19/2006 @ 1:21pm

354. FREE....

     "and if it takes more than our whole life for the electorate to see it the way we do then so be it."

     So claims of "imminent Revolution in this country" can be discounted?...I mean, Geez, McGovern was 34 years ago now!

     Posted by Mask at 01/19/2006 @ 1:21pm

355. I'm under no obligation to answer whatever the question was of whoever Turk is. I am making a separate point which, incidentally, is not a prediction except insofar as examination of past trends is useful when they are likely to continue unchanged.

     Freedomplease, at what point do you decide that your tactics are not only NOT going to lead the electorate in your direction some sunny day, but helping drive it in the other direction? I'm a lifelong Democrat (until the last election) who simply no longer trusts his party to do anything more than scratch the back of its largest donors. At least when the other guys do the same, they do it despite me, not with my implicit connivance. When my party is willing to open its mind on some key issues-- defense, foreign policy, digital rights, school choice, whatever-- and risk offending some big donors like Hollywood and the NEA, then you'll win me back. Taxing me harder so I can have a health care system even less responsive than my HMO, and pretending there's nothing going on in the world that we need to do anything about (except apologize to religious fascists), ain't gonna do it.

     Posted by Mgmax at 01/19/2006 @ 1:24pm

356. MBB,

     You know that's why we had the Patriot Act right?

     I mean if you don't like the Law you are free to go through the process of having it changed as President, but not of breaking it.

     Perhaps Clinton thought the law about lying to a Grand Jury was outdated....it doesn't mean he can ignore it.

     Posted by freedomplease at 01/19/2006 @ 1:29pm

357. MARY: "Yes, without question. Any federal employ can listen in on a conversation taking place in public on any citizen speaking in public. That is perfectly legal."

     Thanks--that's a really nice simple answer. But by 'in public', I assume you mean anywhere on the planet.

     My question is: Why did we need FISA in the first place? And what was wrong with what Nixon did?

     Posted by rain man at 01/19/2006 @ 1:31pm

358. I notice it's very silent here about the startling statement made by Chirac that France will not rule out using nuclear weapons against terorrists....this is part of your beloved, more civilized Europe.

     BREST, France (Reuters) - France said on Thursday it would be ready to use nuclear weapons against any state that carried out a terrorist attack or used weapons of mass destruction against it.

     Reaffirming the need for its costly nuclear deterrent, President Jacques Chirac said security came at a price and France must be able to hit back hard at a hostile state's centers of power and its "capacity to act."

     http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060119/wl_nm/nuclear_arms_france_dc

     Where is the outrage on the left for this kind of threat? Perhaps the silence itself is quite revealing.

     Posted by love liberty at 01/19/2006 @ 1:33pm

359. "The overarching problem is that FISA, written in 1978, is technologically antediluvian. It was drafted by legislators who had no concept of how terrorists could communicate in the 21st century or the technology that would be invented to intercept those communications."

     So that makes it ok to break the law? Please.

     If FISA is SOOOOOOOOOOOOO pre 9/11, why didn't Dubya and the cabal ask Congress to change it (Congress would have worn kneepads and swallowed immediately post 9/11)?

     Answer: because flouting FISA is at least as much about gathering power under President Cheney as it is about fighting the bad guys.

     Bottom Line: Bushco are systematically lowering us (American Citizens) towards the level of the terrorists by failing to fight for the PRINCIPLES that make us who we are. By exchewing the rule of law, Bush is making us more like the very people he purports to protect us from on a daily basis.

     Posted by skeletonman at 01/19/2006 @ 1:35pm

360. I'm hoping against hope that there is just one Democratic Senator with the intestinal fortitude to filibuster the Aito confirmation vote. If not, I will have to consider leaving the Democratic Party and become an independent.

     Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/19/2006 @ 1:39pm

     Wow, Frank is about to leave the Dems. Will it be the Greens, the Democratic Socialists? Who will tweak your fancy?

     Posted by love liberty at 01/19/2006 @ 1:43pm

361. MGMAX,

     Your refusal to answer Turk's question is not suprising given that it is not open to spin and when somebody tries to spin it like Mary just did they end up with egg on their face.

     If you are sincere in what you say about your history of affiliation then you are similar to me in that you feel that the allegiance of the Democtatic party is not with you.

     However, I question your stance since the NEA is a recipient of gov't funding....but anyway. My problem with the Democrats is that they are too similar to the Republicans in that their allegiance has shifted towards where they get their campaign contributions from which is corporate America, as unionized America has been gutted and is thus not a significant source of campaign funding.

     Your problem (as you see it) is they have shifted too far to the left and you have some notion that the money is not increasingly coming from corporate America.

     Big business in the USA controls the elected branches of government and the media. The elcted branches of government are in the process of installing a pro big business third branch of government.

     I want the American government to be "by the people and for the people". I'm not interested in some defacto facsist government that's elected because there is only a choice between one facsist party or another facsist party.

     Posted by freedomplease at 01/19/2006 @ 1:43pm

362. an empty bluff? oh my god. so chirac said we're gonna nuke people who commit a terrorist act or weapons of mass destruction against france!!!!! wow. that is a very divisive and tricky statement. if someone releases some bizarre biological weapon on france and decimates most of their population, they get nuked. if someone blasts a subway or a building, they get nuked.

     wow, it looks like someone has learned from and surpassed bush.

     i, for one, find this statement extremely upsetting.

     Posted by loveloki at 01/19/2006 @ 1:52pm

363. Frank,

     Mary knows Bush IS spying on his political enemies (or he'd apply for warrants). He just will not admit he knows.

     Ignorance is bliss.

     Posted by freedomplease at 01/19/2006 @ 1:54pm

364. Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 01/19/2006 @ 1:33pm

     France is entitled to react with nukes if they feel they are going to be annihilated. So is Israel, North Korea, India, America or even Iran. Isn't that Dubya's philosophy?

     Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/19/2006 @ 1:48pm

     Frank,

     That is a meager attempt to ignore the point (which none of your liberal compatriots seem willing to address).

     For nearly 4 years, conservatives have been constantly hit with the comments by liberal/progressives about how Bush was such an out of control danger because he wasn't joining with the civilized nations like France. Now Chirac makes this kind of threatening statement to the terrorists and the silence on the left is deafening.

     And note carefully, Chirac said nothing about the threat of annihilation. He said even a terrorist attack or using weapons of mass destruction. So, presumably, if Paris suffered an attack similar to London's last year, Chirac may use nuclear weapons against the terrorists. Where has Bush made a threat on that level?

     Posted by love liberty at 01/19/2006 @ 1:58pm

365. MBB

     I notice that you have yet to complete the assignment I gave you regarding the definition of 'eavesdropping.' Instead, you are offering scenario after scenario under which your point of view is presumably justified, only to have those examples refuted again and again.

     Your latest example is once again covered under FISA (at least as I understand it - I am not an attorney but can read with a reasonable degree of aplomb): presuming Bill Smith is a 'United States person,' eavesdropping on BS would be illegal in Paris w/o benefit of warrant (w/in 72h of onset of survellience).

     As to the moral questions with which you attempt to divert the discussion, I respond thus:

     Suppose I think that the war in Iraq is a moral travesty, brought about by a lying sack of dog crap, an unholy power-seeking second-in-command and a cabal of conspirators seeking world domination for purposes known best to themselves, am I justified in withholding that portion of my tax dollars commensurate with my "share" of said war? Of course, this ignores the fact that in Bushco's rush to establish entitlement programs for the wealthiest of all Americans (you call them 'tax cuts'), it is in fact my grandchildren's children who will be paying for his misadventure, but you, I hope, get the idea.

     Posted by skeletonman at 01/19/2006 @ 1:58pm

366. .

     BIN LADEN'S CHALLENGE TO U.S.

     OBL offers a truce. OBL offers a threat. What does Al Gore say about that? What says The Nation?

     Is there anybody out there who can think? Anybody other than cracked bells endlessly tolling in belfries filled with flapping bats!

     HOW'D YOU ANSWER AL-QAEDA?

     .

     Posted by nacl at 01/19/2006 @ 2:00pm

367. MARY:

     You say the spying is being done only on known terrorists. First of all, how do you know that? Secondly, if this is true, why can't it be done within the framework of the existing law?

     Posted by rain man at 01/19/2006 @ 2:01pm

368. SKELETONMAN, Don't make me look up 'antediluvian'.

     Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/19/2006 @ 1:51pm | ignore this person

     an·te·di·lu·vi·an ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nt-d-lv-n) adj.

     Extremely old and antiquated. See Synonyms at old.

     Bible. Occurring or belonging to the era before the Flood.

     Posted by skeletonman at 01/19/2006 @ 2:01pm

369. You can attempt to have a private conversation in a public place. If you do, the feds can listen in without breaking the law.

     Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 01/19/2006 @ 2:01pm | ignore this person

     If you do, then you have no reasonable expectation of privacy and deserve what you get. You miss the point, however.

     By definition, eavesdropping includes an invasion of privacy. Parse words if you will, but fact is, as the question was presented by Turk, the government does not have a right to invade the privacy of an American citizen without probable cause and said probable cause is made manifest in the form of a warrant.

     This is true no matter how noble the intentions of the government might be, or how heinous the actions of the citizen. We call this the "Rule of Law." For further details, see 4th Amendment.

     Posted by skeletonman at 01/19/2006 @ 2:09pm

370. an·te·di·lu·vi·an, synonym, LL

     Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/19/2006 @ 2:05pm | ignore this person

     I like it, though I worry that this might fall under the category of 'personal attacks.'

     Posted by skeletonman at 01/19/2006 @ 2:10pm

371. You probably feel that the silence is deafening because we on the left have always known that Chirac has a set.

     Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/19/2006 @ 2:01pm | ignore this person

     Or did you mean 'a pair?'

     Posted by skeletonman at 01/19/2006 @ 2:13pm

372. Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 01/19/2006 @ 1:33pm

     Two reasons, I'd guess....

     1. They know Chirac is just bluffing, and the terrorists figure the truth is....with a little nose-bleed, Chirac will set up a new government in VICHY, if they ask them to.

     or 2. It's France....they can nuke anybody they want to, as long as they have unlimited unemployment benefits, no firings, "free" health care, and call Bush "stooopid".

     Unless it's some iguanas in Polynesia...THEN the Left will send a Greenpeace boat after them Froggies!

     Posted by Mask at 01/19/2006 @ 2:17pm

373. Got to run, we are having an emergency strategy meeting of Fascists for Bush. We are trying to work up a good strategy for the next round of liberties we can take away from lefties. The top measure currently would be to take away the right of leftists to enter a Starbucks without a body search.

     Onward and upward comrades.

     Posted by love liberty at 01/19/2006 @ 2:26pm

374. LL,

     When was the last time you paid any attention to anything that France has done?

     Mary....is there anyone home Mary?

     You get a warrant if you don't mind a juiciary knowing who you just spied on. You don't get a warrant if you do mind the judiciary knowing who you just spied on. No need to worry about kid raping and conundrums of time, this one is very simple I'm afraid.

     Posted by freedomplease at 01/19/2006 @ 2:27pm

375. .

     BIN LADEN CHALLENGES AMERICA

     You All

     want to defend the country against the White House.

     How do you defend her against exploding subways, collapsing bridges, blasted tunnels, burning department stores, electricity blowouts, poisoned water?

     .

     Posted by nacl at 01/19/2006 @ 2:30pm

376. Mary,

     With that polling question it should be 99%.

     If you say "ever getting warrants" then it would be about 10%.

     What's your point?

     Posted by freedomplease at 01/19/2006 @ 2:52pm

377. Frank: "I'm hoping against hope that there is just one Democratic Senator with the intestinal fortitude to filibuster the Aito confirmation vote. If not, I will have to consider leaving the Democratic Party and become an independent."

     Don't do it, Frank. In spite of their failings, the democrats are our only chance of stopping the neocons ruinous agenda.

     NACL, you are the perfect fool for Osama. You seem to think Osama bin Laden is stupid. He is not stupid and he understands more about our society than most of us expect him to. He and his people obviously want to scare us into going Bush's way which he knows is bad for our democracy. Whenever he sees Bush close to losing an election or opinion polls going bad for Bush, he issues another public statement to fire up rubes like you. And, if you really are serious about protecting the country from his next attack, talk to your repubs who control congress. Ask them why they fail to shore up chemical plant security, airport security and security around nuclear plants. Ask them why they cut funding for armed air marshals and high-tech inspection equipment. Ask them why Wyoming gets more homeland security money per capita than New York.

     Posted by BBatten at 01/19/2006 @ 2:55pm

378. I notice it's very silent here about the startling statement made by Chirac that France will not rule out using nuclear weapons against terorrists....this is part of your beloved, more civilized Europe.

     "Fascism is always coming to America, but landing in Europe." --Gunter Grass

     Your refusal to answer Turk's question is not suprising given that it is not open to spin and when somebody tries to spin it like Mary just did they end up with egg on their face.

     Look, for the record I didn't even READ Turk's question. Maybe it's devastating, maybe it's sophomoric, but I'm not obliged to deal with it. I had other fish to fry in my point.

     Oh, and sorry, I meant NEA as in the teacher's union, not NEA as in National Endowment for the Arts (which frankly is too piddly an amount of money to get exercised about either way, if you ask me).

     Your problem (as you see it) is they have shifted too far to the left and you have some notion that the money is not increasingly coming from corporate America.

     A bit presumptuous, FP, telling me how I see my problem... actually, I have no illusion that one side is all about its corporate friends, and the other is about its corporate/union/law firm friends. Which is why, if the Dems want to regain some middle ground, they need to get out of bed with a few of their friends and stand for some things that would appeal to me-- vouchers (an issue that could cut across party and race lines for them if they dared touch it), digital civil liberties, etc.

     Your problem (as I see it) is that you see it in an X axis way, Dems at one end GOP at the other. But there's a Y axis, which is statism versus libertarianism. Find that sweet spot of a little more libertarianism mixed with some Dem values and you can win me. Convince me that all you're going to do is hike my taxes and give 'em to whoever's connected to you, which is what you HAVE done, and you drive me out of your arms if not, exactly, into the other guys'.

     Posted by Mgmax at 01/19/2006 @ 2:56pm

379. Mary on Repubs: "we believe politics stop at the water's edge" Hmmm, interesting....

     Tom Delay: "Bombing a sovereign nation for ill-defined reasons with vague objectives undermines the American stature in the world. The international respect and trust for America has diminished every time we casually let the bombs fly."

     Trent Lott: "My job as majority leader is be supportive of our troops, try to have input as decisions are made and to look at those decisions after they're made ... not to march in lock step with everything the president decides to do."

     Richard Lugar: "This is President Clinton's war, and when he falls flat on his face, that's his problem."

     Sean Hannity: "Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?"

     Tom Delay again: "I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarifiedrules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our overextended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today"

     Mary, it sounded good, but again, reality gets in the way.

     Posted by BBatten at 01/19/2006 @ 3:01pm

380. Is it legal, according to our Constitution and Legislative actions over the past 200 + years, for the President or anybody in his employ, to eavesdrop on American citizens without a warrant?

     Kudos to mary for at least responding. At least he/she/it has the courage to state once and for all that it is ok with him/her/it that Bush does whatever he wants, regardless of the legal, constitutional, moral or ethical motivations/consequences. He/she/it has no problem with the government circumventing the law, even when unnecessary. He/she/it managed to equate those of us who believe in the constitution with some unknown entities that he/she/it knows that wants pedophiles to not go to jail. Not sure where that outlandish claim came from - is the implication that it's the liberals who argue agains rule of law? As he/she/it somehow comes to the conclusion that circumventing the constitution is ok if someone really believes that the law is pesky and a little bothersome?

     OK, MBB has earned the "Ignoring the Constitution" merit badge in the Koolade Klub. Anybody else want to agree with him/her/it that warrantles spying is ok with you?

     Posted by Turk33 at 01/19/2006 @ 3:02pm

381. NBC wants to know if the NSA was bugging Christiane Amapour. Her husband is James Rubin who was one of Kerry's campaign managers. The Bush campaign sure did seem prepared for any political strategy Kerry's campaign had to offer. I for one would like to know whether or not Bush, like Nixon, used intelligence apparatus for political purposes.

     Posted by BBatten at 01/19/2006 @ 3:05pm

382. LL

     I'll gladly weigh in on the Chirac thing. I think that Chirac is trying to "out-Bush" Bush. Become one of the new "agreesive" pre-emtive warmonger nations. Step up and play like US / UK. In any case, no good can come from it.

     Posted by leftofcenter at 01/19/2006 @ 3:07pm

383. BB,

     You also realize that the top Iraq war cheerleader Robert Hitchens is party to the ACLU suit to figure out whether they were listened in on without warrant.

     It's just going to be hard to figure it out since warrants were never applied for so we have to take the President's and NSA's word for it when they say....."yep that's all of the tapes we have".

     Posted by freedomplease at 01/19/2006 @ 3:12pm

384. Turk

     Here, here (re: MBB) I was so taken that I have found the proper award for such valiant service....

     For the WingNut Award go HERE [tinyurl.com]

     Posted by leftofcenter at 01/19/2006 @ 3:12pm

385. However, if you discover a plan to murder American civilians, you take the people out. the technicalities of rules of admissibility are something lawyers at the ACLU care about, not normal people. Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 01/19/2006 @ 2:56pm | ignore this person

     MBB,

     Your statement begs the question: How do you know you are normal?

     Or if you are-- if other 'normal' people think exactly like you. I would expect 'normal' people without mental disabilities, to be creative and unique-- adding to society each yet another individual perspective.

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

386. MBB

     Again, normal people don't care about legal technicalities.

     Could you explain how preserving a fundamental right that is spelled out in the Constitution in the 4th Amendment is a legal technicality? The 4th Amendment: "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."

     Is the freedom of speech a legal technicality? How about the right to bear arms? Freedom of religion?

     Posted by Turk33 at 01/19/2006 @ 3:14pm

387. Left,

     Great! The "Wing Nut Award" should be awarded daily for the most egregious Koolade statement. The problem, as I see it, will be the number of applicants...

     Posted by Turk33 at 01/19/2006 @ 3:19pm

388. However, if you discover a plan to murder American civilians, you take the people out. the technicalities of rules of admisability are something lawyers at the ACLU care about, not normal people.

     No, you DON'T take out American citizens/resident aliens in this country, that's what a police state does. What you do is arrest them before they can do whatever it is you think they're going do and drag them into court. This way, you avoid taking out someone like Brandon Mayfield, the Portland lawyer who the FBI (note, the FBI, NOT the military) incorrectly linked to the Madrid bombings. The United States is not a battlefield and you can't use the battlefield intelligence analogy.

     As to Turk's question, no the govt can't. It may not necessarily be a 4th Amendment violation (see Orin Kerr's analysis at the Volokh Conspiracy site http://volokh.com/posts/1135029722.shtml) but it is a statutory violation. The Supreme Court held in the Steel Seizure cases that inherent Presidential power is at its lowest ebb in an area where Congress has legislated. Congress did so re FISA and was within its rights to do so (again, re the "this is military intelligence" argument I've heard, Congress also has the right to set general rules for this pursuant to their constitutional power to "make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;" (Article I, Section *).

     Posted by brunowe at 01/19/2006 @ 3:24pm

389. Christopher not Robert Hitchens....sorry.

     Posted by freedomplease at 01/19/2006 @ 3:24pm

390. It's just going to be hard to figure it out since warrants were never applied for so we have to take the President's and NSA's word for it when they say....."yep that's all of the tapes we have".

     Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 01/19/2006 @ 3:12pm | ignore this person

     Maybe we could get one o' them there new-fangled 'search warrants,' based upon that thang called 'probable cause' that something called a 'law' has been broken.

     Course, there'd probably be a gap in the tapes of, say, 18 minutes or so?

     Posted by skeletonman at 01/19/2006 @ 3:37pm

391. So what we're really talking about at the end of the day is how to preserve the "normal" world, whatever in hell that is. People with "normal" politics. Life, liberty and the pursuit of normality. Normal of the world, unite. Give me normality or give me death. Power to the normal. International Brotherhood of the Normal. Say, you might be onto something here. Poets, musicians, artists need not apply. Normal is the word.

     Posted by Sweetdaddy at 01/19/2006 @ 3:44pm

392. Declaration of Normal Independence. Bill of Normal. The Magna Normal. The Port Huron Normal Statement. National Association for the Advancement of Normal People. the Normal League. United Churce of Normal. The Normal Nations. The Church of Normal Day Saints. The Book of Normal. Seventh Day Normalists. The Normal Conception.

     Wow, it's just so musical, so lyrical. I can hardly wait until the conservatives (the normal ones) are running everything. It's all going to be so normal. In an informal normal manner.

     Posted by Sweetdaddy at 01/19/2006 @ 3:48pm

393. Oh, the MAINSTREAM. Good idea. Hitler worked his mainstream. Stalin worked his mainstream. Strong men work the mainstream. Good idea. It's always yielded such postive results.

     Posted by Sweetdaddy at 01/19/2006 @ 3:51pm

394. "Declaration of Normal Independence. Bill of Normal. The Magna Normal. The Port Huron Normal Statement. National Association for the Advancement of Normal People. the Normal League. United Churce of Normal. The Normal Nations. The Church of Normal Day Saints. The Book of Normal. Seventh Day Normalists. The Normal Conception."

     I say we move the seat of government to Normal, IL.

     Posted by skeletonman at 01/19/2006 @ 3:53pm

395. Mainstream. It is Schumer's favorite word. He's against Roberts and Alito citing they are "outside the american mainstream." Surely you're not suggesting Schumer is up there with Hitler and Stalin?!

     Posted by FREIHEIT 01/19/2006 @ 3:53pm | ignore this person

     Huh? This makes no sense whatsoever, even as a cheap shot at Schumer (and equating a Jewish man with Hitler has to be considered such).

     Posted by skeletonman at 01/19/2006 @ 3:57pm

396. FRANKGRITS 01/19 @ 2:33pm

     NACL: how to defend the country ?

     FRANKGRITS: ... soo easy. By hoping the intelligence agengies are competant enough to do their jobs, within the 'law'. That's what America is supposed to do.

     That is The Nation mentality. If stupid comments were people, these fora would be China.

     .

     Posted by nacl at 01/19/2006 @ 4:07pm

397. SKELETONMAN, naw, no cheap shot on Schumer. I disagree with virtually every stance I've read about and seen him take on CSPAN, but I truly respect his beliefs.

     I was just going back and forth on the silliness of razzing a conservative poster on use of the word normal. Yet the word mainstream (equally as slippery to define) is the same thing, and often used by liberal politicians as a weapon of mass deception. That's all.

     Posted by FREIHEIT 01/19/2006 @ 4:03pm | ignore this person

     Fair enough, I'll take you at your word. I would, however, take care in juxtaposing prominent Jewish-Americans with Hitler (or Stalin, for that matter).

     Posted by skeletonman at 01/19/2006 @ 4:08pm

398. re: "normal"

     Will then the U IL @ Normal become the "Norm" for universities?

     Frank

     Found the award by doing a google image search for "wingnut" Didn't see the Kovics article...am looking for it now. (Fist week of classes...too damned busy)

     Posted by leftofcenter at 01/19/2006 @ 4:09pm

399. re: "normal"

     Will then the U IL @ Normal become the "Norm" for universities?

     Frank

     Normally, I'd think that it would take a while, but things ain't exactly normal these days, are they?

     Posted by skeletonman at 01/19/2006 @ 4:12pm

400. Frei, is sniping all you can do? your only point seems to be:"we won the election" and that makes us right. well, pal, it does not make you right. it is the immoral policies of torture, unnecessary war, and government secrecy that make you wrong, and the polls prove that the american people are fed up with you, as am I. there will be another election, and yes, your corrupt GOP politicians are quaking in their expensive shoes

     the normal litany was brilliant, sweetdaddy

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/19/2006 @ 4:20pm

401. Mary, Dick Morris???? Who in their right mind takes anything that nut has to say seriously. Bill Clinton kicked him out years ago.

     Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/19/2006 @ 3:00pm |

     Actually FRANK...Clinton did. When he took Morris' advice and signed the hated-by-the-Left Gingrich welfare reform plan, in order to win 1996.

     He only "kicked him out" when Morris' sex scandal emerged.....Remember, that was back BEFORE "it's his personal life, and has no impact on the job he does" was popular!

     LOL!

     Posted by Mask at 01/19/2006 @ 4:36pm

402. Mary: "Given that I don't do drugs or cheat on my wife or my taxes..."

     Wow, Mary, it must be a little confusing to be a conservative lesbian.

     Freiheit, you keep saying you voted for Gore in 2000. I suspect that is a lie and I'm not surprised. But, since you brought up Gore and think it was a mistake to vote for him, I will point out for the umpteeth time that had Gore been allowed to rightfully assume the presidency, he most likely would have followed the suggestions of his own Gore Commission on airline safety. His commission suggested armed air marshals on all commercial flights, reinforcing cockpit doors and increasing checkin security. Had those suggestions been implimented, it's highly probable that the 9-11 attack would have been thwarted. So, why exactly do you think it was a mistake to vote for him?

     Posted by BBatten at 01/19/2006 @ 4:48pm

403. Why do posters who are obviously conservative and hate all democratic policies keep insisting that they voted for Gore and Kerry. It's pathetic, ridiculous and cowardly. Have the guts to be honest and stop bullshitting!

     Posted by BBatten at 01/19/2006 @ 4:49pm

404. "Mary", you stated that for republicans, politics end when we're talking foreign policy. I produced 4 or five quotes from prominent republicans that go against your theory. You didn't respond. What's the matter, "Mary?" Are you dropping that line of argument without comment or would you like to admit to all of us that you were wrong about that?

     Posted by BBatten at 01/19/2006 @ 4:52pm

405. Osama always issues a public statement challenging us when Bush is either in danger of losing an election or doing badly in the polls. Coincidence?

     Posted by BBatten at 01/19/2006 @ 4:53pm

406. And lets not forget that Gore actually had a track record of reading. Thus, perhaps he would have read the daily briefing that siad "OBL determined to attack USA", and done something instead of clearing an annoying brush pile.

     And lets not forget that Gore would probably have had about 250-300 meetings with his terrorist czar instead of the zero meetings that Bush managed.

     There are umpteen ways 9/11 could have been thwarted.....by Gore. None by Bush.

     Posted by freedomplease at 01/19/2006 @ 4:54pm

407. Bush capitulated to bin Laden's first and most important demand -- to get all military bases out of Saudi Arabia. Bin Laden always issues a public statement challenging us when Bush is either in danger of losing an election or doing badly in the polls. Is it possible, bin Laden seeks to help Bush?

     Posted by BBatten at 01/19/2006 @ 4:55pm

408. poor misunderstood Frei..

     I'm confused how you appear to put such faith in the abilities of government to represent the greater good and you feel corporations are evil. I don't trust politicians. At least with corporations the incentives are easy to see.

     you are putting words inmy mouth, I've never said all corporations are evil, amoral yes, but not all. a social conscience is possible, not just from you.

     the difference is that the government is us, something that cannot be said about corporations.who would you rather rule us and the country, the gov't or corporations? and who is running the gov't now? the corporations. and who is carrying water for the corporation who are running the gov't? you

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/19/2006 @ 4:57pm

409. Gore For President 08 - Impeach the Chimp!

     Posted by Fade at 01/19/2006 @ 4:57pm

410. Osama bin Laden's uncle was the primary investor in Bush's first oil company. This was in the mid-80's.

     Posted by BBatten at 01/19/2006 @ 4:57pm

411. It's more than possible, it's probable and more importantly it sets the stage for the color coded and completely useless terror alert levels that we havn't seen since hhmmmmm......the last election cycle and will now increasingly see as we head into November.

     Ahhhh, how I yearn for those halcyon days of actual democracy!

     Posted by freedomplease at 01/19/2006 @ 4:58pm

412. Bush capitulated to bin Laden's first and most important demand -- to get all military bases out of Saudi Arabia. Bin Laden always issues a public statement challenging us when Bush is either in danger of losing an election or doing badly in the polls. Is it possible, bin Laden seeks to help Bush?

     Posted by BBATTEN 01/19/2006 @ 4:55pm | ignore this person

     Personally, I think OBL and GWB are the same person, they're about the same height and body habitus, put a beard on the dubster and some brown contacts in and viola, you've made him into OBL. Shoot, they even share ONE initial in their names. And noteworthy is the fact that our little man was away "at the ranch" at the time the tape was purportedly made. Maybe that was why he couldn't meet with Cindy Sheehan.

     Posted by skeletonman at 01/19/2006 @ 5:02pm

413. Not only has the Bush family been close to the bin Laden family and other prominent Saudi families, but when 15 Saudis staged the worst terrorist attack on us in history, the very first thing Bush did (after he came out of hiding) was make sure that over 100 Saudi Arabians were able to leave the country.

     Posted by BBatten at 01/19/2006 @ 5:03pm

414. So, Freiheit, your argument is that the left politicizes foreign policy. Interesting.

     Tom Delay: "Bombing a sovereign nation for ill-defined reasons with vague objectives undermines the American stature in the world. The international respect and trust for America has diminished every time we casually let the bombs fly."

     Trent Lott: "My job as majority leader is be supportive of our troops, try to have input as decisions are made and to look at those decisions after they're made ... not to march in lock step with everything the president decides to do."

     Richard Lugar: "This is President Clinton's war, and when he falls flat on his face, that's his problem."

     Sean Hannity: "Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?"

     Tom Delay again: "I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarifiedrules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our overextended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today"

     Posted by BBatten at 01/19/2006 @ 5:07pm

415. Frank, I'm just fascinated that a lesbian like Mary could have such conservative views.

     Posted by BBatten at 01/19/2006 @ 5:08pm

416. Freiheit, in the Soviet Union, people who dissented were called "crazy" and sent to "insane asylums." Grover Norquist has a portrait of Stalin on the wall in his office. He admires Stalin. To simply dismiss Gore, a man who received the majority of American presidential votes and the majority of Floridian votes, a "nutcase" is classicly Stalinist. If you disagree with what Gore asserts, then lets hear your reasoning. Calling Gore crazy is, at best, a pathetic attempt to minimize him and ignore his statements and, at worst, dispicably Stalinist.

     Posted by BBatten at 01/19/2006 @ 5:17pm

417. Frei, politicising foreign policy? you must be joking, man. foreign policy has always been political and will always be so.you've heard the expression "war is politics continued by other means"

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/19/2006 @ 5:37pm

418. Dammit, Freiheit, you must know that Durbin was reading an FBI report. You're just parroting an extremely dishonest conservative attack on Durbin. If you have a problem with that analysis, your problem is with the FBI, not Durbin for repeating it to his collegues.

     Kerry's remark was an answer to a question on whether the destruction of Faluja had led to more terrorist recruiting. It was not a policy statement.

     Posted by BBatten at 01/19/2006 @ 5:38pm

419. It seems the left here like a rebellious child is determined to ignore the facts because their feelings are their primary driver. The constant rail about illegal spying on Americans is what is to be expected from either political hacks or fringe conspiracy theorists. Thankfully, most polls show the majority of Americans support what the president is doing and do so, even without the benefit of reading Court Decisions.

     As noted in the FISA Court of Review, the president retains the inherent inherent constitutional authority to conduct warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance. This determination has been stated by the courts to include communications to US domestic citizens/residents. The government is not allowed to retain data obtained in these searches of US residents for criminal prosecution.

     FISA Court of Review

     The origin of what the government refers to as the false dichotomy between foreign intelligence information that is evidence of foreign intelligence crimes and that which is not appears to have been a Fourth Circuit case decided in 1980. United States v. Truong Dinh Hung, 629 F.2d 908 (4th Cir. 1980). That case, however, involved an electronic surveillance carried out prior to the passage of FISA and predicated on the President's executive power. In approving the district court's exclusion of evidence obtained through a warrantless surveillance subsequent to the point in time when the government's investigation became "primarily" driven by law enforcement objectives, the court held that the Executive Branch should be excused from securing a warrant only when "the object of the search or the surveillance is a foreign power, its agents or collaborators," and "the surveillance is conducted ‘primarily' for foreign intelligence reasons." Id. at 915. Targets must "receive the protection of the warrant requirement if the government is primarily attempting to put together a criminal prosecution." Id. at 916. Although the Truong court acknowledged that "almost all foreign intelligence investigations are in part criminal" ones, it rejected the government's assertion that "if surveillance is to any degree directed at gathering foreign intelligence, the executive may ignore the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment." Id. at 915.

     Note the distinction SCOTUS made on warrant vs warrantless searches in Veronica School District v Acton

     As the text of the Fourth Amendment indicates, the ultimate measure of the constitutionality of a governmental search is "reasonableness." At least in a case such as this, where there was no clear practice, either approving or disapproving the type of search at issue, at [ VERNONIA SCHOOL DIST. 47J v. ACTON, ___ U.S. ___ (1995) , 6] the time the constitutional provision was enacted, 1 whether a particular search meets the reasonableness standard "`is judged by balancing its intrusion on the individual's Fourth Amendment interests against its promotion of legitimate governmental interests.'" Skinner, supra, at 619 (quoting Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 654 (1979)). Where a search is undertaken by law enforcement officials to discover evidence of criminal wrongdoing, this Court has said that reasonableness generally requires the obtaining of a judicial warrant, Skinner, supra, at 619. Warrants cannot be issued, of course, without the showing of probable cause required by the Warrant Clause. But a warrant is not required to establish the reasonableness of all government searches; and when a warrant is not required (and the Warrant Clause therefore not applicable), probable cause is not invariably required either. A search unsupported by probable cause can be constitutional, we have said, "when special needs, beyond the normal need for law enforcement, make the warrant and probable-cause requirement impracticable." Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868, 873 (1987) (internal quotation marks omitted).

     What it appears the left continues to postulate (some innocently, some intentionally) is a charge that the US is "spying" on US citizens and US residents. There is no proof of this. It is entirely the fabrication of the NY Times, the Democratic Party and the various leftist blogs.

     I do suggest that both sides who post here read the CRS Summary dated January 6,2006 on this issue. While Congress is obviously going to lean in their favor, it does a fair job overall is analyzing the issue and the relevant Court Decisions. Of particular note is their inclusion of US v US District Court in which SCOTUS indicated that Congress had recognized the need to honor a wall of separation (my paraphrase and couldn't resist) between Congress and the inherent powers of the Executive to defend the nation.

     Finally, the CRS concludes that SCOTUS has yet to rule as to whether Congree has any authority to regulate foreign intelligence surveillance.

     http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/m010506.pdf

     Posted by love liberty at 01/19/2006 @ 5:41pm

420. Frei:"as saying Japanese will never embrace democracy.

     well for one thing Japan did have a democracy before WW2, which is not something that can be said about any arab country.

     also Japan has always been homogenious, which again cannot be said about arabs. the underlying thread here is that you seem to have bought this bushit, do I get credit for a new word? about bringing freedom and democracy to Iraq. for Bush freedom and democracy is a brand name, like Ford or Walmart,

     he is busy dismantling democratic government here while he spreads it around the world, sure.

     if you don't believe that freedom and democaracy is imperiled here, take a look at the secrecy practiced by this misadministration, even gov't agencies which never were secret before are now ignoring court orders of transparency

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/19/2006 @ 5:43pm

421. Frei:""Politics end at the water's edge."

     a meaningless slogan, from a meaningless slogan kind of guy

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/19/2006 @ 5:45pm

422. Frei:""Politics end at the water's edge."

     a meaningless slogan, from a meaningless slogan kind of guy

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/19/2006 @ 5:45pm

423. This is the bottom line for Love Liberty:

     Clinton was not above the law.

     Bush is above the law.

     Posted by BBatten at 01/19/2006 @ 5:46pm

424. BB, Mary is a man, so don't get your knickers in a twist about conservative lesbians.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/19/2006 @ 5:46pm

425. Johannesrolf, I know. It's a joke because "Mary" posted that she didn't cheat on her wife.

     Posted by BBatten at 01/19/2006 @ 5:48pm

426. Frank,

     As opposed to unifiers like Boxer, Kennedy, Dean, Pelosi, Hillary, Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Al Franken, Bernie Ward, Randi Rhodes, Leslie Cagan, Medea Benjamin, etc, etc, etc.

     Posted by love liberty at 01/19/2006 @ 5:48pm

427. LL, Most Americans wouldn't know the fourth amendment from the fourth commandment. People just react to soundbytes. Whoever has the best soundbyte rules the day. Sad but true. Have you read Ron Kovic's blog yesterday? I think you'd really appreciate it with your background.

     Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/19/2006 @ 5:44pm

     Frank,

     I seldom bother reading anything by Kovics any more. He was a good soldier, who became a bitter vet, then finally a confirmed socialist. It would be a waste of reading time.

     Posted by love liberty at 01/19/2006 @ 5:50pm

428. Frank,

     But they are according to your standard of Rush and Hannity as strokers of hate, equally guilty.

     Posted by love liberty at 01/19/2006 @ 5:52pm

429. This is the bottom line for Love Liberty:

     Clinton was not above the law.

     Bush is above the law.

     Posted by BBATTEN 01/19/2006 @ 5:46pm

     BB,

     I haven't been discussing Clinton and I have never said that Bush is above the law. It seems to be a favorite method of liberals like yourself to attribute statements that have not been made.

     Posted by love liberty at 01/19/2006 @ 5:54pm

430. LL: "I seldom bother reading anything by Kovics any more."

     It's kind of amazing really. Today's conservatives only respect military service if the current or ex soldier agrees with them. The right has trashed more veterans in the last 6 years than the left ever has on its worst days.

     Posted by BBatten at 01/19/2006 @ 5:54pm

431. Give me Gore any day!

     More to the point - could Gore or Kerry possibly have F'ed up things as bad as Bush has?

     If you disagree, consider what would have happened if we had an idiot like Bush in the White House during the Cuban missile crisis.

     There would have been a nuclear war if morons like CHENEY AND RUMSFELD were advising the PRES!

     Thank God we had thoughtful - insightful guys in the White House at that time! The very kind of men that you Bush sychophants despise! So yeah, I'll take thoughfulness and patience over bullheadedness any day!

     Posted by NO-NONSENSE at 01/19/2006 @ 5:55pm

432. LL, your continuing argument is that Bush has the right to break FISA law. You also don't think Bush should be held accountable for lying to congress about budgetary matters or lying in the process of his constitutional duty of giving the State of the Union Address. You, therefore, are arguing that Bush is above the law whether you know it or not.

     Posted by BBatten at 01/19/2006 @ 5:56pm

433. This is the bottom line for Love Liberty:

     Clinton was not above the law.

     Bush is above the law.

     Posted by BBATTEN 01/19/2006 @ 5:46pm | ignore this person

     I'd just add one observation: Clinton broke the law and was subject to the legal AND political consequences of his actions. That wingers whine because Clinton 'beat the rap' is not the fault of liberals; if wingers have a beef, they should take it up with those in the Senate who acquitted him. Otherwise, THEY SHOULD GET OVER IT AND GET ON WITH THEIR LIVES.

     Bush has yet to be held to account for HIS high crimes and misdemeanors; he may never be. Hard to know what is best for the nation - chucking the bum (Bush) out, or leaving him where he is (as the theoretical sole remaining check on Darth Cheney).

     Posted by skeletonman at 01/19/2006 @ 5:56pm

434. Freiheit: "Politics end at the water's edge."

     Republican Rick Santorum: "President Clinton is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation's armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy."

     Hey Freiheit, tell your friends in the Republican party.

     Posted by BBatten at 01/19/2006 @ 6:00pm

435. "If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy."    -Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of presidential candidate George W. Bush

     Posted by BBatten at 01/19/2006 @ 6:01pm

436. "I'm not into nation-building." --GW, while running for president.

     Posted by BBatten at 01/19/2006 @ 6:02pm

437. "I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning...I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area."

     -Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)

     Posted by BBatten at 01/19/2006 @ 6:03pm

438. "You think Vietnam was bad? Vietnam is nothing next to Kosovo."

     -Tony Snow, Fox News 3/24/99

     OK, everyone, I'll stop posting these ridiculous remarks as soon as the conservatives stop their self-righteous bullshit about liberals undermining the war effort.

     Posted by BBatten at 01/19/2006 @ 6:05pm

439. "I'm on the Senate Intelligence Committee, so you can trust me and believe me when I say we're running out of cruise missles. I can't tell you exactly how many we have left, for security reasons, but we're almost out of cruise missles."    -Senator Inhofe (R-OK )

     "I don't know that Milosevic will ever raise a white flag"    -Senator Don Nickles (R-OK)

     These statements must have been very demoralizing for our men and women in uniform involved in a shooting war. Why do republicans hate America?

     Posted by BBatten at 01/19/2006 @ 6:08pm

440. Frei, oh you kid, so fiendishly clever, but where's the beef?

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/19/2006 @ 6:09pm

441. Gore would risk reputation for seriousness if he ever had one. Like Kerry, convictionless, opportunistic rhetoric defines his political career and the utter lack of political instinct or policy makes him, and the Dems appear so affectless to moderates. Little credibility, and this has lost them 2 elections to a very vulnerable Bush. But the Dems are the same in that they refuse to stake a serious claim in the debate, never offer anything but ankle biting after the debate has passed without a serious fight.

     MoveOn and is served by the recyled, wooden Gore, but it is desperation for appearing mainstream that Gore's political coat tails would be a boost to them.

     If Gore had any political instincts, his opportunism would be at the ignored conservative-Democrat vote, where the last 2 elections were lost, and attempt to rescue the national party from the fringe. Rather, he continues to be the kiss of death, the political loser, always on the wrong side of the debate and Dems refuse to distance themselves from the MoveOn crowd.

     For any Nation fan to credit Gore for another vaccuous, falsely therapeutic swipe at Bush does not belie the fact that any flame thrower will do for them. Very little resonance with the majority of Americans. And unfortunately, for the hapless, complaining minority party, their only hope continues to be the PERCEPTION that Bush is wrong, rather than that the Dem Party is right on the major issues before the nation.

     Posted by lrjlrj at 01/19/2006 @ 6:14pm

442. To all Bush apologists:

     Do you really believe that our foreign policies over the past 50 years are unrelated to the current attacks aginst America and its allies? For you, history begins at whatever point Americans are attacked by fanatical barbarians. You guys manage to white wash or avoid any serious analysis of our Middle East strategies; like removing the first democratically elected leader of Iran in 1953 (because he nationalized his own domestic oil industries), and propping up a vicious killer like the Shah. The given excuse for supporting some of the worst killers in modern history: Hussein, all MidEast Despots, Suharto, Marcos, Pinochet, Pol Pot (after the Vietnamese threw him out), any military govt in Latin America- was because the evil Communists didn't allow freedom for their people. So, we supported anyone as long as they were not red, and then managed to help destroy any hope for a decent life in life in those developing nations signed up for our team. Do really believe there is any connection to the mass numbers of Latin immigrants fleeing their own territories that have seen our greatest influence of economic/military enforced policies over the past several decades?

     I understand that you guys like to view life in simple good vs. evil, but can we look around to some alternative models of democratic capitalism? Is it acceptable for us to adopt some of the better ideas in part, from others? Japan for example. Post World War two, Japan needed a sustainable system that did not include having a powerful military to steal resourses or force open foreign markets, like ours and the UK. So, lacking resources, they developed/rebuilt their industries with long term strategies that would dominate markets by producing goods that were of the highest quality and by efficiency of energy usage. The Japanese have been developing hybrid technology since the 1970s. Responsibility within a coporation is not necessarily even tied to ethics but can be compatible to profitability and long term sucess; if your companies are being run recklessly and irresponsibley by MBA-school-trained crooks who seek to gain personal wealth, by whatever short term means, selfishly--this would never be acceptable in Japan. If the team wins, everyone around wins. Of course their are crucial cultural distinctions: we emphasize the individual over the larger society, tend to exploit our labor while justifying the behavior with abstract economic formulas and ideologies, while the Japanese stress honor and culture. But you get my point, I hope. Yes, we should be looking in the mirror, instead of comforting ourselves with shallow slogans like "they hate us because of our freedoms" or because of our wealth, etc.

     Posted by Oustbush at 01/19/2006 @ 6:24pm

443. What it appears the left continues to postulate (some innocently, some intentionally) is a charge that the US is "spying" on US citizens and US residents. There is no proof of this. It is entirely the fabrication of the NY Times, the Democratic Party and the various leftist blogs.

     Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 01/19/2006 @ 5:41pm

     Same old Liberty! Maybe if you wait a few weeks and post Veronica vs. Acton and Griffith vs. Wisconsin again, people will forget that Veronica was a case concerning the drug testing of high school students and the Griffith was a case about the search for guns in the home of a convicted felon out on parole. In both cases the plaintiffs were people under the temporary custody of the state.

     Nope, the two cases don't become anymore relevant with age

     And we on the left aren't postulating that Gee Dubya spied on Americans.

     He admitted it.

     Now back to La-La-Land with you

     Posted by Will C. at 01/19/2006 @ 6:31pm

444. LRJLRJ: "And unfortunately, for the hapless, complaining minority party, their only hope continues to be the PERCEPTION that Bush is wrong"

     Perception? Tell us oh wise one. What has he been right about?

     Posted by BBatten at 01/19/2006 @ 6:32pm

445. Mary, Max Boot was one of those neocons who said that Iraqis would welcome us with open arms. If he was so wrong about that, what gives you the impression he's right about anything?

     RioBravo: "Frankly, I find the similarities to leftwing idealouges anti-war and anti-American philisopical postings chilling, but I'm sure it is seen more as a comforting confirmation of ideology to most engaging in what in the past would have been percieved by the majority as traitorous rhetoric!"

     If you think anti-war postings are "traitorous" what do you think of this:

     I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarifiedrules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our overextended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today"    -Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

     Rio, is Tom Delay a traitor?

     Posted by BBatten at 01/19/2006 @ 6:38pm

446. Frank, he can't go take Jill's place because he's in another regiment: The Fighting Keyboarders!

     Posted by BBatten at 01/19/2006 @ 6:40pm

447. "Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?"    -Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99

     Hey Rio Bravo, is Sean Hannity and Fox news traitorous? Let's have it, you self-righteous jackass!

     Posted by BBatten at 01/19/2006 @ 6:45pm

448. "This is President Clinton's war, and when he falls flat on his face, that's his problem."    -Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN)

     Hey RioBravo, with soldiers under fire, this remark was downright "traitorous" right? You compared me to Osama bin laden, a-hole. Maybe you can explain why you had no problem with republicans making anti-war statements during the Clinton administration.

     Posted by BBatten at 01/19/2006 @ 6:48pm

449. Freiheit, I have never questioned the patriotism of any poster on these boards. Moreover, I have never visited these boards without some conservative questioning my patriotism. Happens every time. Moreover, I never presume to know what God is thinking or what he wants. That's what you guys do. So, if you want to accuse me of being self-righteous, fine, but if there is a scale of self-righteousness, I believe I'm not even close to the top around here. The thing that cracks me up about today's conservatives is that they can dish it out, but they sure can't take it.

     Posted by BBatten at 01/19/2006 @ 6:53pm

450. Freiheit: "But no american servicemen came home in body bags from Kosovo, did they?"

     Uh, yeah, that's right. Say, who was in charge back then, Freiheit?

     Posted by BBatten at 01/19/2006 @ 6:55pm

451. Frank, Sean Hannity is a little bitch. I'd love to see his eyes in a firefight.

     Posted by BBatten at 01/19/2006 @ 6:56pm

452. It took you long enough, Frei. Beautiful site, isn't it.

     Posted by BBatten at 01/19/2006 @ 6:57pm

453. Freiheit, soldiers and pilots were under fire. They were in a shooting war. But, other than that, I'm not comparing the two. Iraq is a war of Bush's choice, while Kosovo was the U.S. living up to it's NATO obligations. Iraq has been horribly mismanaged, while Kosovo was brilliantly managed except for one glaring mistake - the Chinese Embassy. All the Crooks and Liars site is pointing out is the unbelievable hypocracy of republicans.

     Posted by BBatten at 01/19/2006 @ 7:02pm

454. Frei: "And you were pro bombing in Kosovo, right?"

     I agreed that we should live up to our NATO obligations and stop the slaughter of Bosnian muslims by Serbs. I was pleased that we didn't have to spend American blood to achieve this end. What's your problem with that?

     Posted by BBatten at 01/19/2006 @ 7:04pm

455. Freiheit, now that you've found the Crooks and Liars site, please read through it and wonder at the amazing duplicity of the politicians you support.

     Posted by BBatten at 01/19/2006 @ 7:07pm

456. Freiheit, thank you.

     Posted by BBatten at 01/19/2006 @ 7:30pm

457. Here's an oldie but a goodie:

     Why didn't they support our president in a time of war?

     "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."

     -Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)

     Posted by skeletonman at 01/19/2006 @ 7:33pm

458. Regarding Kosovo/(non) support by Repubs. Should have been more specific, sorry.

     Posted by skeletonman at 01/19/2006 @ 7:34pm

459. Oops, here's another statement on the same topic:

     "You can support the troops but not the president"

     -Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

     Posted by skeletonman at 01/19/2006 @ 7:35pm

460. Clinton to Bush upon leaving office: "Osama bin Laden will be your biggest challenge."

     Bush on bin Laden one year after 9-11: "I don't think about him much."

     Posted by BBatten at 01/19/2006 @ 7:38pm

461. Clinton to Bush upon leaving office: "Osama bin Laden will be your biggest challenge."

     Bush on bin Laden one year after 9-11: "I don't think about him much."

     Posted by BBATTEN 01/19/2006 @ 7:38pm | ignore this person

     Actually, I think it was 6 months and 2 days after 9/11 if I am not mistaken (3/13/2002).

     Posted by skeletonman at 01/19/2006 @ 7:40pm

462. "You can support the troops but not the president"

     So you agree with Tom Delay, right?

     Posted by FREIHEIT 01/19/2006 @ 7:38pm | ignore this person

     Oddly enough, on this particular point, I actually do. Excuse me while I go and simultaneously vomit and soil myself with feces.

     Posted by skeletonman at 01/19/2006 @ 7:42pm

463. For BB and all those quoting the Repubs who were acting stupidly and fully partisan on Kosovo;

     I have said here before that I supported Clinton on Kosovo and the Repubs who were making statements like these quoted were dead wrong.

     I am consistent on this issue.

     Posted by love liberty at 01/19/2006 @ 7:43pm

464. For BB and all those quoting the Repubs who were acting stupidly and fully partisan on Kosovo;

     I have said here before that I supported Clinton on Kosovo and the Repubs who were making statements like these quoted were dead wrong.

     I am consistent on this issue.

     Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 01/19/2006 @ 7:43pm | ignore this person

     Congratulations. You are among the few.

     Posted by skeletonman at 01/19/2006 @ 7:45pm

465. Sorry that I'm in and out but I have to keep running back to the hospital. We have an elderly couple that are the parents of friends living with us. She needs kidney dialysis and speaks no English and her husband speaks some English. So, I have to go and help make sure everything gets done.

     Oh, I forgot, according to Zero and some others, I just a racist conservative Christian. What was I thinking about...people!

     Posted by love liberty at 01/19/2006 @ 7:46pm

466. Then republicans re-elected him, while attacking John Kerry's heroism. Disgraceful, absolutely disgraceful.

     Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/19/2006 @ 7:35pm

     You said it brother

     Posted by Will C. at 01/19/2006 @ 7:46pm

467. This is because his advisors told him to knock off the cowboy bullshit. They'd never be able to find OBL and bsides, Poppy Bush said not to go after him because of family business interests.

     Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/19/2006 @ 7:45pm | ignore this person

     Is that the reason? All along I thought it was because the cabal was planning the (illegal) invasion of Iraq. Silly me.

     Posted by skeletonman at 01/19/2006 @ 7:47pm

468. Frank, Bush was something like the 157th legacy to Yale from his family. He even needed a legacy admittance to get in to prep school. Both Yale and University of Texas Law Schools turned him down, but he got into Harvard Business School. Go try to get into Harvard Business School with a C average. See how far you get. In his youth, he used to love it when it rained because he would run out and stick firecrackers into frogs mouths and blow them up. According to Jeb, GW used to shoot his younger brother and sister with bebes as they ran down the halls of their mansions, scared shitless. That's the real GW.

     Posted by BBatten at 01/19/2006 @ 7:48pm

469. Love Liberty, the buzz around the Vatican is that you're up for sainthood. Congradulations!

     Posted by BBatten at 01/19/2006 @ 7:49pm

470. Oh, I forgot, according to Zero and some others, I just a racist conservative Christian. What was I thinking about...people!

     Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 01/19/2006 @ 7:46pm

     Damn Liberty!

     You just took a shit on top of your own act of generosity.

     You are one strange dude

     Posted by Will C. at 01/19/2006 @ 7:50pm

471. Love Liberty, the buzz around the Vatican is that you're up for sainthood. Congradulations!

     Posted by BBATTEN 01/19/2006 @ 7:49pm | ignore this person

     BB

     And I know that you know that b/c of the illegal wiretaps ordered by Benedict XVI in violation of canon law

     Posted by skeletonman at 01/19/2006 @ 7:51pm

472. Frank, the frog and bb's story is from the mouth of Jeb Bush. Amazing, isn't it.

     Posted by BBatten at 01/19/2006 @ 7:54pm

473. BBATTEN, That's not only amazing, it's sick. Why the hell wasn't that story plastered all over the front pages pre 2000.

     Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/19/2006 @ 7:57pm | ignore this person

     But that all happened before the dubster found god when he was 38 or whatever, remember, just like that DWI right here in good old Maine?

     Posted by skeletonman at 01/19/2006 @ 7:59pm

474. WILL C., Did you read the excerpt that I posted above from Ron Kovic and what do you think of it?

     Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/19/2006 @ 7:47pm

     I read the whole post. I read Kovic's book too when I was at Ft. Rucker. It kind of surprised me that it was in the post library.

     My thoughts now are the same that they have always been. War is a very bad thing. We only do it when there is no other choice. Our enemies are as temporary as our friends are. And both friend and enemy are human, have families, love, hate, dream, work, pray.

     We are all the same.

     I believe war to be the finest example of mans failure. It is something we should never be proud of. Having said that, I will give my life for my country.

     But it better fucking count.

     Posted by Will C. at 01/19/2006 @ 8:01pm

475. And my commander in chief better never be looking under his furniture for the cause of the war.

     Posted by Will C. at 01/19/2006 @ 8:01pm

476. Frei: "But his inability to get things done in the face of overwhelming political opposition is not because he's an idiot."

     Right, all he has going for him is all three branches of government and a broad swath of the mainstream media. How could anyone get anything done against odds like that.

     Posted by BBatten at 01/19/2006 @ 8:06pm

477. That last sentence says it all. Thanks.

     Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/19/2006 @ 8:06pm

     I'm always here for you bro

     Posted by Will C. at 01/19/2006 @ 8:08pm

478. Frei

     re: a vote in Congress and the support of many nations. And if peace and stability are achieved in Iraq, how long will it take to cease being referred

     Brother, I want some of what you're smokin! The vote was not for war but an authorization to use force if needed. Dubya "needed" it before the ink dried. ...and support of many nations? I believe we told the rest of the world to piss off as I recall, well except for Tony "Downing Street Memo" Blair. Sure, a few nations hitched on after the fact, but going in we were all but alone.

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

479. Frank

     In searching thru Huff...I found this:

     The Bush administration, in a bid to resurrect a controversial online pornography law, has asked a federal judge to force online search giant Google (GOOG) to surrender details on what its users are viewing. Thus far Google has refused

     I'm getting a bit tired of the many and various intrusions to my privacy. If I wanted Dubya's nose up my ass. I'd let him buy me dinner first at the very least!

     Posted by leftofcenter at 01/19/2006 @ 8:24pm

480. Freiheit - Here's some context (from Forbes web site):

     The government wants a list all requests entered into Google's search engine during an unspecified single week - a breakdown that could conceivably span tens of millions of queries. In addition, it seeks 1 million randomly selected Web addresses from various Google databases.

     Posted by Fishbite at 01/19/2006 @ 8:54pm

481. freheit, i just caught up on reading this thread. i notice in the last 4 or 5 pages, twice you equate hating the rich for having money with racism, saying one is no worse than the other. are you kidding? racism is far worse than hating the wealthy for their wealth. i've always found your posts thoughtful, even though i disagree with you. but this is ignorant.

     Posted by loveloki at 01/19/2006 @ 9:50pm

482. ok Frei, that's enough Al Sharpton bashing. of all the dem candidates, he was by far the most articulate and amusing. when an un armed immigrant is shot 48 times by the cops, who shows up and makes sure the press shows up too? Al Sharpton.he speaks for those who have no one to speak for them. Imagine if you will a debate with Bush, who is dumb and plays dumb, and Sharpton. Bush the tongue tied prevaricator vs the reverend Al Sharpton. Bush would definitely be needing that radio thing under his suit coat. Al is a very fine preacher. oh I'll concede he's made some mistakes, bit who hasn't?

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/19/2006 @ 9:52pm

483. Bush is a guy who was born on third base and gors through life thinking her's hit a triple. or he's all hat and no cattle.

     has anyone ever thought about why rancher Bush is never seen on a horse? he's afraid of horses

     he is both stupid and plays dumb, which is endearing to his mostly stupid followers, y'all hear me here?

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/19/2006 @ 9:56pm

484. johannesrolf, seymour hersh says bush is a completely obssessed religious lunatic. let me emphasize the lunatic part. even if there were 100,000 body bags coming home from iraq, he would not bat an eye. nothing is more important than his obssession. much like hitler in that way.

     Posted by loveloki at 01/19/2006 @ 10:18pm

485. and obl is right about a few things. iraq is a great training ground for his fighters. and we have no real homeland security here at home. it's all over there in iraq. all that security.

     Posted by loveloki at 01/19/2006 @ 10:20pm

486. and what was that part about a truce....

     Posted by loveloki at 01/19/2006 @ 10:21pm

487. WRONG! If it was alledged that she was wire-tapping terrorists, we'd go along. We would quietly check in the backgrond to make sure she wasn't lying and was really taping Republicans, but we believe politics stop at the water's edge.

     Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 01/19/2006 @ 2:52pm

     Isn't that what a congressional inquiry would do? Ooooo...maybe we could set up a dept. to keep tabs and make sure for us.

     We could call it...ummm...I GOT IT! FISA!

     Eric

     Posted by malcontent3 at 01/19/2006 @ 10:29pm

488. You know, all this talk about Bush this and Bush that...

     Everybody realizes don't they that...Bush ain't running in 2008 and the odds that Democrats win the Congress and ignore the moderates and independents who want something done and try to appease the Left with impeachment...is slim?

     Posted by Mask at 01/19/2006 @ 10:33pm

489. It doesn't matter what either party does in 2008. The future of this country will be decided in parties and conferences that the mainstream ignores. The new democratic revolution is getting its footing everywhere else in the world, and it won't be long before it gains ground here as well. Live with it, suckahs.

     Posted by Legba at 01/19/2006 @ 11:44pm

490. In all honesty, I value my right to privacy slighly less than my right to burn the flag or have an abortion. (Again, I'm male.)

     Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 01/19/2006 @ 4:33pm

     I have always wondered why some on this blog have no concern for their privacy. Is it possible that if you feel as though you are under constant ' surveillance' , by god, you don't have the same concern/concept of privacy that someone with a secular point of view might. Just a thought.

     Posted by RIO BRAVO 01/19/2006 @ 6:32pm

     Good to see you haven't stopped equating anti-bush sentiments, with pro saddam sentiments. Way to obsfucate. Maybe you'll figure it out...one day.

     BBATTEN:

     Excellent quotes. Hard to argue with their own parties words.

     Eric

     Posted by malcontent3 at 01/20/2006 @ 12:09am

491. eric, i'm pretty sure bbatten is not a wingnut.

     Posted by loveloki at 01/20/2006 @ 01:02am

492. Iraq has been horribly mismanaged, while Kosovo was brilliantly managed except for one glaring mistake - the Chinese Embassy. Posted by BBATTEN 01/19/2006 @ 7:02pm | ignore this person

     BB,

     I would also add another, perhaps not so "glaring mistake" – the US / NATO support of and unchecked control over the KLA. We supported them ostensibly to counter Milosevic's forces, but the KLA flaunted their NATO support to terrorize ethnic Albanians in Kosovo. They used their power to operate "protection rackets" – a la Al Capone – within the ethnic Albanian community of Kosovo. For the same reason Bush was wrong to invade Iraq – they were not a threat to us, Clinton was wrong to bomb Yugoslavia.

     Posted by seattlescribe at 01/20/2006 @ 04:04am

493. eric, i'm pretty sure bbatten is not a wingnut.

     Posted by LOVELOKI 01/20/2006 @ 01:02am

     I know. (I think...presume?) I meant that as a sincere compliment. Sometimes, I'm actually not sarcastic. Good thing. He wouldn't be a very good one. He makes too much sense.

     Eric

     Posted by malcontent3 at 01/20/2006 @ 04:11am

494. I'll try to put this as simply as posible, not because there are those of you that can't grasp complex thoughts (there are), but because I want to limit the spin as much as possible. Here goes.

     Is it legal, according to our Constitution and Legislative actions over the past 200 + years, for the President or anybody in his employ, to eavesdrop on American citizens without a warrant?

     This is a yes or no question. It requires no discussion of the following: Gore, Clinton (either one), Lincoln, Carter, Bush, etc. Have at it.

     Posted by TURK33 01/19/2006 @ 10:10am | ignore this person

     Almost 24 hours, and only MBB has truly responded that yes, the government can eavesdrop on anybody it wants without a warrant so long as he/she/it feels safer. In the past 24 hours, there have been arguments about patriotism, US History, Vietnam, binLaden, and a myriad of other tangential topics. Any other Koolade Klub members want to step to the plate and defend eavesdropping on American citizens without a warrant?

     In the immortal words of Judge Smales: "Well, we're waiting!" (Caddyshack)

     Posted by Turk33 at 01/20/2006 @ 09:00am

495. TURK

     Isn't the "past 200+ year" a bit distracting...it wasn't technologically feasible for much of that and "Olmstead v. US" wasn't until 1928? AND, when "Olstead" was decided, it was decided 5-4 that it WAS legal...only overturned in "Katz v US" in 1967.

     Posted by Mask at 01/20/2006 @ 09:42am

496. LL

     Two problems with your argument that relies on the FISA Court of Review Case. First, you only touch upon the argument of whether the warrantless surveillance violates the Fourth Amendment, not whether it violates FISA. Second, the FISA court's assertion of inherent presidential power relies, as has been stated on this web, on pre-FISA cases and therefore are irrelevant to the issue of inherent presidential power post-FISA

     Posted by brunowe at 01/20/2006 @ 10:08am

497. Mask

     Question: Is it legal, according to our Constitution and Legislative actions over the past 200 + years, for the President or anybody in his employ, to eavesdrop on American citizens without a warrant?

     Answer: Isn't the "past 200+ year" a bit distracting...it wasn't technologically feasible for much of that and "Olmstead v. US" wasn't until 1928? AND, when "Olstead" was decided, it was decided 5-4 that it WAS legal...only overturned in "Katz v US" in 1967.

     Simple question, evasive answer. Yep, you're a Republican.

     Posted by Turk33 at 01/20/2006 @ 10:40am

498. Gee, TURK....I'm sorry.

     Could you please enlighten me with the pre-Katz decisions (or even pre-Olmstead decisions) concerning wiretapping by the Federal Government?

     Posted by Mask at 01/20/2006 @ 11:07am

499. No, Mask, just a simple question- Is it legal, according to our Constitution and Legislative actions over the past 200 + years, for the President or anybody in his employ, to eavesdrop on American citizens without a warrant?

     If you can't or don't want to answer this question, that is your right according to the Constitution.

     Posted by Turk33 at 01/20/2006 @ 11:43am

500. No, Mask, just a simple question- Is it legal, according to our Constitution and Legislative actions over the past 200 + years, for the President or anybody in his employ, to eavesdrop on American citizens without a warrant?

     If you can't or don't want to answer this question, that is your right according to the Constitution.

     Posted by TURK33 01/20/2006 @ 11:43am | ignore this person

     Might our buddy Mask be surreptitiously pleading the 5th?

     Posted by skeletonman at 01/20/2006 @ 11:49am

501. Maybe he better cite some case law!

     Posted by Turk33 at 01/20/2006 @ 11:54am

502. Maybe he better cite some case law!

     Posted by TURK33 01/20/2006 @ 11:54am | ignore this person

     But isn't the case law in this area overwhelmingly against his position?

     And what is this handle 'Mask' all about, anyway? What is he masking? Tape? If it is tape, what kind of tape? The kind that you get from listening in on other people illegally?

     Did I go off on a tangent there?

     Posted by skeletonman at 01/20/2006 @ 12:00pm

503. Sorry to interupt the SKELETON-TURK Legal Debating Society with a question....but...

     "Is it legal, according to our Constitution and Legislative actions over the past 200 + years, for the President or anybody in his employ, to eavesdrop on American citizens without a warrant?.....under the 1928 'Olmstead v US' decision of the USSC?"

     Posted by Mask at 01/20/2006 @ 12:03pm

504. At least your tangent is humorous (as opposed to disruptive, misleading, and otherwise irrelevant).

     Posted by Turk33 at 01/20/2006 @ 12:03pm

505. "Unitary Executive"?. Singular Asshole is more accurate.

     Posted by Sweetdaddy at 01/20/2006 @ 12:37pm

506. Two problems with your argument that relies on the FISA Court of Review Case. First, you only touch upon the argument of whether the warrantless surveillance violates the Fourth Amendment, not whether it violates FISA. Second, the FISA court's assertion of inherent presidential power relies, as has been stated on this web, on pre-FISA cases and therefore are irrelevant to the issue of inherent presidential power post-FISA

     Posted by BRUNOWE 01/20/2006 @ 10:08am

     Any other Koolade Klub members want to step to the plate and defend eavesdropping on American citizens without a warrant?

     In the immortal words of Judge Smales: "Well, we're waiting!" (Caddyshack)

     Posted by TURK33 01/20/2006 @ 09:00am

     Again-The Administration denies it is spying on US citizens

     There has been no evidence brought forward to substantiate that charge

     The Supreme Court given numerous occasions, has thus far declined to bring an opinion as to the right of the Executive to conduct warrantless wiretaps involving foreign powers or agents, even if it includes domestic residents.

     The Leadership members of both Parties from their respective Intelligence Committees have been briefed on this program more than a dozen times (Until the NY Times book release article came out, none of those Democrats had ever publicly or in the chambers of Congress voiced disagreement or concern)

     Under 50 USC 1802, the Attorney General may certify the necessity of warrantless wiretaps for a period of up to one year. He must recertiy if needed after the expiration of the one year period.

     Personally, I look forward to this issue going to SCOTUS. I believe it will rule in favor of the Executive Branch by a 7-2 margin.

     Posted by love liberty at 01/20/2006 @ 1:22pm

507. So, if we do all this wire tapping and spying, how come we didn't know about the Bin Laden tape before it got to Al Jazerra?

     Will getting Google to had over their search results to the "authorities" end up in finally capturing the guy that headed 9/11 or will it just be an invasion of Plunger and Rese's privacy? By they way, where are those two, are they right now being held in secret detention without access to counsel and without being charged with a crime? Are they, as we write, being tortured because the President has authorized such torture by putting a signing statement on an over ridden vetoed bill saying "OK I'll sign this into law but it doesn't apply to me".

     Is anyone else getting a bit annoyed that 2005 was the worst international terrorism year on record, beating only 2004 (which beat 2003), plus we're spending shipfulls of our kids money and we can't even be bothered to look for the person called OBL?

     Posted by freedomplease at 01/20/2006 @ 1:30pm

508. From MARYBRETBRAD:

     If the President had gone to war with anything less than 250,000 troops he war stupid for under-committing to the war. If the President had committed anything more than 175,000 troop he would have been criticized at stupid for creating the impression that the US is occupying the country indefinitely and obviously generating so much resentment that within decade there will be 5.5 billion suicide bombers trying to destroy the US.

     Translation: there's no way to do this right that the public will support. Which is why Poppy and Clinton didn't do it. And why we're getting the bleeding result we're getting now.

     I know Bush isn't really an idiot. He's just nowhere near sharp enough to be commander in chief.

     And no, "so you think we should have just done nothing about Saddam" is not a suitable reply. We had Saddam in a box. We needed to keep him there until he was sufficiently weakened for the Iraqis to do something about it.

     Posted by MyParadigm at 01/20/2006 @ 1:34pm

509. "Again-The Administration denies it is spying on US citizens "

     I guess those pesky Quakers in Palm Beach don't count, do they.

     Posted by skeletonman at 01/20/2006 @ 1:36pm

510. Liberty,

     "Personally, I look forward to this issue going to SCOTUS. I believe it will rule in favor of the Executive Branch by a 7-2 margin."

     I'm sure you're right. I'll bet if you ask Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft and any of the Koolade Klub, they'll side with you. That's the point - there is no objective arbitration of these constitutional issues.

     Posted by Turk33 at 01/20/2006 @ 1:36pm

511. MARYBRET

     What you've got to understand about Al Franken is....it's all about Al and how much he can make off this "I hate them evil Repubs like you guys, watch how I make fun of them"....with the new addition of "And I'm the rightful heir to Paul Wellstone" that will emerge in the next 12 months.

     Al hit it rich with "Rush is a Big Fat Idiot" and has been milking it ever since. His books basically just lift their "data" from the Clintonite run "Center for American Progress" or "Move On", and then he throws in a little SNL 1980s style political humor.

     The real thing to watch will be the collapse of Air America, when Al makes his bid for the US Senate from Minneapolis and leaves the network with a few cranky women and Springer to keep it afloat.

     Posted by Mask at 01/20/2006 @ 1:45pm

512. No, TURK, just a simple question- Is it legal, according to our Constitution and Legislative actions over the past 200 + years, for the President or anybody in his employ, to eavesdrop on American citizens without a warrant? ((...according to "Olmstead v United States" 1928 United States Supreme Court.))

     If you can't or don't want to answer this question, that is your right according to the Constitution.

     Posted by TURK33 01/20/2006 @ 11:43am | ignore this person

     Posted by Mask at 01/20/2006 @ 1:46pm

513. MBB, please don't tell us your real name. The gender confusion thing we get from the "Mary" part is one of the few consistently humorous things we get there.

     And yes, Corn and Rothberg are either on vacation or being seriously lazy. There's plenty to write about! Maybe they've got book deals ...

     Posted by MyParadigm at 01/20/2006 @ 2:32pm

514. This is interesting. I asked for a summary of the justice white paper in 500 words or less and this is what I got:

     NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY DESCRIBED BY THE PRESIDENT President Bush Address to a Joint Session of Congress (Sept. 20, 2001). The AUMF places the President at the zenith of his powers in authorizing the NSA activities. President's Press Conference. The President has explained that the NSA activities are "critical" to the national security of the United States. Before the September 11th attacks, al Qaeda had promised to attack the United States. I. THE PRESIDENT HAS INHERENT CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO ORDER WARRANTLESS FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE foreign nations." See AUMF § 2(a).3 In the preamble to the AUMF, Congress stated that "the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States," AUMF pmbl., and thereby acknowledged the President's inherent constitutional authority to defend the United States. The text of the AUMF demonstrates in an additional way that Congress authorized the President to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance against the enemy. AUMF pmbl. As noted in Part I, on May 21, 1940, President Roosevelt authorized warrantless electronic surveillance of persons suspected of subversive activities, including spying, against the United States. III. THE NSA ACTIVITIES ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT authorize electronic surveillance outside the procedures set forth in FISA itself. B. FISA CONTEMPLATES AND ALLOWS SURVEILLANCE AUTHORIZED "BY STATUTE"

     Because FISA's prohibitory provision broadly exempts surveillance "authorized by statute," the provision demonstrates that Congress did not attempt to regulate through FISA electronic surveillance authorized by Congress through a subsequent enactment. See United States v. 9 Section 2511(2)(a)(ii) states: C. THE AUMF IS A "STATUTE" AUTHORIZING SURVEILLANCE OUTSIDE THE CONFINES OF FISA

     The AUMF qualifies as a "statute" authorizing electronic surveillance within the meaning of section 109 of FISA. Congress enacted section 111 so that the President could conduct warrantless surveillance while Congress considered supplemental wartime legislation. AUMF pmbl., § 2. Even outside the context of wartime surveillance of the enemy, the source and scope of Congress's power to restrict the President's inherent authority to conduct foreign intelligence surveillance is unclear. There are certainly constitutional limits on Congress's ability to interfere with the President's power to conduct foreign intelligence searches, consistent with the Constitution, within the United States. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review recently noted that all courts to have addressed the issue of the President's inherent authority have "held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information." Moreover, President Truman's action extended the President's authority into a field that the Constitution predominantly assigns to Congress. United States ex reI. the United States from a subsequent terrorist attack in the armed conflict with al Qaeda, FISA would impermissibly interfere with the President's most solemn constitutional obligation--to defend the United States against foreign attack. In foreign intelligence investigations, moreover, the targets of surveillance Press Conference of President Bush (Dec. 19, 2005).

     http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/nsa/dojnsa11906wp.pdf

     Posted by Bushfools at 01/20/2006 @ 2:42pm

515. .

     FRANKGRITS 01/19 @ 4:10pm

     Now how about responding to the actual reply.

     I did respond to your actual reply.

     It was shit, characteristic of Frankgrit. That missing "s" was a mere quiddity. It didn't change the stupidity.

     You full reply included this:

     if you are going to let terrorists dictate which laws we should follow and which ones we don't have to follow, well then I guess the terrorists have won, haven't they?

     You are proud of that, eh? You think that says something. Sure, it offers all the depth of a pothole.

     .

     Posted by nacl at 01/20/2006 @ 2:58pm

516. LL Again-The Administration denies it is spying on US citizens

     There has been no evidence brought forward to substantiate that charge

     The Administration has done no such thing, in fact they have acknowledged doing so. See, for example, CNNs report of December 17 http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/17/bush.nsa/

     50 USC 1802 is ireelevant where anyone in the United States is a party to the communications. I quote in pertinent part:

     "(a) (1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that-- (A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at-- (i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or (ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title;

     (B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; and

     (C) the proposed minimization procedures with respect to such surveillance meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 1801 (h) of this title; and if the Attorney General reports such minimization procedures and any changes thereto to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence at least thirty days prior to their effective date, unless the Attorney General determines immediate action is required and notifies the committees immediately of such minimization procedures and the reason for their becoming effective immediately." (emphasis added)

     Thus, communications where a United States person is a party are covered by FISA. The Supreme Court may not have ruled on this as a 4th Amendment issue but this is a statutory matter where Congress was within its rights to pass that legislation.

     The Leadership members of both Parties from their respective Intelligence Committees have been briefed on this program more than a dozen times (Until the NY Times book release article came out, none of those Democrats had ever publicly or in the chambers of Congress voiced disagreement or concern)

     They weren't allowed to, under the terms under which such information is given to the relevant Congressional leaders.

     Posted by brunowe at 01/20/2006 @ 3:07pm

517. brunowe, thank you for pointing that out to LL.

     freedomplease, i see you were wondering about the fate of plunger and reese. after reading, "confessions of an economic hitman," i wonder if the cia has killed chimichenga.

     Posted by loveloki at 01/20/2006 @ 3:21pm

518. regarding the nation and the writers, i like the blogs, but i love the news magazine. and i appreciate their work.

     Posted by loveloki at 01/20/2006 @ 3:23pm

519. .

     BUSHFOOLS 01/20 @ 2:42pm

     This is interesting. I asked for a summary of the justice white paper in 500 words or less and this is what I got:

     If it is interesting, why don't you explain why you think it is interesting. Whom did you ask for a summary of which White Paper? And what does that summary lead you to conclude?

     .

     Posted by nacl at 01/20/2006 @ 3:24pm

520. frank, do you know what happened to jill? is she still alive?

     Posted by loveloki at 01/20/2006 @ 3:38pm

521. .

     BUSHFOOLS 01/20 @ 2:42pm

     You write:

     The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review recently noted that all courts that have addressed the issue of the President's inherent authority have "held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information."

     It seems that the stink is about the president ignoring a law requiring a FISA court's warrant for a wiretap. Yet, as your own citation testifies, that court itself ruled that a president, as CinC, has inherent authority to conduct wiretaps without its permission.

     Furthermore, it was President Carter who in 1978 asked for the FISA statute. But his Attorney General, Griffin Bell in requesting that law to regulate the FBI, emphasized that it "does not take away the power of the president under the Constitution." Again, when Clinton asked Congress to expand FISA in 1994, his associate attorney general testified: "Our seeking legislation in no way should suggest that we do not believe we have inherent authority" under the Constitution. "We do."

     So who is the fool?

     .

     Posted by nacl at 01/20/2006 @ 3:38pm

522. NACL As I, and others, have pointed out here, the courts to which FISA referred were all opinions that dealt with pre-FISA surveillance. They applied to the interplay of the 4th Amendment and Presidential power, they did not, and couldn't have, applied to the reach of FISA. As to the statements in 1978 and 1994, the Executive Branch can make statements like that until it's blue in the face, but it's legislative language, legislative history and legislative intent that's dispostive.

     Posted by brunowe at 01/20/2006 @ 3:46pm

523. ALL

     More on the "electronic frontier" of snooping. Turns out that Yahoo, possibly MSN, and likely every other Search Engine company has already laid down and given up the requested data to the Fed.

     Similarly, the FBI has been using the Patriot Act (what a fucking misnomer) to end-run the First Amendment see ABUSE [tinyurl.com]

     Posted by leftofcenter at 01/20/2006 @ 4:05pm

524. LL, correct me if i'm wrong, please, but didn't you say you were a libertarian? they are against this wiretapping and consider it a crime.

     Posted by loveloki at 01/20/2006 @ 4:09pm

525. .

     BRUNOWE 01/20 @ 3:46pm

     the courts to which FISA referred were all opinions that dealt with pre-FISA surveillance. They applied to the interplay of the 4th Amendment and Presidential power, they did not, and couldn't have, applied to the reach of FISA. As to the statements in 1978 and 1994, the Executive Branch can make statements like that until it's blue in the face, but it's legislative language, legislative history and legislative intent that's dispostive.

     Forget, for the moment, the courts and opinions to which FISA referred. Deal with the fact that the FISA court speaking in 2002, (clearly not a pre-FISA landscape) held that it could not and did not aspire to limit the president when he is defending the country, his right and duty under the Constitution.

     .

     Posted by nacl at 01/20/2006 @ 4:10pm

526. so, google is the only one fighting this?

     Posted by loveloki at 01/20/2006 @ 4:13pm

527. NACL

     The only problem is that the FISA Court of Review 1) relied on bad precedent and 2) failed to do any argument or analysis supporting that position. Making a conclusion with no argument or precendential support results of a very unpersuaive position. Further, FISA didn't even mention the seminal Steel Seizure cases, where the Supreme Court stated that inherent Presidential power is at its lowest ebb once Congress has legislated on a subject.

     Posted by brunowe at 01/20/2006 @ 4:14pm

528. I meant that the FISA Court of Review didn't mention the Steel Seizure cases.

     Posted by brunowe at 01/20/2006 @ 4:15pm

529. Loki

     Yeah... the way I hear it the rest have already rolled over. Only Google seems to have a spine.

     Posted by leftofcenter at 01/20/2006 @ 4:37pm

530. LL, correct me if i'm wrong, please, but didn't you say you were a libertarian? they are against this wiretapping and consider it a crime.

     Posted by LOVELOKI 01/20/2006 @ 4:09pm

     Loveloki,

     I lean strongly libertarian, but I don't agree 100% with the Libertarian Party, just as I don't agree 100% with the Republican Party. I vote mostly Republican given political reality. I have at times ('92 and '96 voted 3rd party to express my disdain for the Republican candidate). |

     Posted by love liberty at 01/20/2006 @ 4:54pm

531. Regarding the various interpolations from myself and those opposing on the left to the Bush Admin and the wiretapping issue:

     From the time the original 13 colonies approved our constitution, there has been an ongoing battle between the legislative and the excecutive on the division of powers and what checks the legislative may impose on the executive.

     Every Administration has made the same argument; when it comes to National Security, the inherent power vested in the Executive to protect and defend the United States and it's citizens trumps legislative attempts to reduce any such power.

     As I noted previously, SCOTUS has seemed hesitant to weigh in on this matter when it has had the opportunity. I believe that this current debate will finally trigger SCOTUS resolution (until some future court decides to reverse-LOL)

     Posted by love liberty at 01/20/2006 @ 5:02pm

532. LL You may be right, it'll be interesting to see how the lawsuits proceed.

     Posted by brunowe at 01/20/2006 @ 5:06pm

533. This is a word analysis of the Justice D. White Paper. Just did a simply preliminary search word count. Any thoughts on whether it's a code?

     word_____________times repeated

     Foreign_____________133

     Authority____________121

     Authorized___________67

     Enemy_______________62

     Law_________________58

     Attacks______________57

     Necessary____________45

     Al Qaeda_____________45

     Terrorist______________38

     Intercept______________37

     Warrantless___________36

     Protect_______________34

     September 11__________34

     Warrant_______________31

     Inherent_______________27

     International___________26

     Consistent_____________25

     Commander and Chief___17

     Terror________________14

     Civil_________________13

     Liberty(ies)_____________0

     Legal_________________11

     Individual_____________10

     Right_________________5

     (Individual rights_______0)

     sole_________________8

     Approval_____________6

     believed______________5

     believe_______________4

     pledged_______________2

     indispensable__________1

     harmony_______________1

     Posted by Bushfools at 01/20/2006 @ 5:32pm

534. The prevoius is from theone just out:

     http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/nsa/dojnsa11906wp.pdf

     Posted by Bushfools at 01/20/2006 @ 5:33pm

535. And of course the equally numbered can be moved around to:

     Attacks______________57

     Al Qaeda_____________45

     Necessary____________45

     Terrorist______________38

     Intercept______________37

     Warrantless___________36

     September 11__________34

     Protect_______________34

     Warrant_______________31

     Inherent_______________27

     International___________26

     Consistent_____________25

     Weird huh.

     Posted by Bushfools at 01/20/2006 @ 5:53pm

536. And if I had these in the correct order:

     Commander and Chief___17

     Terror________________14

     Civil_________________13

     Legal_________________11

     Individual_____________10

     sole_________________8

     Approval_____________6

     believed______________5

     Right_________________5

     believe_______________4

     pledged_______________2

     harmony_______________1

     indispensable__________1

     Even weirderer...

     Posted by Bushfools at 01/20/2006 @ 6:00pm

537. .

     BRUNOWE 01/20/2006 @ 4:14pm

     The only problem is that the FISA Court of Review 1) relied on bad precedent and 2) failed to do any argument or analysis supporting that position. Making a conclusion with no argument or precendential support results of a very unpersuaive position.

     You will have to produce the credentials that allow you to say a panel of senior judges is incompetent. Moreover those judges were talking about their job. They know what it is and what it ain't. They were surely as inclined as anyone to lay claim to the most power they possibly could. But even then they concluded, they lacked the authority to control the President. Try to deny that.

     Further, FISA didn't even mention the seminal Steel Seizure cases, where the Supreme Court stated that inherent Presidential power is at its lowest ebb once Congress has legislated on a subject.

     That was not an enemy of America throwing steel at the US. That was a steel strike, a domestic event. The president wasn't fighting that labor union as CinC. He was not defending the nation against a foreign aggressor. That is why the FISA court did not mention that case, as you must know.

     .

     Posted by nacl at 01/20/2006 @ 6:09pm

538. .

     BUSHFOOLS 01/20 @ 5:32pm

     This is a word analysis of the Justice D. White Paper. Just did a simply preliminary search word count. Any thoughts on whether it's a code?

     You specialize in cutting and pasting, in making smoke and throwing up dust. You are a little whirl wind, a stink bomb, endless flatulence.

     .

     Posted by nacl at 01/20/2006 @ 6:14pm

539. NACL, That's wrong on both counts. First, here is the executive order that was the subject of the case: http://laws.findlaw.com/us/343/579.html Directing the Secretary of commerce to Take Possession of and Operate the Plants and Facilities of Certain Steel Companies WHEREAS on December 16, 1950, I proclaimed the existence of a national emergency which requires that the military, naval, air, and civilian defenses of this country be strengthened as speedily as possible to the end that we may be able to repel any and all threats against our national [343 U.S. 579, 590] security and to fulfill our responsibilities in the efforts being made throughout the United Nations and otherwise to bring about a lasting peace; and

     WHEREAS American fighting men and fighting men of other nations of the United Nations are now engaged in deadly combat with the forces of aggression in Korea, and forces of the United States are stationed elsewhere overseas for the purpose of participating in the defense of the Atlantic Community against aggression; and

     WHEREAS the weapons and other materials needed by our armed forces and by those joined with us in the defense of the free world are produced to a great extent in this country, and steel is an indispensable component of substantially all of such weapons and materials; and

     WHEREAS steel is likewise indispensable to the carrying out of programs of the Atomic Energy Commission of vital importance to our defense efforts; and

     WHEREAS a continuing and uninterrupted supply of steel is also indispensable to the maintenance of the economy of the United States, upon which our military strength depends; and

     WHEREAS a controversy has arisen between certain companies in the United States producing and fabricating steel and the elements thereof and certain of their workers represented by the United Steel Workers of America, CIO, regarding terms and conditions of employment; and

     WHEREAS the controversy has not been settled through the processes of collective bargaining or through the efforts of the Government, including those of the Wage Stabilization Board, to which the controversy was referred on December 22, 1951, pursuant to Executive Order No. 10233, and a strike has been called for 12:01 A. M., April 9, 1952; and

     WHEREAS a work stoppage would immediately jeopardize and imperil our national defense and the defense [343 U.S. 579, 591] of those joined with us in resisting aggression, and would add to the continuing danger of our soldiers, sailors, and airmen engaged in combat in the field; and

     WHEREAS in order to assure the continued availability of steel and steel products during the existing emergency, it is necessary that the United States

     NOW, THEREFORE, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and as President of the United States and Commander in Chief of the armed forces of the United States, it is hereby ordered as follows:

     where the justifications for seizing the plants. He specifically alluded to the emergency of the Korean War, to the importance of the steel plants for the war effort and to his authority as Commander-in-Chief.

     The Supreme Court also specifically referred to the C-in-C authority in its opinion. It held that "The order cannot properly be sustained as an exercise of the President's military power as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces." As Douglas wrote in his concurrence

     "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 [343 U.S. 579, 638] the Congress from acting upon the subject." Unless you can show that Congress had no power to pass legislation over domestic surveillance, the inherent authority argument collapses.

     They were surely as inclined as anyone to lay claim to the most power they possibly could. Of course you have no idea what their judicial philosophy is. For all you know, they could be advocates of the unitary executive theory, but typical of you to post without checking that out.

     As to credentials, I refer you to Orin Kerr's post at the Volokh Conspiracy. Kerr is a law professor at GWU. http://www.mail-archive.com/volokh@lists.powerblogs.com/msg05152.html

     "Further, the argument has no support from the cases cited in the government's brief. In all three of those cases -- Butenko, Truong, and Keith - the Courts were talking about whether the President's interest in conducting foreign intelligence monitoring creates an exception to the Warrant Requirement of the Fourth Amendment. In other words, the issue in those case was whether the Constitution bars warrantless surveillance absent Congressional action, not whether Congressional prohibitons in this area cannot bind the Executive branch."

     Posted by brunowe at 01/20/2006 @ 7:36pm

540. Being a little paranoid here - but what are the chances that Bush actually has Osama under extraordinary rendition and he trots out a big boo when his poll numbers are tanking. It's all so Orwellian anyway, why not add a jot of Kafka too.

     Posted by audiojoebob at 01/20/2006 @ 8:55pm

541. Mask,

     Sorry to take so long to respond. Yes, you are correct, Olmstead did say that wiretapping was not an infringement on a person's 4th amendment rights. However, and I think you mentioned this, the Katz decision made Olmstead obsolete. BTW, in my research (which I found fascinating), Chief Justice Taft was criticized for his majority opinion, and Brandeis' dissenting opinion is considered the basis for libertarian arguments.

     To use Olmstead as a distraction (albeit an interesting one) is like using Dred Scott as an argument for rules of citizenship.

     OK, I answered your question - now answer mine: Is it legal, according to our Constitution and Legislative actions over the past 200 + years, for the President or anybody in his employ, to eavesdrop on American citizens without a warrant?

     Posted by Turk33 at 01/20/2006 @ 9:50pm

542. Audio,

     I get the same weird feeling whenever Osama makes an appearance at a time when Bush needs it most. What is the sickest irony is that each needs the other to maintain their power. Without Osama, Bush would have no object for Americans to fear, and without Bush, Osama would not have the best recruiting tool ever.

     Posted by Turk33 at 01/20/2006 @ 10:00pm

543. Can you cite three points in the Bin Laden tape that you disagree with, or that diverge from the editorial position of "The Nation."? Considering the extremist statements from the Democrats, maybe it is the Democratic party and their lunatic base that is Bush's best recruiting tool.

     Posted by RonS at 01/20/2006 @ 10:59pm

544. Actually TURK....you answered mine AND yours...

     Yes it was legal....before 1928 (although the technology hadn't existed) and from 1928 to 1967 (with "Katz")....so ONLY in the last 39 years has it been ILLEGAL for a President to eavesdrop on citizens without a court order.

     Now....saying "200 +" SOUNDS good....but proves nothing. THAT was my point!

     Posted by Mask at 01/20/2006 @ 10:59pm

545. Frei, I don't know what you're after here, but I'll take a stab at it. the pres of Iran is just one of many arab leaders who vowed to push Israel into the sea, not the first, not the last. these things are mostly for domestic consumption, to make them look tough. sort of like Bush saying "bring it on" or "Osama, dead or alive" there is that what you had in mind?

     as far as the holocaust denials, there are many of that presuasion,Mel Gibson's dad for instance. in germany however that's a crime. the funny thing here is that the perpetrators of this historic crime, have never denied it, they kept careful records, and there can be no doubt. foolish people however will believe anything they want to, see for instance WMD in Iraq or that Iraq attacked us on 9/11.. happy?

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/20/2006 @ 11:17pm

546. Mask,

     According to 5 conservative jurists (albeit very intelligent and well educated SC jurists) wiretapping was not protected under the 4th amendment. in Taft's case (at least what I read about Taft), he was very "conservative" in terms of criminals - I think I read a comment he made concerning the criticism he took over Olmstead, something about not letting interpretations getting in the way of punishing criminals. However, I have to believe that the founding fathers, if they but could have imagined a fraction of what technology would make possible, would have agreed with Brandeis and not with Taft. It's not provable, just consistent with their stand on "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." They lived through oppression and a trampling of civil liberties - they probably would have been horrified that a government could infringe on a citizen's freedom of privacy without a warrant.

     That was my point.

     Now please answer my question with a yes or no: Is it legal, according to our Constitution and Legislative actions over the past 200 + years, for the President or anybody in his employ, to eavesdrop on American citizens without a warrant?

     Posted by Turk33 at 01/20/2006 @ 11:18pm

547. Ronnie, Bush has no recruiting tools, they're not signing up for this shit war, the army is broken. do us a favor get your head out of Bush's ass and read a newspaper once in a while

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/20/2006 @ 11:19pm

548. JR. you just don't get the point.

     Posted by RonS at 01/20/2006 @ 11:23pm

549. Turk, Bush does not have Osama stashed away, if he had they would not have needed to steal the last election. however having said that if the Osama tapes did not come from algezeera I would indeed find the timing suspicious. again we here in america think everything is about us. Osama's audience is the billion muslims out there, and we need to have a better message for them than the invasion of Iraq, because we will not be able to kill them all

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/20/2006 @ 11:24pm

550. Ronnie, what is the point? that we have become the soviets of old, with our invasion, our torture, our secret gov't, and our huge debts? that could be the point that you don't get.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/20/2006 @ 11:26pm

551. JOHANNESROLF

     I agree, Bush doesn't have Osama. He doesn't want him because Osama makes a nice boogyman to have around.

     And completely off topic - a while ago you made a comment about the Finger Lakes. Do you live in the area? I'm curious (not a stalker) because I do live in the Finger Lakes.

     Posted by Turk33 at 01/20/2006 @ 11:28pm

552. JR. By the way, only about 3 percent of the population of Iran is Arab. Hitler was considered a crackpot. And to quote a holocaust survivor, the lesson to be learned is that when people say they are going to kill you, believe them.

     Posted by RonS at 01/20/2006 @ 11:29pm

553. Can you cite three points in the Bin Laden tape that you disagree with, or that diverge from the editorial position of "The Nation."?

     Posted by RonS at 01/20/2006 @ 11:31pm

554. Ronnie, what is your point about Iran? only an idiot would not know that they are persian in Iraq. that does not affect my point at all. remember Pat robertson says a loy of things, they won't come true. what do have in mind, invade Iran? you had better think twice about that one, Iran is a lot bigger and has a huge population compared to Iraq. plus they haven't been under sanctions for ten years. Saddam needed our chemical weapons to stop the human waves that Iran unleashed

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/20/2006 @ 11:35pm

555. that they are persian in Iran, typo or momentary confusion

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/20/2006 @ 11:36pm

556. JR, my point was to correct you. You referred to the president of Iran as an Arab leader.

     Posted by RonS at 01/20/2006 @ 11:38pm

557. Turk, I live in NYC, in a neighborhood called Washington Heights, once the center of the crack trade, but that epidemic has fortunately waned. I do like Finger Lakes wine, especially the Riesling, a grape that is the mainstay of Rhine wines, a region I grew up in. I plan to visit the Finger Lakes, as I know I would enjoy them. is that where you are from?

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/20/2006 @ 11:38pm

558. Ronnie, you are correct, I did not make that distinction, as many arab leaders have expressed that sentiment, which was my point. you may enjoy your gotcha points

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/20/2006 @ 11:41pm

559. Originally from Rochester, now living between Rochester and Syracuse. Rieslings are a favorite in our house, several local wineries produce some very fine products. I recommend the Seneca Lake or Cayuga Lake wineries - very satisfactory!

     Posted by Turk33 at 01/20/2006 @ 11:45pm

560. Frei, what do you think?

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/20/2006 @ 11:45pm

561. Turk, at this hour we may be premitted to stray from topic. I also have a great fondness for Long Island north shore wines, as well as that place as a summer get away. there's a wonderful camping spot out by Sag Harbor. do you go to the 1000 islands sometimes?

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/20/2006 @ 11:49pm

562. I have camped at one of the state campgrounds near Alexandria Bay - can't recall the name, but it was beautiful.

     Any of the Long Island labels you might recommend? The wine rack could always use some new residents (short term, of course!).

     Posted by Turk33 at 01/20/2006 @ 11:53pm

563. Oh no! Are we going to argue about what is better - red or white wines? LOL

     It's getting late, so good night.

     Posted by Turk33 at 01/21/2006 @ 12:04am

564. http://www.liwines.com/default.ihtml?page=vineyards

     I haven't tried them all, but Pindar, Pellegrini, Palmer and Bedell are good

     I have camped on practically ALL the 1000 islands campgrounds, those on the canadian side are the best

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/21/2006 @ 12:06am

565. Frei, a while ago someone, bless his heart, recommended a wine called Viognier, and thatsa very nice, a california one, try it sometime.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/21/2006 @ 12:08am

566. Got more repeated words creating wierd connections:

     http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/nsa/dojnsa11906wp.pdf

     Washington, D.C. 20530 January 19, 2006 LEGAL AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING THE ACTIVITIES OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY DESCRIBED BY THE PRESIDENT As the President has explained, since shortly after the attacks of September 11, 2001, he has authorized the National Security Agency ("NSA") to intercept international communications into and out of the United States of persons linked to al Qaeda or related terrorist organizations. The purpose of these intercepts is to establish an early warning system to detect and prevent another catastrophic terrorist attack on the United States. This paper addresses, in an unclassified form, the legal basis for the NSA activities described by the President ("NSA activities").

     president_________264

     Is________________214

     Congress___________172

     has______________123

     Authority____________121

     Activities_____________97

     are__________________92

     courts_______________83

     NSA________________78

     Authorized___________67

     Enemy_______________62

     Law_________________58

     Attacks______________57

     communications______57

     Al Qaeda_____________45

     Necessary____________45

     Security______________45

     Terrorist______________38

     Intercept______________37

     Warrantless___________36

     September 11__________34

     Protect_______________34

     Purpose______________32

     Constitution___________32

     Warrant_______________31

     Inherent_______________27

     International___________26

     Consistent_____________25

     explained______________22

     American______________21

     Commander and Chief___17

     will___________________14

     Terror________________14

     Civil_________________13

     Link_________________12

     Legal_________________11

     Individual_____________10

     sole_________________8

     lawful_______________8

     network______________8

     Approval_____________6

     believed______________5

     catastrophic_________5

     Right_________________5

     believe_______________4

     deadliest______________4

     financial______________4

     lives_________________3

     unclassified__________2

     pledged_______________2

     harmony_______________1

     indispensable__________1

     leadership____________1

     Curiouser and curiouser

     Posted by Bushfools at 01/21/2006 @ 02:22am

567. Persons______________20

     Posted by Bushfools at 01/21/2006 @ 02:31am

568. Frei, that's a nice sentiment, where is you residence so I start making plans

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/21/2006 @ 09:07am

569. Johann

     Viognier ref would be me...and glad you enjoyed it! I like the bold fruit that just kinda "jumps out"

     Frei

     As I read, Yahoo and many others have already rolled over for Dubya. Only GOOGLE is holding strong. After all, if I wanna see pictures of Laura Bush humping midgets its my own damn business...not the WH's.

     Posted by leftofcenter at 01/21/2006 @ 09:11am

570. Ah, Lefty, I believe it was you, and I thank you. I even brought a bottle to a new years eve party, but wound up drinking most of it myself. the party was nice, I had the chance to listen to people describe to me how difficult it was to get their kids into the right PHD program

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/21/2006 @ 09:21am

571. in this environment of fear they're trying to grab anything they can. here in new york it's bag searches on the subway. they're not doing very many, the case is still in the courts, and they are completely ineffective, something they don't even deny. this was instituted after the London train bombing. funny thing, they don't do bag searches in London, as far as I know. we are living in phony wartime and they're all puffing themselves up to look like Churchill

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/21/2006 @ 09:29am

572. RONS, about your Osama question, I definitely heard items from his latest tape that match my observations about the idiocy of Bush administration policy. I might be hard pressed to come up with three items I disagree with, I suppose, but I won't bother. After all, the enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend. There are innumerable public statements from murderous dicatators that dovetail with conservative ideology - two can play this game.

     My biggest complaint about the fraudulent War on Terror is that we have been sucker-punched into throwing resources at problems that are impossible to solve in the short term. At its core, it's economic warfare. They spend a hundred thousand blowing up stuff over here, we spend a trillion blowing up stuff over there. Net effect is we end up broke and looking stupid, and the original problem, that we're perceived as a bully with no sense of fairness, is worse than ever before.

     This economic-warfare view is rarely articulated by public figures. In fact, one of the few who subscribes to it is one Osama bin Laden. But I won't give it up just for sake of keeping better company. I'll keep waiting for a commander in chief that actually understands the ancient principle of warfare, "know your enemy."

     Posted by MyParadigm at 01/21/2006 @ 09:38am

573. Paradigm, good points all. I think it would be a good time to start negotiating with Osama. you negotiate with your enemy not with your friends.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/21/2006 @ 09:55am

574. MYPARADIGM, Well, thanks at least for standing out and having the honesty to say it. By the way, I doubt there are any statements from "murderous dictators" that dovetail with libertarian ideology!

     Posted by RonS at 01/21/2006 @ 09:59am

575. Johann

     You'd think if they are old enough to be looking at PhD programs, the "kids" oughta be making up their own minds! ..and I'm sure quaffing the Viognier yourself was a pleasant chore! ;-)

     Posted by leftofcenter at 01/21/2006 @ 10:00am

576. .

     BRUNOWE 01/20 @ 7:36pm

     NACL, That's wrong on both counts. First, here is the executive order that was the subject of the [Youngstown Steel]case

     Okay, lets look at that. It was 1952. The Supreme Court rejected President Truman's claim that he, as -

     " ... Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces has the ultimate power as such to take possession of private property in order to keep labor disputes from stopping production. This is a job for the Nation's law-makers, not for its military authorities." (Justice Hugo Black, for the majority)

     A) The court did not tell Truman he could not take over the steel mills because his inherent war fighting powers were limited. It told him, you can't seize the private property of Americans. It in effect said, if the greater good requires commandeering private property, that is a matter of eminent domain and requires legislation, not an executive edict.

     B) A further question was, who has to yield when Congress, in a time of war, through its laws, or its failure to pass certain laws, obstructs the President's capacity to fight?

     The court, in so many words, held: A president is not automatically empowered to ignore established laws just because he has involved the US in a fight. His ability to sidestep laws or rules depends on the degree to which Congress agrees with him and acknowledges a national emergency. If it does not then a president's CinC powers remain very restricted. If Congress however recognizes a danger to the nation, and expresses itself in a declaration of war, then it is saying, Mr. President do whatever it takes to defeat the enemy and make the country safe. Then there is little the CinC is not empowered to do.

     What was the situation in 1952? Truman had engaged US troops in Korea. Congress was funding the armed forces and had authorized the draft; but it had not supported that fight with a declaration of war or with any war resolution. When Truman then decided to nationalize the US steel industry, it was on behalf of a "UN police effort" for which no specific congressional authorization existed. The Supreme Court regarded that as overreaching. Truman's CinC powers did not extend that far.

     That was how a 6 to 3 Supreme Court majority ruled in the Youngstown Steel case. It decided against Harry. But that ruling supports George W today:

     1. Back in 1952 a president was brandishing his CinC powers in support of a UN police action in Asia, a commitment which Congress never directly supported.

     This time, Congress, in a joint resolution on September 14, 2001, specifically called on the President -

     to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

     2. In 1952 the immediate issue was whether the CinC powers permitted seizing the private property of Americans in order to end a strike which might interfere with weapon production which could harm the war effort.

     This time the President claims the right, as CinC to eavesdrop on OBL as he plots to bomb the US.

     In short, the 1952 Youngstown Steel case, which you believe is applicable nowadays, grants President Bush maximum authority as CinC. By the criteria of Justices Jackson and Douglas he is a Commander in Chief with peak strength.

     .

     Posted by nacl at 01/21/2006 @ 10:55am

577. .

     BRUNOWE 01/20 @ 7:36pm

     You quote Justice Douglas -

     "When the President takes measures incompatible with the expressed or implied will of Congress, his power is at its lowest ebb"

     Right, but surely, Bush's power was at its zenith following the 14 Sept 2001 resolution. He not only wielded the normal powers with which the Constitution endows any president, but on top of that, Congress had ordered him to do everything possible to pursue the perpetrators of 9/11. So it gave him the support of its own power.

     That raises the questin, would the President in fact not have been in contempt of the expressed will of Congress, had he continued to adhere to the 1978 FISA statute - although it crimped his prosecution of the anti-terror effort?

     Or do you suppose, Bush should have understood that 2001 resolution to say, take every measure that will help you stop al-Qaeda, except abandoning the 1978 FISA rules, even if they don't help but hinder your efforts?

     You write,

     Unless you can show that Congress had no power to pass legislation over domestic surveillance, the inherent authority argument collapses.

     1. This is not about DOMESTIC surveillance. It is not about police who build a criminal case against the Mafia or stock manipulators. It is about listening in on FOREIGN organizations conspiring with local confederates against this country, after the Congress has called on the President to do whatever it takes to stop those people. In the face of that "the inherent authority argument collapses"?

     2. Legislation for controlling the FBI's surveillance of suspicious foreigners and spies in 1978 was one thing. During the whole of the Cold War was there a single case of political murder or sabotage in the US? The post 9/11 situation however is entirely different. Now it is no longer just leisurely observations of embassy officials, suspected moles, foreign students, tourists etc. Now it is a matter of overhearing people who might, within days and hours, drive a sixteen wheeler packed with dynamite onto the Golden Gate bridge.

     3. Furthermore, the record shows the 1978 FISA legislation was advocated by Carter's Attorney General with the expressed caveat, that it does not undermine the President's inherent power. When Clinton asked for an extension of that law his Justice Dept also emphasized that the President's inherent freedom of action was not affected.

     4. You have to show that a president, ordered by Congress to defend America with all his power, must accept the supervision of a 27 year old court whose judges say they have no authority over him.

     .

     Posted by nacl at 01/21/2006 @ 11:25am

578. Frei, you lucky soandso, I suppose you have a good job, a nice family and a happy dog too.

     very often the gov't in order to protect children, treats all of us like children.

     an important point apropos pornography is that many of our consumer technologies got a helping hand in spreading, pun intended, by the human fascination with porn. take the VCR, please, for instance, the spread of this device was helped enormously. and so it is with the computer and the web. folks like porn, that's all there is to it. the upside is that porn's ubiquity demystifies it and make it less attractive, especiall to kids.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/21/2006 @ 1:05pm

579. my paradigm, the full text of the osama tape is on page 11 of this thread. i think frank put it on. i don't know where else to get it.

     rons, i can't speak for the nation. but for me, i can't find much to disagree with. the part about praising god that our country is going downhill is easy for me to disagree with. but the part about bush being fallacious, getting elected through billions of dollars and making rich people richer through this war, i can agree with. iraq probably is a good training ground for his fighters...what else did he say? oh yeah, the capitols of some of our allies were bombed.

     and once again, what about the truce part? why don't we negotiate with some of these people? what about the carrol kidnappers? why don't we go through the prisons with someone representing them and see if any women are being held unjustly. general kasinsky(sp?), said 85% of the people we have in prison over there are innocent.

     Posted by loveloki at 01/21/2006 @ 1:26pm

580. i don't think it was general kasinsky. i'll look for her name. i saw her on nightline before ted koppel retired.

     Posted by loveloki at 01/21/2006 @ 1:39pm

581. The court, in so many words, held: A president is not automatically empowered to ignore established laws just because he has involved the US in a fight. His ability to sidestep laws or rules depends on the degree to which Congress agrees with him and acknowledges a national emergency. If it does not then a president's CinC powers remain very restricted. If Congress however recognizes a danger to the nation, and expresses itself in a declaration of war, then it is saying, Mr. President do whatever it takes to defeat the enemy and make the country safe. Then there is little the CinC is not empowered to do.

     That is not what the court said. If Congress legislates on a subject, then inherent presidential authority is a minimum. One of the presidential powers Truman based his claim on was his authority as Commander-in-Chief, which the court held couldn't apply here as Congress had legislated on the subject and the President couldn't override that. Regarding FISA, the Congressional Research Service report noted that the Conference Committee meeting on this bill explicity stated that FISA was meant to apply Youngstown's "lowest ebb" standard.

     1. This is not about DOMESTIC surveillance. It is not about police who build a criminal case against the Mafia or stock manipulators. It is about listening in on FOREIGN organizations conspiring with local confederates against this country

     Well it IS about domestic surveillance. The program wiretaps people in this country who are engaged in communications with suspected al-Qaida persons abroad. That's why FISA covers wiretaps involving United States persons while the statue to which LL referred dealts with wiretaps where US persons aren't involved. In fact, the recent report by the Congressional Research Service found that FISA was intended to cover US/non-US communications (see footnote 80). http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/m010506.pdf

     If Congress however recognizes a danger to the nation, and expresses itself in a declaration of war, then it is saying, Mr. President do whatever it takes to defeat the enemy and make the country safe. Then there is little the CinC is not empowered to do.

     Justice Jackson said exactly the opposite: "There are indications that the Constitution did not contemplate that the title Commander in Chief of the [343 U.S. 579, 644] Army and Navy will constitute him also Commander in Chief of the country, its industries and its inhabitants. He has no monopoly of "war powers," whatever they are. While Congress cannot deprive the President of the command of the army and navy, only Congress can provide him an army or navy to command. It is also empowered to make rules for the "Government and Regulation of land and naval Forces," by which it may to some unknown extent impinge upon even command functions.

     That military powers of the Commander in Chief were not to supersede representative government of internal affairs seems obvious from the Constitution and from elementary American history. Time out of mind, and even now in many parts of the world, a military commander can seize private housing to shelter his troops. Not so, however, in the United States, for the Third Amendment says, "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law." Thus, even in war time, his seizure of needed military housing must be authorized by Congress. It also was expressly left to Congress to "provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions . . . ." Such a limitation on the command power, written at a time when the militia rather than a standing army was contemplated as the military weapon of the Republic, underscores the Constitution's policy that Congress, not the Executive, should control utilization of the war power as an instrument of domestic policy. Congress, fulfilling that function, has authorized the President to use the army to enforce certain civil rights. On the other hand. Congress has forbidden him to use the army for the purpose of executing general laws except when expressly authorized by the Constitution or by Act of Congress." (emphasis added)

     Now as to the AUMF. First, FISA specifically covered war/emergency situations by permitted warrantless wiretaps within the first fifteen days of such status. By implication, anything beyond that would be covered by FISA. The absence of any provision specifically overruling FISA in this case supports the implication that FISA still applies. Your argument rests on the assumption that Congress would repeal a statue specifically meant to apply to wartime without actually mentioning that it was doing so. Further, Congress passed the Patriot Act shortly after passing the AUMF. That act had several provisions amending FISA, why would they do that if they considered FISA not in effect in dealing with the very same threat that was covered by the Patriot Act?

     The CRS report also point out that the Supreme Court's Hamdi opinion supported the argument that the "use of force" provision was meant to apply to traditional battlefield cases. Unless you argue that AUMF essentially created a martial law situation where the army can go in and kick down door, I don't see how you argue that the "use of force" provision covers the United States or supercedes the criminal laws. Indeed, Gore pointed our in his speech that during the authorization debate, Sen. Stevens and Rep. McGovern "made statements during the Authorization debate clearly restating that that Authorization did not operte domestically" You could, of course, dismiss it as simply something Gore is saying but I'd think you'd have to provide some instances of either of those two denying it first.

     Posted by brunowe at 01/21/2006 @ 1:42pm

582. Bruno, so you think the pres is not a king during his selfproclaimed war time? why didn't you say so?

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/21/2006 @ 1:47pm

583. the general i referred to above is janis karpinski.

     Posted by loveloki at 01/21/2006 @ 1:48pm

584. I live on the edge of California's Sierra Foothills Wine Country. Closest city is Sacramento.

     Posted by FREIHEIT 01/21/2006 @ 12:32am

     Frei,

     What area? I love that part of the state. My Uncle and his family lived during the late 50's until the early 70's in the Oroville area.

     Posted by love liberty at 01/21/2006 @ 2:37pm

585. Brunowe,

     You have done a very good job of positing the genuine legal arguments for the left and the current position of the Democrats (joined by some Republicans). Taken together with my post yesterday, I think this forms the real genesis of the debate.

     As we both agreed, it will be SCOTUS who will need to weigh in where they have previously declined to provide some resolution that will last (at least until a future court either upholds or reverses).

     The debate can be fun, but I think you agree that nothing will be settled until we have a SCOTUS ruling.

     Posted by love liberty at 01/21/2006 @ 2:44pm

586. Things seem a little too civil around here. I found this in an old News of the Weird Column:

     The Federal Court of Canada decided in February that Hugh Trainor was entitled to veterans' benefits for service during World War II despite the fact that he had been ruled medically unfit before becoming a member of the armed forces. The court ruled that Trainor's boat ride from Prince Edward Island to his recruiting-station physical exam in Nova Scotia qualified as service because it was dangerous, in that German submarines were thought to be operating in the Atlantic Ocean at the time.

     If this had been John Kerry he would have gotten another silver star for his heroism.

     Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 01/21/2006 @ 3:54pm | ignore this person

     What a slimey cheap shot that was. Only a "Swiftboater" would think of something like that. Quit spitting on 'Nam vets, MBB.

     Posted by skeletonman at 01/21/2006 @ 4:09pm

587. Well, MBB, it weren't very funny.

     The "swiftboating" of Kerry and now of Murtha are the winger equivalent of spitting on 'Nam vets and it's despicable. Your side needs to stop.

     Posted by skeletonman at 01/21/2006 @ 4:23pm

588. Johannesrolf, that would've been too clear-cut for me, although I must point out that the AUMF, though not using the words "declaration of war", serves the same purpose so it's not merely a Presidential proclamation. ;-)

     LL, thanks, that's very gracious. SCOTUS will, of course, have the final word--but putting together these arguments has been an enjoyable process.

     Posted by brunowe at 01/21/2006 @ 4:43pm

589. If this had been John Kerry he would have gotten another silver star for his heroism. Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 01/21/2006 @ 3:54pm | ignore this person

     MBB,

     I thought it was funny. However, with regard to Skel's reaction, you must admit that you wanted to stir things up: "Things seem a little too civil around here."

     Posted by seattlescribe at 01/21/2006 @ 5:19pm

590. LoC, I agree with you on that. The challenge here is how do you protect children who may not fully understand the nuance of watching the First Lady humping midgets.

     Posted by FREIHEIT 01/21/2006 @ 12:44am

     I'd probably find it more difficult to explain the actual mechanics of midget sex.

     Posted by Will C. at 01/21/2006 @ 7:56pm

591. Posted by BRUNOWE 01/21/2006 @ 1:42pm

     Excellent argument

     Posted by Will C. at 01/21/2006 @ 8:06pm

592. .

     BRUNOWE 01/21 @ 1:42pm

     If Congress legislates on a subject, then inherent presidential authority is a minimum. One of the presidential powers Truman based his claim on was his authority as Commander-in-Chief, which the court held couldn't apply here as Congress had legislated on the subject and the President couldn't override that.

     I accept that. Sure, if Congress legislates a top military strength of 75,000 men for defending America against Canada and Mexico - then the CinC, despite all his inherent powers, is in no position to call 175,000 to the colors.

     But that also works the other way. If Congress subsequently enacts a law authorizing the President to draft as many fit men as he requires to defend America against a Japanese and German threat then that legislation leaves the President with no restriction on the size of the military. It is then impossible to object to his drafting 8 million men even though Congress earlier specified a 275,000 man limit.

     Don't you agree it is fatuous to say, if Congress has legislated on a subject the President is forever bound by that law? Surely changing circumstances and the dates on conflicting legislation must be considered.

     In 1978 Congress expressed its will. That focused on controlling the surveillance of Cold War spies and diplomats from unfriendly countries. Then, 23 years later, Congress express itself against a campaign by terrorists sneaking into the US and bring mayhem to her cities. Which of those expressions of Congress govern now?

     Regarding FISA, the Congressional Research Service report noted that the Conference Committee meeting on this bill explicity stated that FISA was meant to apply Youngstown's "lowest ebb" standard

     Perhaps, but did that conference committee foresee 9/11 or a 14 Sept 2001 resolution calling on the President to pull out all the stops to contain the terrorism danger?

     The AUMF ordered President Bush: -

     ... to use all necessary and appropriate force ... to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons

     The CRS report argues that the Sept 14 resolution justified the President's resorting to military force but did not authorize eavesdropping on terrorists planning to do violence in the US. To my mind that is not a reasonable assertion, nor an accurate reading of the resolution.

     Well it IS about domestic surveillance. The program wiretaps people in this country who are engaged in communications with suspected al-Qaida persons abroad.

     The first of those two sentences is clearly markedly modified by the second. That latter admits that this is not what we consider the kind of domestic wiretap where the police listen in on suspected criminals for evidence to bring them to court. This "domestic surveillance" is about overhearing an int'l network talking to local operatives about blowing up the Wall Street subway station during rush hour.

     .

     Posted by nacl at 01/21/2006 @ 9:24pm

593. .

     BRUNOWE 01/21 @ 1:42pm

     NACL: If Congress however recognizes a danger to the nation, and expresses itself in a declaration of war, then it is saying, Mr. President do whatever it takes to defeat the enemy and make the country safe. Then there is little the CinC is not empowered to do.

     BRUNOWE: Justice Jackson said exactly the opposite: "There are indications that the Constitution did not contemplate that the title Commander in Chief of the [343 U.S. 579, 644] Army and Navy will constitute him also Commander in Chief of the country, its industries and its inhabitants. He has no monopoly of "war powers," whatever they are. While Congress cannot deprive the President of the command of the army and navy, only Congress can provide him an army or navy to command. It is also empowered to make rules for the "Government and Regulation of land and naval Forces," by which it may to some unknown extent impinge upon even command functions.

     Jackson is there talking about how dependent the President (as CinC) is on Congress when it has not expressly committed the nation war. But Jackson is not denying that when Congress declares war and orders the President "to use all necessary and appropriate force," the President is being granted maximum power. He has the job of using the resources of the country to prevent America from being defeated, perhaps conquered.

     You go on at length to deny what not one asserts. There is no question that a president may not use his CinC rank and his command of the military, to rule the country as a dictator. At all times Congress can limit a president's power (ultimately via the purse string). But you refuse to address the fact that the Congress ordered the President to harness the country's strength in order to defeat a foe.

     The absence of any provision specifically overruling FISA in this case supports the implication that FISA still applies

     Specifying that the FISA law was being overruled would have implied, any other law contradicting or limiting the AUMF was meant to do so.

     Your argument rests on the assumption that Congress would repeal a statue specifically meant to apply to wartime without actually mentioning that it was doing so. Further, Congress passed the Patriot Act shortly after passing the AUMF. That act had several provisions amending FISA, why would they do that if they considered FISA not in effect in dealing with the very same threat that was covered by the Patriot Act?

     During WWII, certainly in the first years, a poison gas capability was retained by the Allies, as were gas masks, which were even improved along with the poison gas. Yet as it turned out the actual fighting involved different kind of battlefield. What did that gas anachronism prove, imply or suggest?

     Unless you argue that AUMF essentially created a martial law situation where the army can go in and kick down door, I don't see how you argue that the "use of force" provision covers the United States or supercedes the criminal laws. Indeed, Gore pointed our in his speech that during the authorization debate, Sen. Stevens and Rep. McGovern "made statements during the Authorization debate clearly restating that that Authorization did not operte domestically"

     If nuclear weapons or other WMDs were to start exploding across the country then the AUMF could be the basis of martial law measures. But no one, other than paranoids, is suggesting that now. Nor is there a question of superseding criminal law. The AUMF was merely the determination to respond boldly to a new kind of war. That authorization was meant to defeat ferocious fanatics. Supporting it is not supporting govt tyranny, but opposing ideologues seeking to hamstring govt's efforts to avert new 9/11s.

     .

     Posted by nacl at 01/21/2006 @ 10:01pm

594. OK the last word count post on the spying white paper. It's so much like working a puzzle. Since I've read several places that the argument was weak, figured there was more to it somehow. I Googled the first few word numbers since they were so high to see if there were any weird connections. I guess the most you can say is there ‘is' a weird symmetry with certain words repeated a similar number of times. However, conservatively speaking, if this is an explanation of the spy powers as ‘commander and chief'-- why is the term 'president' used 264 times, 'president's' 82, 'presidential' 11, but 'commander and chief' only 17? Of course if you'd like to play subliminal conspiracy theorist there seems to be plenty there too…

     The (1842) THE TREATY OF NANKING,

     Of (922) Section 922. Unlawful act

     To (773) MERC 21 Concise Bibliographic: Linking Entry Fields 773

     In (526) I-526, Immigrant Petition by Alien Entrepreneur

     And (502) 502. Remedies for infringement: Injunctions

     A (348) Cyber Security Bulletin SB05-348

     President(264) Is(214) For(181) FISA(181) As(178) Congress(172) United States(154) Not(132) Intelligence(131) Has(123) With(122) Authority(121) An (106) Electronic(101) Activities(97) Are(92) Courts(83) President's(82) This(80) NSA(78) Constitutional(74) Authorized(67) Enemy(62) Force(61) Law(58) Statute(57) Attacks(57) Communications(57) Armed(50) He(46) Attack(46) Al Qaeda(45) Necessary(45) Security(45) Terrorist(38) Intercept(37) Does(36) Warrantless(36) September 11(34) Protect(34) Purpose(32) Constitution(32) Warrant(31) Supreme Court(30) Prevent(27) Inherent(27) International(26) Forces(25) Consistent(25) Action(23) Affairs(22) Explained(22) Time(22) Did(21) American(21) Persons(20) Purposes(19) Support(18) Commander and Chief(17) Emergency(16) Every(15) Threat(15) Will(14) Terror(14) After(13) Civil(13) Purpose(13) Do(12) Link(12) Presidential(11) World(11) Since(11) We(11) Legal(11) Individual(10) Constitutionally(10) Sole(8) Lawful(8) Continue(7) Army(7) Strike(7) Tool(7) Threats(7) Network(7) Authorities(7) Narrow(7) New York(7) Again(6) Supreme Court's(6) Allies(6) Approval(6) Statutes(6) Supports(5) Actions(5) Responsibility(5) Believed(5) Catastrophic(5) Right(5) Shortly(4) Believe(4) Warning(4) Deadliest(4) Financial(4) Supported(4) Immediate(3) Armies(3) Kill(3) Leader(3) Leaders(3) Promised(3) Lives(3) Believe(3) Immediately(2) Preventing(2) Plans(2) Unilateral(2) Emergencies(2) Unclassified(2) Pledged(2) World Trade Center(2) Transmitting(1) Plan(1) Influence(1) Assert(1) Asserting(1) Threaten(1) Threatened(1) Killing(1) Diplomacy(1) Supporting(1) Grave(1) Promise(1) Networks(1) Harmony(1) Indispensable(1) Leadership(1) Arm(1)

     http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/nsa/dojnsa11906wp.pdf

     Posted by Bushfools at 01/22/2006 @ 01:18am

595. Bushfools

     I'm afraid I'm at a loss to understand the point of the word counts? Can you indicate what conclusions are to be drawn from them?

     Posted by brunowe at 01/22/2006 @ 11:49am

596. Don't you agree it is fatuous to say, if Congress has legislated on a subject the President is forever bound by that law? Surely changing circumstances and the dates on conflicting legislation must be considered.

     In 1978 Congress expressed its will. That focused on controlling the surveillance of Cold War spies and diplomats from unfriendly countries. Then, 23 years later, Congress express itself against a campaign by terrorists sneaking into the US and bring mayhem to her cities. Which of those expressions of Congress govern now?

     That argument misconstrues the purpose of FISA. It wasn't to establish surveillance but to establish safeguards against the abuses of it that took place during the Nixon era. The need for such safeguards is just as great now as it was then. Further, Congress expressed its adjustment when it amended FISA as part of the Patriot Act. Note that it did not repeal FISA wholesale and the fact that it took the trouble to amend it indicates a belief that if still applied, even though AUMF had already passed.

     The first of those two sentences is clearly markedly modified by the second. That latter admits that this is not what we consider the kind of domestic wiretap where the police listen in on suspected criminals for evidence to bring them to court. This "domestic surveillance" is about overhearing an int'l network talking to local operatives about blowing up the Wall Street subway station during rush hour.

     The only problem is that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is part of the same part of the United States Code that covers purely foreign surveillance, 18 U.S.C., Chapter 36, Subchapter I. Section 1802(B) states the one of the conditions for the authorization of warrantless wiretaps is that "there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party". Sections 1803 and 1804 of the subchapter establish the FISA court and the procedures for applying for FISA warrants. It must follow from this that the FISA warrant procedure covers any communications to which a United States person is a party.

     But you refuse to address the fact that the Congress ordered the President to harness the country's strength in order to defeat a foe.

     No, it constituted the functional equivalent of a declaration of war against al-Qaida, affiliates, allies, etc., there is nothing in such an authorization that confers special power domestically or a grant of whatever power the President thinks necessary. Again, Stevens and McGovern both stated that AUMF didn't give the President any new or special powers. Again, consider the Patriot Act. If AUMF was contrued as giving the President a free hand within the borders of the United States, then the Patriot Act makes no sense in many respects.

     If nuclear weapons or other WMDs were to start exploding across the country then the AUMF could be the basis of martial law measures. But no one, other than paranoids, is suggesting that now. Nor is there a question of superseding criminal law. The AUMF was merely the determination to respond boldly to a new kind of war. That authorization was meant to defeat ferocious fanatics.

     First, the point of the "kicking down doors" argument still applies. You seem be arguing that the "use of force" provision permits electronic surveillance but not the actual use of force. The phrase makes more sense if it's construed as permitting the use of force against foreign targets such as Afghanistan. Secondly, there very much is a question of "superceding criminal law". Padilla, an American citizen, was arrested in the United States and defined as an "enemy combatant" solely on the ukase of the Executive Branch and then sent to Gitmo. The only reason he is in the civil justice system now is because the administration wanted to avoid a judicial review of that detention. Thirdly, if WMDs started exploding in this country, the President wouldn't need AUMF, he would have his inherent authority to deal with an ongoing or imminent attack, another reason why AUMF must be construed to not apply domestically.

     Supporting it is not supporting govt tyranny, but opposing ideologues seeking to hamstring govt's efforts to avert new 9/11s.

     That would be more comforting is we didn't have an administration which didn't defend extraordinary rendition, torture and the ability to unilaterally decide that an American citizen can just be taken out of the judicial process. Insisting on FISA is not hamstringing efforts to prevent 9/11s, it is making sure that such efforts don't eliminate the liberties that are being fought for.

     Posted by brunowe at 01/22/2006 @ 10:11pm

597. 855 comments?

     Where is John Nichols? I'm having visions of his having converted to conservatism and having taken a fellowship at the Heritage Foundation and The Nation being too embarrassed to admit it.

     Posted by brunowe at 01/22/2006 @ 10:12pm

598. That would be more comforting is we didn't have an administration which didn't defend extraordinary rendition, torture..

     Damn, that should of been did defend.

     Posted by brunowe at 01/22/2006 @ 10:30pm

599. Sorry spent the day with my daughter after class. Yep, it's a Sunday class… sigh.

     Ok, where to start. The idea in designing an image is to at some point decide on a marking system as the overall element which creates the various tonal values or grays, and in so doing create an essential mood. True all the other elements come to play as well but the basic element can be the most powerful due to it sublety. The smallest element is important in that most of the time you don't even notice it, but it usually makes you feel certain ways without notice. It's most notable with color but small marks repeated either sharp and angular or smooth and soft, will make a big difference to the emotional value the viewer places on the picture. And of course I'm relating an image to a written paper for deconstruction. Most people do not realize how great our visual acuity is. I cut/pasted a word statement below with scrambled letters but our brain uses size and shape to tell us the word and thus are able to read it. In advertising and marketing this is well known. There are lots of studies that show the power of repetition, confusing quantity for quality. Just do a Google. I copied some site addresses below. I thought it was common understanding that the current regime's MO is advertising/marketing via repetition, not fact. Thus perhaps using the white paper as a marketing ploy per repeating the product, the president. If this goes to the SCOTUS and they already give the exec preference, what best mechanism than a paper that reminds them--hey, this is the PRESIDENT we're talking about here. And as I stated before, there are already opinions out that state the white paper is very weak, thus I looked for the smallest element within in it for a key as to what they were up to--just like in designing an image.

     Let me know if I can clarify anything further.

     I cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdanieg. The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid. Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Amzanig huh? Yaeh, and I awlyas thought slpeling was ipmorantt.

     "Anthony D. Romero, ACLU executive director, said Bush and Gonzales are manufacturing legal justifications but the program remains in violation of the constitutional amendments protecting free speech and privacy."

     http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/19/AR200601 1903276.html

     "Our results suggest that the ad itself is a critical variable mediating the response to repetition. Subjects in our study seemed to like an ad more after repeated exposure to it, and seemed to transfer this liking to the product being advertised, raising its quality rating. Our results are also consistent with "mere exposure" effects: increased ad exposure increasing familiarity with the brand and, hence, perceived quality."

     http://www.mgmt.utoronto.ca/~moorthy/Papers/adv%20repetition.moorthy.haw kins.pdf

     http://www.rotman.utoronto.ca/marketing/research/

     http://www.psych.upenn.edu/stslab/TS_Neuron_99.pdf

     There has been a great deal of research on how different spacing of repetitions in time affects the strength of memory and how the resulting findings could be applied in the practice of effective learning. It has been predicted, and to a large degree confirmed, that by changing the spacing of repetitions, a substantial gain in the effectiveness of learning might be obtained (e.g., Bjork, 1979; Glenberg, 1979; Glenberg 1980; Clifford, 1981; Dempster, 1987; Bahrick, 1987).

     http://www.supermemo.com/english/ol/background.htm

     Desimone, R. (1996). Neural mechanisms for visual memory and their role in attention. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences - USA, 93, 13494-13499.

     http://www.1stdirect.com/articles/The%20Power%20of%20Repetition.pdf

     http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002716.html

     Posted by Bushfools at 01/22/2006 @ 10:50pm

600. OK...I just got here expecting to talk about Gore's criticism of the Bush Reich,so...what the fuck are you people talking about?

     Posted by philbq at 01/22/2006 @ 11:01pm

601. OK...I just got here expecting to talk about Gore's criticism of the Bush Reich,so...what the fuck are you people talking about?

     Posted by PHILBQ 01/22/2006 @ 11:01pm

     Phil, i believe it is this:

     Bushfools

     I'm afraid I'm at a loss to understand the point of the word counts? Can you indicate what conclusions are to be drawn from them?

     Posted by BRUNOWE 01/22/2006 @ 11:49am

     Posted by malcontent3 at 01/22/2006 @ 11:11pm

602. Bushfools

     Thanks, so if I may try to bullet-point it, word frequency is a method of almost-subliminal framing.

     Posted by brunowe at 01/22/2006 @ 11:11pm

603. .

     BRUNOWE 01/22 @ 10:11pm

     NaCl: In 1978 Congress expressed its will. That (FISA law) focused on controlling the surveillance of Cold War spies and diplomats from unfriendly countries.

     Brunow: That argument misconstrues the purpose of FISA. It wasn't to establish surveillance but to establish safeguards against the abuses of it that took place during the Nixon era. The need for such safeguards is just as great now as it was then. Further, Congress expressed its adjustment when it amended FISA as part of the Patriot Act. Note that it did not repeal FISA wholesale and the fact that it took the trouble to amend it indicates a belief that if still applied, even though AUMF had already passed.

     That is quibbling. You insist the FISA law wasn't "controlling surveillance" of spies during the Cold War but was "establishing safeguards against abuses of" their surveillance.

     More to the point, we already discussed all that in the last round. I had offered a WWII gas warfare analogy. Soldiers were still being issued gas masks in the early 1940s. But that didn't prove gas attacks were a serious threat at that time. Nor was the persistence of that threat and the indispensability of those masks confirmed by their being improved in the course of the war. In the same way, just because FISA wasn't dismantled in recent years, but was in fact modernized doesn't mean its usefulness remained against the new and different terrorism danger.

     the FISA warrant procedure covers any communications to which a United States person is a party

     Right, but that does not make FISA, once a reasonable check on Cold War surveillance, a workable instrument for controlled anti-terror surveillance.

     First of all, the Cold War spy threat sought information: everything from the dope on US strategy on some Securit Council resolution, to our latest submarine propeller design. But today the challenge is a different species of threat. Instead of watching people trying to snatch some secret, our security services must intercept threats like someone with a rucksack of C-4 on a Statue of Liberty tourist boat, or a SUV at O'Hare airpor, with a Stinger aimed out of the sun roof.

     Secondly, in the past, the number of people who could reasonably be considered suspicious was limited. They revolved around known embassy officials, or foreign journalists or tourists from East block countries. The phone taps they justified were a manageable number. Now however, the problem is of an enomous magnitude. Not just in the number of people whose intentions need to be known, but in the kind of immediate danger they may pose.

     Now let's be clear. Al-Qaeda is a serious danger to our cities. OBL reaffirmed that again just last week. The Congress, on Sept 14, 2002, ordered Bush to "use all necessary and appropriate force" to prevent a new 9/11. The job is horrifically complex. The administration tackles it not as a matter of choice, but of necessity and duty. The pressure on it is enormous.

     Listening in on OBL and local Islamists plotting an attack is surely something the govt needs to do if it can. Apparently the technology exists. It involves a continual electronic screening for keywords, of hundreds of thousands of telephone transmissions, and the rifling through of hard drives and e-mail. This kind of surveillance is surely different from the detective work of the Cold War eera and is physically beyond the power of any FISA court. For one thing, there aren't enough judges in the nation. And even if there were, how could they evaluate these pin in a haystack searches?

     Is this electronic snooping intrusive and a privacy concern? You bet. It is offensive, it is worrisome. But so is the search of my body when I go to the airport or into a gov't building. That indignity and intrusion happens to hundreds of thousands every day. Yet no reasonable person resents airport checkers and their searching questions and frisking. It is not their doing or Bush's, it is the doing of people who want us dead.

     .

     Posted by nacl at 01/23/2006 @ 10:53am

604. .

     BRUNOWE 01/22 @ 10:11pm

     there is nothing in such an authorization (war resolution) that confers special power domestically or a grant of whatever power the President thinks necessary. Again, Stevens and McGovern both stated that AUMF didn't give the President any new or special powers.

     Sen. Stevens and Rep. McGovern did not speak for the Congress, nor for the Supreme Court.

     Speaking of which, you are now denying the whole logic of your earlier reference to the 1952 Youngstown Steel Mill case. You evoked Justice Jackson who said, congressional authorization is required to give the President hightened power, or as Jackson expressed it, to maximize his authority.

     When the President acts pursuant to an express or implied authorization of Congress, his authority is at its maximum,

     Jackson joined the others in denying Truman the right to nationalize the Steel Mills, not because such a move was ipso facto beyond the President's power, but because it was only in his power if a congressional authorization backed him. That was their conclusion.

     Well, in this war against terror, the Congress has backed Bush. It has ordered him to do all that is "necessary and appropriate ... to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons." It did not add: however, when those organizations or persons operate WITHIN the United States you leave them alone, then this resolution dpes not apply to THEM.

     If AUMF was construed as giving the President a free hand within the borders of the United States, then the Patriot Act makes no sense in many respects.

     Are you saying, in your opinion the AUMF does authorizing the President to do everything "necessary and appropriate" to stop "organizations or persons" seeking to perpetrate new acts of terror, if they operate on US soil? Your reason is the Patriot Act? Explain that.

     You seem be arguing that the "use of force" provision permits electronic surveillance but not the actual use of force.

     No. My point was, under the AUMF massive electronic surveillance is appropriated because it is necessary. But not massive random roundups, they would not serve a necessary purpose. That might however change if, for example, WMDs devastate the nation and if it became necessary to quarantine entire cities or whole sections of the country.

     Padilla, an American citizen, was arrested in the United States and defined as an "enemy combatant" solely on the ukase of the Executive Branch and then sent to Gitmo.

     Not just the Executive branch, Padilla, aka Abdullah al-Muhajir, also saw himself as a combatant and enemy of the US. He traveled to Pakistan, met with al-Qaeda people, picked up 10,000 OBL dollars from a Zurich bank, and hoped to build a radiological dispersion device, or "dirty bomb," for use against the US.

     You think that describes the usual delinquent to be handled like any other underprivileged, misunderstood victim of bad influences?

     Insisting on FISA is not hamstringing efforts to prevent 9/11s, it is making sure that such efforts don't eliminate the liberties that are being fought for. Again, consider the Patriot Act. If AUMF was construed as giving the President a free hand within the borders of the United States, then the Patriot Act makes no sense in many respects.

     You are repeating yourself, I think because you feel the need for a weightier case.

     Lets wait and see how weighty the ACLU and the Center for Constitutional Rights lawsuit against the warrantless wiretaps will prove. It should be interesting. I notice that the Democratic party did not join either of those suits. Conceivably it is not all that anxious for the dispute to come to a head. If the plaintiffs win the govt will have to stop its electronic surveillance. That will give Republicans one more example of how the opposition refuses to defend the country. If the govt wins your side loses its strongest claim, and the benefit of a long simmering grievance steadily undermining confidence in the Administration in an election year.

     I am not a lawyer or a politician, but I think that suit was a mistake on your side's part.

     .

     Posted by nacl at 01/23/2006 @ 11:21am

605. In the same way, just because FISA wasn't dismantled in recent years, but was in fact modernized doesn't mean its usefulness remained against the new and different terrorism danger.

     But that's not the President's decision to make. That position is an argument, not necessarily a strong one, that Congress should amend or get rid of FISA, it isn't an argument that it isn't current law or that the President isn't bound by it. Furthermore, you didn't address my point that such safeguards are necessary against government abuse, especially given reports that the FBI has investigated such "dangerous" terrorist groups as PETA and Greenpeace.

     Secondly, in the past, the number of people who could reasonably be considered suspicious was limited. They revolved around known embassy officials, or foreign journalists or tourists from East block countries. The phone taps they justified were a manageable number. Now however, the problem is of an enomous magnitude. Not just in the number of people whose intentions need to be known, but in the kind of immediate danger they may pose.

     And exactly how many people do you think are plotting with OBL? Do you honestly assert that the number is greater than, let's say, the combined diplomatic staffs of the USSR, China, etc. and any people they may have had contact with in the US?

     Listening in on OBL and local Islamists plotting an attack is surely something the govt needs to do if it can. Apparently the technology exists. It involves a continual electronic screening for keywords, of hundreds of thousands of telephone transmissions, and the rifling through of hard drives and e-mail. This kind of surveillance is surely different from the detective work of the Cold War eera and is physically beyond the power of any FISA court. For one thing, there aren't enough judges in the nation. And even if there were, how could they evaluate these pin in a haystack searches?

     The only problem with that argument is that neither Bush nor Gonzales, in their news conferences, gave any indication of numbers. If the program is only supposed to be limited to al-Qaida contacts, a point that defenders of the Administration keep making, then what justification for searching the whole haystack? "'The NSA program is one that listens to a few numbers,' the president told reporters after visiting with 51 wounded troops and their families at Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio, Texas." according to news reports http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-01-01-bush-spy_x.htm Secondly, at some point they have to say, we are monitoring this person's email accounts or that person's, so why not a warrant at that point. You really haven't substantiated your point that "there aren't enough judges in the nation". Finally, if the argument that FISA is obsolete was so strong, why not go to Congress to get it amended? That had already been done in 2001 and the fact that the Administration didn't bother to here suggests that the case isn't as strong as they'd like to think.

     But so is the search of my body when I go to the airport or into a gov't building. That indignity and intrusion happens to hundreds of thousands every day. Yet no reasonable person resents airport checkers and their searching questions and frisking. It is not their doing or Bush's, it is the doing of people who want us dead.

     The difference is that there is no expectation of privacy going into an airport or a government building. You are entering someone else's property and they can set conditions for such entrance. That does not apply to electronic communications, the email and the telephone aren't owned by the government. The threat isn't Bush's doing, the use of it to justify an unconstitutional expansion of executive powers is.

     Posted by brunowe at 01/23/2006 @ 11:54am

606. If the plaintiffs win the govt will have to stop its electronic surveillance.

     That is flat-out wrong, it just means that the government will have to simply get warrants under FISA.

     Sen. Stevens and Rep. McGovern did not speak for the Congress, nor for the Supreme Court.

     I noticed that you haven't provided one instance where a Congressperson gave a statement contradictory to the ones that Stevens and McGovern made. Considering that legislative intent is key, the Stevens/McGovern statements carry weight.

     Well, in this war against terror, the Congress has backed Bush. It has ordered him to do all that is "necessary and appropriate ... to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons." It did not add: however, when those organizations or persons operate WITHIN the United States you leave them alone, then this resolution dpes not apply to THEM.

     SCOTUS implied that in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, "Hamdi contends that the AUMF does not authorize indefinite or perpetual detention. Certainly, we agree that indefinite detention for the purpose of interrogation is not authorized. Further, we understand Congress' grant of authority for the use of "necessary and appropriate force" to include the authority to detain for the duration of the relevant conflict, and our understanding is based on longstanding law-of-war principles. If the practical circumstances of a given conflict are entirely unlike those of the conflicts that informed the development of the law of war, that understanding may unravel. But that is not the situation we face as of this date. Active combat operations against Taliban fighters apparently are ongoing in Afghanistan."

     In short, the AUMF is to be construed as operating the way any other declartion of war would operate. I defy you to name one instance in which that was construed to supercede domestic authority within the United States. There is a difference between battlefields and the territory of hostile nations where the writ of US law is in abeyance and the territory of the United States, where it isn't. Consequently, your argument that the AUMF gave him sufficiently broad authority to ignore FISA doesn't hold up.

     Your reason is the Patriot Act? Explain that.

     Congress saw fit to amend FISA in the Patriot Act. AUMF had already passed. If AUMF gave the President the power to bypass FISA then why pass amendments to FISA in the first place? The fact that Congress saw fit to amend FISA as part of the act giving government powers to deal with al-Qaida implies that they thought it was still in effect.

     Not just the Executive branch, Padilla, aka Abdullah al-Muhajir, also saw himself as a combatant and enemy of the US. He traveled to Pakistan, met with al-Qaeda people, picked up 10,000 OBL dollars from a Zurich bank, and hoped to build a radiological dispersion device, or "dirty bomb," for use against the US.

     You think that describes the usual delinquent to be handled like any other underprivileged, misunderstood victim of bad influences?

     Of course, we currently only have the Administration's assertion that that was what he's about, the whole point of a trial is to prove that, until then, it is just the Executive's assertion. It's interesting that the actual indictment of Padilla doesn't mention anything about a dirty bomb (http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/padilla/uspad111705ind.pdf). Of course, your statement "usual delinquent...misunderstood victim of bad influences" is a typical case of the fallacy of the excluded middle. Saying that he should be run through the criminal courts doesn't mean that he should be treated like a juvenile delinquent and you very well know that.

     Posted by brunowe at 01/23/2006 @ 12:24pm

607. Boy, these right wing jerks like NACL aren't wrong about anything, are they?

     Posted by Sweetdaddy at 01/23/2006 @ 12:24pm

608. Yea. I didn't even know I was for the insurgency, anti-american, a liar and an idiot, until he told me. It hurt my little communist, islamo-fascist, saddam loving feelings sooo bad, i had to ignore him.

     I did learn that if a law is 'inadaquate', by anyones standards, you don't have to follow it anymore, though. That should be fun. I wonder if congress will shield me from prosecution too... Opps! My bank account is too low for that....oh well.

     Eric

     Posted by malcontent3 at 01/23/2006 @ 6:28pm

609. .

     BRUNOWE 01/23 @ 11:54am

     NaCl: just because FISA wasn't dismantled in recent years, but was in fact modernized doesn't mean its usefulness remained against the new and different terrorism danger.

     Brunowe: But that's not the President's decision to make. That position is an argument, not necessarily a strong one, that Congress should amend or get rid of FISA,

     Whether it is the "President's decision to make" is what this dispute is about. Must he use this law, or has he discretion not to use this law? I say he is free not to use it, because Congress ordered him to use every tool to fight terrorism and he found this FISA tool not only not a help but a hindrance and unsuitable for the job. So he has not used it. To return to the WWII gas mask analogy. It is as if the ACLU were suing Ike for not having the troops use gas masks on D-Day.

     Furthermore, you didn't address my point that such safeguards are necessary against government abuse, especially given reports that the FBI has investigated such "dangerous" terrorist groups as PETA and Greenpeace.

     You haven't considered my argument that the challenge is not the old one where the FBI targeted suspicious individuals or organizations, and its biases had to be controlled. The task now is searching for needles in haystacks and that requires massive electronic vacuuming. It is a given that most of this surveillance is of inoffensive and lawabiding people. It is like a helicopter swooping over a highway and measuring the speed of all the cars for the purpose of catching the one or two excessive speeders. You are concerned for all the legal drivers who are being subjected to that radar. Well, that just can't be helped.

     And exactly how many people do you think are plotting with OBL? Do you honestly assert that the number is greater than, let's say, the combined diplomatic staffs of the USSR, China, etc. and any people they may have had contact with in the US?

     That is the point. OBL's possible confederates are tiny. Of the millions of foreigners in the country it was only 19 who pulled off 9/11. In comparison to today's servaillance challenge the Cold War task was easy. The FBI could zero in on people in proximity to those diplomatic staffs, and the appropriateness of those few hundred, or few thousand wiretaps could be examined by FISA courts. Now the problem is a different kettle of fish.

     If the program is only supposed to be limited to al-Qaida contacts, a point that defenders of the Administration keep making, then what justification for searching the whole haystack? "'The NSA program is one that listens to a few numbers,'

     No, it isn't listening to a few numbers, its programs are listening to keywords in tens of thousands of transmission. That is done to catch the very "few numbers" actually talking about high-jacking a plane or sending C-4 into the subways, etc.

     Secondly, at some point they have to say, we are monitoring this person's email accounts or that person's, so why not a warrant at that point.

     That is the one plausible part of your argument. It is possible to say that once incriminating e-mails have been found those defined targets can be subject to FISA approval. However, according to NSA the terrorists are savvy to our ways and are constantly changing telephone lines and e-mail addresses (especially now that this screening has been exposed). That makes FISA approved wiretaps pointless because they are within a few days listening to abandoned lines. Moreover, it apparently is usually necessary to pounce on plotters very quickly, or else they disappear or even do their terror gig.

     there is no expectation of privacy going into an airport or a government building. You are entering someone else's property and they can set conditions for such entrance. That does not apply to electronic communications, the email and the telephone aren't owned by the government. The threat isn't Bush's doing, the use of it to justify an unconstitutional expansion of executive powers is.

     If we had in years past been frisked at an airport or a passport office we would have considered it an unwarranted invasion of our person. Today we accept it, not because we realize we are entering someone else's property but because we appreciate that a terror threat exists and that these time stealing and undignified intrusions are justified. Just so do I, who make int'l telephone calls, accept the chance that my hard drive is being frisked.

     .

     Posted by nacl at 01/23/2006 @ 8:40pm

610. .

     BRUNOWE 01/23 @ 12:24am

     I noticed that you haven't provided one instance where a Congressperson gave a statement contradictory to the ones that Stevens and McGovern made.

     I don't follow all the pronouncements of all 535 members of Congress.

     NaCl: It (the AUMF) did not add: however, when those organizations or persons operate WITHIN the United States you leave them alone, then this resolution does not apply to THEM.

     Brunowe: There is a difference between battlefields and the territory of hostile nations where the writ of US law is in abeyance and the territory of the United States, where it isn't.

     I don't see SCOTUS in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, limiting the AUMF to fighting terror organizations and terrorists abroad but not when they operate on our soil. Did the US Dec 1941 declaration of war only apply to fighting the Japanese in Iwo Jima and Tarawa, but not should they penetrated to Philadelphia? Should there be fighting in Philly then the US criminal law would remain in effect, but would it regulate soldiers shooting along Walnut and 34th Street?

     Saying that he (Padilla) should be run through the criminal courts doesn't mean that he should be treated like a juvenile delinquent and you very well know that.

     Tbis sidetrip into the Padilla case confuses rather than crystallizes the issue between us. But I don't think an aka Abdullah Al-Muhajir who travels to Pakistan, meets with al-Qaeda, is financed by them, and then interests himself in dirty bombs, is just being picked on by the Justice Dept. Which is why, incidentally, I would have thought it was in his interest to be treated as a POW rather than becoming subject to US criminal law.

     .

     Posted by nacl at 01/23/2006 @ 8:59pm

611. .

     BRUNOWE 01/23 @ 12:24am

     NaCl: If the plaintiffs win the govt will have to stop its electronic surveillance.

     Brunowe: That is flat-out wrong, it just means that the government will have to simply get warrants under FISA.

     It will tie the shoelaces of such surveillance, because the FISA mechanism cannot physically deal with the task. Where FISA approved wiretaps might be put in place they will monitor sterile lines. In short, it will effectively kill the program (which this public cavil has already seriously injured).

     .

     Posted by nacl at 01/23/2006 @ 9:29pm