Polls Show Many Americans are Simply Dumber Than Bush_______By Paul Craig Roberts

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11696.htm

01/29/06 -- -- Two recent polls, a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll and a New York Times/CBS News poll, indicate why Bush is getting away with impeachable offenses. Half of the US population is incapable of acquiring, processing and understanding information.

Much of the problem is the media itself, which serves as a disinformation agency for the Bush administration. Fox "News" and right-wing talk radio are the worst, but with propagandistic outlets setting the standard for truth and patriotism, all of the media is affected to some degree.

Despite the media's failure, about half the population has managed to discern that the US invasion of Iraq has not made them safer and that the Bush administration's assault on civil liberties is not a necessary component of the war on terror. The problem, thus, lies with the absence of due diligence on the part of the other half of the population.

Consider the New York Times/CBS poll. Sixty-four percent of the respondents have concerns about losing civil liberties as a result of anti-terrorism measures put in place by President Bush. Yet, 53
percent approve of spying without obtaining court warrants "in order to reduce the threat of terrorism."

Why does any American think that spying without a warrant has any more effect in reducing the threat of terrorism than spying with a warrant? The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which Bush is disobeying, requires the executive to obtain from a secret panel of federal judges a warrant for spying on Americans. The purpose of the law is to prevent a president from spying for partisan political reasons. The law permits the president to spy first (for 72 hours) and then come to the court for permission. As the court meets in secret, spying without a warrant is no more effective in reducing the threat of terrorism than spying with a warrant.

Instead of explaining this basic truth, the media has played along with the Bush administration and formulated the question as a trade-off between civil liberties and protection from terrorists. This formulation is false and nonsensical. Why does the media enable the Bush administration to escape accountability for illegal behavior by putting false and misleading choices before the people?

The LA Times/Bloomberg poll has equally striking anomalies. Only 43 percent said they approved of Bush's performance as president. But a majority believe Bush's policies have made the US more secure.

It is extraordinary that anyone would think Americans are safer as a result of Bush invading two Muslim countries and constantly threatening two more with military attack. The invasions and threats have caused a dramatic swing in Muslim sentiment away from the US.
Prior to Bush's invasion of Iraq, a large majority of Muslims had a favorable opinion of America. Now only about 5 percent do.

A number of US commanders in Iraq and many Middle East experts have told the American public that the three year-old war in Iraq is serving both to recruit and to train terrorists for al Qaeda, which has grown many times its former size. Moreover, the US military has concluded that al Qaeda has succeeded in having its members elected to the new Iraqi government.

We have seen similar developments both in Egypt and in Pakistan. In the recent Egyptian elections, the radical Muslim Brotherhood, despite being suppressed by the Egyptian government, won a large number of seats. In Pakistan elements friendly or neutral toward al Qaeda control about half of the government. In Iraq, Bush's invasion has replaced secular Sunnis with Islamist Shia allied with Iran.

And now with the triumph of Hamas in the Palestinian election, we see the total failure of Bush's Middle Eastern policy. Bush has succeeded in displacing secular moderates from Middle Eastern governments and replacing them with Islamic extremists. It boggles the mind that this disastrous result makes Americans feel safer!

What does it say for democracy that half of the American population is unable to draw a rational conclusion from unambiguous facts?

Americans share this disability with the Bush administration.
According to news reports, the Bush administration is stunned by the election victory of the radical Islamist Hamas Party, which swept the US-financed Fatah Party from office. Why is the Bush administration astonished?

The Bush administration is astonished because it stupidly believes that hundreds of millions of Muslims should be grateful that the US has interfered in their internal affairs for 60 years, setting up colonies and puppet rulers to suppress their aspirations and to achieve, instead, purposes of the US government.

Americans need desperately to understand that 95 percent of all Muslim terrorists in the world were created in the past three years by Bush's invasion of Iraq.

Americans need desperately to comprehend that if Bush attacks Iran and Syria, as he intends, terrorism will explode, and American civil liberties will disappear into a thirty year war that will bankrupt the United States.

The total lack of rationality and competence in the White House and the inability of half of the US population to acquire and understand information are far larger threats to Americans than terrorism.

America has become a rogue nation, flying blind, guided only by ignorance and hubris. A terrible catastrophe awaits.-----------Paul Craig Roberts

Gee Freethinker, I've forgotten how much fun these things were, dammit.

Much of the problem is the media itself, which serves as a disinformation agency for the Bush administration. Fox "News" and right-wing talk radio are the worst, but with propagandistic outlets setting the standard for truth and patriotism, all of the media is affected to some degree.


What's it like to be so frustrated? Gee, give the American people a choice, and the choose that horrible rightwing media. The part about the American public being stupid is merely a case of sour grapes, but that's understandable, dammit.


Why does any American think that spying without a warrant has any more effect in reducing the threat of terrorism than spying with a warrant? The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which Bush is disobeying, requires the executive to obtain from a secret panel of federal judges a warrant for spying on Americans. The purpose of the law is to prevent a president from spying for partisan political reasons. The law permits the president to spy first (for 72 hours) and then come to the court for permission. As the court meets in secret, spying without a warrant is no more effective in reducing the threat of terrorism than spying with a warrant.


Gee, where was this guy when Clinton was running his echelon project and spying on EVERYONE in the U.S. without a warrant. I'll post the link, it's from that horrible, rightwing Newsmax website. They do come up with the most unfortunate bits of news, don't they, freethinker?


It is extraordinary that anyone would think Americans are safer as a result of Bush invading two Muslim countries and constantly threatening two more with military attack. The invasions and threats have caused a dramatic swing in Muslim sentiment away from the US.


Yet, the last thing the Aghanis want the U.S. soldiers to do is leave, and the Iraqis keep trying to embrace democracy in spite of rather fierce oppostition from the Al Qeada types. Lebanon suddenly got the balls to kick out the Syrians, who were using that country as a launching platform for attacks on Israel and Lybia decided to stop being a Wal Mart of bomb parts for terrorists, dammit. I'm not too sure of that Arab sentiment turning away from us.




A number of US commanders in Iraq and many Middle East experts have told the American public that the three year-old war in Iraq is serving both to recruit and to train terrorists for al Qaeda, which has grown many times its former size. Moreover, the US military has concluded that al Qaeda has succeeded in having its members elected to the new Iraqi government.


Yes, and France did nothing and look what happened to them. Furthermore, Bin Laden himself said that the Blackhawk Down thing served as inspiration for his 9/11 attack. The did nothing all through the 90s and we had two attacks on U.S. soil by the Al Qeada types, Bush stepped in and started kicking ass after 9/11 and there have been how many terrorist attacks on U.S. soil since then, freethinker?



We have seen similar developments both in Egypt and in Pakistan. In the recent Egyptian elections, the radical Muslim Brotherhood, despite being suppressed by the Egyptian government, won a large number of seats. In Pakistan elements friendly or neutral toward al Qaeda control about half of the government. In Iraq, Bush's invasion has replaced secular Sunnis with Islamist Shia allied with Iran.


And just how corrupt were those regimes to begin with? And what choice did the citizens of Egypt and Pakistan have in the first place?


Americans need desperately to comprehend that if Bush attacks Iran and Syria, as he intends, terrorism will explode, and American civil liberties will disappear into a thirty year war that will bankrupt the United States.

First off, shouldn't have terrorism have exploded already, seeing as the U.S. did invade two Muslim countries? Also, who says that Bush is "about" to attack Iran or Syria?


Clinton/NSA/Echelon (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/12/18/221452.shtml)

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
Gee, where was this guy when Clinton was running his echelon project and spying on EVERYONE in the U.S. without a warrant.

Is this your argument why Bush should be allowed to continue with his program?

Originally posted by Freethinker
Polls Show Many Americans are Simply Dumber Than Bush_______By Paul Craig Roberts
I feel sick to my stomach after reading that but thanks for posting it anyway.

It’s funny you know - you just finished saying, “ ….. with propagandistic outlets setting the standard for truth and patriotism, all of the media is affected to some degree … “ and yet Darth Be'lal makes some comment about Americans “choosing” rightwing media. Duh!

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
" The" (U.S.) "did nothing all through the 90s and we had two attacks on U.S. soil by the Al Qeada types, Bush stepped in and started kicking ass after 9/11 and there have been how many terrorist attacks on U.S. soil since then, freethinker?"
Well let’s see now, you’ve “done nothing” since Pearl Harbour in 1941 and had no other attacks on U.S. soil and now “you’re doing something” and getting your asses kick all over Vietnam, Iran, Beirut, Afghanistan, Somalia, Iraq, and NYC. Your logic is really twisted, good friend.

Where’s the part where you were “doing nothing” and started “doing something”? I’m having difficulties following your line of thinking. :@@: :@@: :@@:

Originally posted by Freethinker

Polls Show Many Americans are Simply Dumber Than Bush You can say that again!!!

When is this stupid crap gonna end????? Im worried quite frankly about the state of our country......That idiot has done so much to this country it will take 50yrs (@ least) to fix all the damage he has done!! http://www.bbqcaterer.com/guestbook/img/smilies/kaioken.gif

But i do see his #'s dropping left and right (More people are turning against him (SLOWLY BUT SURELY))

why is it that anyone who doesnt agree that bush is adolf hitler is an idiot freethinker?

is it impossible for an intelligent person to agree with the war or support the president?

it sounds like you are so full of yourself and your beliefs you hate everyone who doesnt share them, which makes you more like hitler then bush ever will be.

Originally posted by Travh20
why is it that anyone who doesnt agree that bush is adolf hitler is an idiot freethinker?

I have never heard a single human being forward that notion or anything remotely resembling it.

Originally posted by Travh20
is it impossible for an intelligent person to agree with the war or support the president?

It is possible for an intelligent person to agree with the war or support the president.

But not for a person who possesses both intelligence AND decency.

______________________________

"George Bernard Shaw used three concepts to describe the positions of individuals in Nazi Germany: intelligence, decency and Naziism. He argued that if a person was intelligent and a Nazi, he was not decent. If he was decent and a Nazi, he was not intelligent. And if he was decent and intelligent, he was not a Nazi."

That statement applies equally well today to the die-hard RightWingers in America who continually bang the drum of war. Here is an updated version, therefore, of Shaw's three concepts:

1. If a person is decent and a Rightwinger who supports continuing a bullshit war that was trumped up purely on lies, a war that sees innocent Iraqis killed in the quest for a steady supply of Cheap Oil for America, then he or she is not intelligent.
2. If a person is intelligent and a Rightwinger who supports continuing a war that was trumped up purely on lies, a war that sees innocent Iraqis killed in the quest for a steady supply of Cheap Oil, he or she is not a decent, ethical person.
3. And if a person is both decent and intelligent, and does NOT support continuing a war that was trumped up purely on lies, a war that sees innocent Iraqis killed in the quest for a steady supply of Cheap Oil, he or she is not a Rightwinger.

Vile's quote....


Is this your argument why Bush should be allowed to continue with his program?


No, Vile, it's not a justification for the Bush Administration's program of "spying" on suspected Al Qeada types here in the U.S. I'm calling freethinker out on his rather bad case of S.O.S. (Selective Outrage Syndrome). I'm pointing out that the Echelon program, started in the 90s was used, without court order or Congressional authorization. Echelon was a program that basically spied on every single cell, fax, and e-mail sent anywhere in the world. Echelon was used as a kind of fishing expedition to root out terrorists here in the U.S. by monitorring the private correspondence of U.S. citizens. Furthermore Clinton ORDERED that Echelon be used to spy on foreign corporations to gain economic advantage for the U.S. No warrant, no FISA, no 9/11, no Congressional oversight and no outrage by the freethinkers of the world and various democrats. Which is kinda strange because now various democrats and people like Freethinker are getting bent out of shape because Bush used Congressional authorization for the use of force to monitor various individuals who are communicating with Al Qeada. There was a 9/11 and I hope that never happens again, the Bin Laden types have openly stated that they would love to strike the U.S. again and while Bush didn't go through the FISA court, he DID keep various Democrats, Jay Rockefeller being one of them, INFORMED of his activities at the same time every 90 days or so, Bush's spying program was reviewed by a court (memory somewhat vague here, but the gist is correct).

So, echelon program running full steam through the 90s, the freethinkers of the world mum. Bush trying to catch terrorists, the freethinkers and trying to make us think that there is an NSA agent in our closet and Bush Is Bad. I find the S.O.S. to be more than a little disengenous.

If you are asking me if I support Bush when he decides to freewheel and monitor people suspected of being in contact with Al Qeada without being bogged down by having to get court orders and other such beaurecratic red tape, by answer is yes, I do support Bush's activities as I somewhat doubt Al Qeada is phoning the U.S. to order pizza, dammit.

Catch's stuff....

Well let’s see now, you’ve “done nothing” since Pearl Harbour in 1941

Done nothing? Outside of going to war with Germany and Japan, then there was the Korean War, Vietnam, various shady dealings against Cuba, Central/South America and the Middle East, the entire Cold War thing with the Soviet Union, facing down the Soviet Union in Berlin, setting up NATO, Grenada, Haiti, various things in Africa and I don't know what else. I'd say the U.S. has been pretty damn active in world affairs since '41, dammit. You're not a victim of the public education system, are you?



no other attacks on U.S. soil and now “you’re doing something” and getting your asses kick all over

Well, actually there was the first WTC attack in '93, then there was that Oklahoma federal building that got blown, not sure if that counts because that attack was done by homegrown terrorists, but then there was the BIG attack on 9/11. I'm somewhat doubting your thesis that no foreigners attacked the U.S. since '41, dammit. Where have you been, man?


Vietnam, Iran,

The U.S. has not had troops in Vietnam since the early 70s, and I'm not sure if there were ever troops in Iran. How are we getting our asses kicked there in recent years?

The U.S. has prevailed in Afhganistan, much to the upset of Lefties everywhere. Iraq is besieged by "insurgents" but the Iraqi people seem to want to embrace U.S. democracy rather than radical Islam and civil war. We haven't completely won over both countries, but we are miles away from getting our asses kicked, dammit.

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
No, Vile, it's not a justification for the Bush Administration's program of "spying" on suspected Al Qeada types here in the U.S.

Ok.


If you are asking me if I support Bush when he decides to freewheel and monitor people suspected of being in contact with Al Qeada without being bogged down by having to get court orders and other such beaurecratic red tape, by answer is yes, I do support Bush's activities as I somewhat doubt Al Qeada is phoning the U.S. to order pizza, dammit.

Why do you feel the system as it stood required too much "red-tape" when there was already a provision that allowed wiretaps without a prior court order in an emergency?

Why should Bush be able to do this with no oversight?

Poor Bob Woodruff and the other guy. Caught in the insurgency's last throes before its next throes.
I am not fond of the news media.
But do you get the feeling that this Iraq fiasco is Bush's way of winning the war on the press by attrition?

Vile,


Thank you for intelligent and pertinent questions. It's sometimes hard to remember that is what I should be writing when I'm slinging mud with some of the others.

Anyway, your stuff........


Why do you feel the system as it stood required too much "red-tape" when there was already a provision that allowed wiretaps without a prior court order in an emergency?


I'm not sure why Bush didn't go through FISA, as it was set for such purposes. My only two explanations I have to offer is;

1) It's too slow. Terrorists aren't known for standing still and maybe the NSA had to MOVE to keep track of them.

2) Court warrants can get downright weird. For instance, I do know that in some circumstances, when law enforcement gets a warrant to tap a suspect's phone line, they can only monitor ONE phone. So, if a suspect has a couple of telephone numbers, plus a couple of cell phones....you get the idea. That's where that roving wiretaps provision comes in in the Patriot Act. Which makes sense to me, dammit.


Why should Bush be able to do this with no oversight?

Bush HAD oversight. Bush INFORMED Jay Rockefeller and Nancy Pelosi of what he was up to. This was ONE YEAR AGO!!! Dammit, why can't people get that little fact through their heads. This whole scandal is D.O.A. once facts like this get out. Of course Jay Rockefeller whines, and he DOES whine, about having so little info about the NSA domestic "spying" case that he had no idea of what was going on. Nancy Pelosi was kind enough to express "concern" (just bless her little shrivelled partisan heart for that.) about the domestic spying program. When Harry Reid was asked about whether he knew about Bush's NSA program, he just slammed the door and went off to another mock impeachment of Bush. Furthermore, Bush's domestic "spying" program was reviewed by a judicial committee every 45 days. Geez, what more do you want, Vile?

When I post the link, Vile, be sure to read the part about who Bush informed about his NSA collection program, dammit.






Pelosi, knew about domestic spying (http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2005/12/pelosi_admits_s.html)

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
I'm not sure why Bush didn't go through FISA, as it was set for such purposes.

That is the question isn't it.


My only two explanations I have to offer is;

1) It's too slow. Terrorists aren't known for standing still and maybe the NSA had to MOVE to keep track of them.

Since the system that was in place had a provision allowing for emergency wiretaps without a court order, I can't accept this explanation.


2) Court warrants can get downright weird. For instance, I do know that in some circumstances, when law enforcement gets a warrant to tap a suspect's phone line, they can only monitor ONE phone. So, if a suspect has a couple of telephone numbers, plus a couple of cell phones....you get the idea. That's where that roving wiretaps provision comes in in the Patriot Act. Which makes sense to me, dammit.

This doesn't seem any more likely than your first explanation.


Bush HAD oversight. Bush INFORMED Jay Rockefeller and Nancy Pelosi of what he was up to. This was ONE YEAR AGO!!! Dammit, why can't people get that little fact through their heads.

Since Pelosi and Rockefeller don't constitute "oversight" I think your "little fact" is irrelevant


This whole scandal is D.O.A. once facts like this get out.

Not hardly Darth. You'll have to do much better than that.


Of course Jay Rockefeller whines, and he DOES whine, about having so little info about the NSA domestic "spying" case that he had no idea of what was going on. Nancy Pelosi was kind enough to express "concern" (just bless her little shrivelled partisan heart for that.) about the domestic spying program. When Harry Reid was asked about whether he knew about Bush's NSA program, he just slammed the door and went off to another mock impeachment of Bush.

Blah, blah, blah. More partisan nonsense.


Furthermore, Bush's domestic "spying" program was reviewed by a judicial committee every 45 days.

That's nice. Under what statute was this judicial committee empowered? What were their powers, and to whom did they report?


Geez, what more do you want, Vile?

I want the President to follow the laws as written, not just the ones he finds convenient.


When I post the link, Vile, be sure to read the part about who Bush informed about his NSA collection program, dammit.

Darth, this isn't about who Bush told.

You seem to think that "oversight" means that all Bush had to do was inform some people of his choosing that he was conducting these wiretaps. Oversight means having Congress monitoring the program with the authority to curtail it if neccessary.

Vile's quotes....


Since the system that was in place had a provision allowing for emergency wiretaps without a court order, I can't accept this explanation.


You can't or won't? I've gotten some further details on how FISA works and it's as I suspected. It can take at LEAST 72 hours to get a FISA warrant or it can days or ever weeks. The FISA beauracracy is what stopped the FBI from getting warrants to monitor several of the 9/11 suspects when their names turned up on a captured computer. Now we have some 3000 dead for it. All because FBI agents didn't dare to tangle with FISA or run afoul of its laws. When I post the link, could you please read it? More on that below.


This doesn't seem any more likely than your first explanation.


Actually, I read somewhere that when a court ordered IS granted for a wiretap they can only tap a single phone line. I KNOW that part of the Patriot Act is to allow for roving wire taps, which means that all means of communication that a suspect possesses can be monitorred. I'd google that one, but it's frustrating trying to unearth that kind of information, dammit.



Since Pelosi and Rockefeller don't constitute "oversight" I think your "little fact" is irrelevant


One of the things that really frosts me is when I provide a link for further clarification of a point I happen to be making and people don't read it. If you had read the link I provided you would know that when Bush engaged in that NSA collection project, it's called a 'unacknowledged special access programs' (read domestic spying and if it carries a label then such activities have been done more than once before.and there is a procedure for doing so) and there is a law REQUIRING that the Majority and Minority of the House and Senate be notified of such activities. Plus "the originating authority" has to notify the Chair and Ranking Members of the Intelligence Commitee. I'll post the link of the names of the members of the Senate Intelligence Committee so you will know the names.

Also, I've mentioned Pelosi and Rockefeller by name because these idiots had the nerve to act surprised when this "domestic spying" scandal broke. This wasn't something Bush was doing with three of his friends in a closet, Vile, Bush was following procedure, dammit.


Blah, blah, blah. More partisan nonsense.

Exactly, Vile, we've got Al Qeada communicating with God-Knows-Whom here in the U.S., plotting God-knows-what and all those idiots, Pelosi, Rockefeller and Reid, can do is figure how to use this "domestic spying" issue to unseat Bush. Is it too damn much to ask that first we win the war on terrorism THEN revert to politics as usual?


That's nice. Under what statute was this judicial committee empowered? What were their powers, and to whom did they report?


This is one of the things that happens when I get reluctant to out and out state something without some kind of link to back it up. And it's frustrating when I have to go back and do what's the equivolent of dotting the "I's" and crossing the "T's" on a book report. Tedious, tedious, tedious, dammit. For your information it's the JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, the Director of the CIA, and the Attorney General amongst others, that have reviewed the Bush "domestic spying" program. As I've said before, giving what we are facing, what more do you want? And how many people are worth getting killed to play the "let's try to get Bush impeached again" game the Democrats have been doing since Bush got into the Whitehouse for the second time?



You seem to think that "oversight" means that all Bush had to do was inform some people of his choosing that he was conducting these wiretaps. Oversight means having Congress monitoring the program with the authority to curtail it if neccessary.


Seeing as how the Attorney General, the Justice Department, the Director of the CIA, the Senate Intelligence Committee, the Majority and Minority leaders of both the House and Senate were informed of the NSA "Domestic Spying" thing I'd say that the Bush had plenty of oversight of this particular project.


Senate Intelligence Committee, the names (http://intelligence.senate.gov/members.htm)


FISA red tape, and failure (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110003629%22)

Cheney outline domestic spying oversite (http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/IraqCoverage/story?id=1419206)


Original Article, Pelosi knew, and pretended she didn't (http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2005/12/pelosi_admits_s.html)

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
You can't or won't?

Both. It's an unsatisfactory explanation.


I've gotten some further details on how FISA works and it's as I suspected. It can take at LEAST 72 hours to get a FISA warrant or it can days or ever weeks.

And you still seem to never mention that in an emergency the taps could be in place before a warrant was sought, so your complaint is meaningless.


The FISA beauracracy is what stopped the FBI from getting warrants to monitor several of the 9/11 suspects when their names turned up on a captured computer. Now we have some 3000 dead for it. All because FBI agents didn't dare to tangle with FISA or run afoul of its laws.

A complete load of bull. The FBI ignored memos from its own agents who were concerned about arabs attending flight schools. 9/11 didn't happen because of FISA.


When I post the link, could you please read it? More on that below.

Perhaps. Darth, I think you're making the wrong argument. I don't care who Bush decided to tell. There were laws in place to cover this sort of circumstance and the issue is why Bush decided to go around the law, not who he informed of that fact. It's about the separation of powers and the limits on executive authority.


Also, I've mentioned Pelosi and Rockefeller by name because these idiots had the nerve to act surprised when this "domestic spying" scandal broke. This wasn't something Bush was doing with three of his friends in a closet, Vile, Bush was following procedure, dammit.

Bush was following the procedures he wanted to follow, and whether or not he was acting legally remains to be seen.


Is it too damn much to ask that first we win the war on terrorism THEN revert to politics as usual?

Yes. Using the WoT as an excuse for breaking the law is unacceptable.


Seeing as how the Attorney General, the Justice Department, the Director of the CIA, the Senate Intelligence Committee, the Majority and Minority leaders of both the House and Senate were informed of the NSA "Domestic Spying" thing I'd say that the Bush had plenty of oversight of this particular project.

Really? Which one of those that you mentioned had the authority to curtail or modify Bush's program?

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
The FISA beauracracy is what stopped the FBI from getting warrants to monitor several of the 9/11 suspects when their names turned up on a captured computer. Now we have some 3000 dead for it. All because FBI agents didn't dare to tangle with FISA or run afoul of its laws.

?!?!?!?!?!?!

I don't care if you're the stupidest motherfucker in the world............NO ONE could possibly be convinced of THAT particular bit of idiocy.

The Bush Administration themselves--in more than one instance-- ordered FBI agents to CEASE following up on leads it had on some of the terrorists who would eventually wind up carrying out the 9/11 attacks.

To suggest that --"Oh!!...if ONLY that doggoned FISA bureaucracy had not hampered them so, the Bush Administration would have run some wiretaps and it would have PREVENTED the 9/11 disaster!!!!"-- has to be the MOST disingenuous and dishonest line of fucking bullshit I have EVER heard in my life.

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
I'm somewhat doubting your thesis that no foreigners attacked the U.S. since '41, dammit.
You've got me confused with someone else. Your whole post supports my stance against "what's his name" who claims the U.S. was getting attacked by "the bad guys" while America was "doin' nothin' " and now that they're "doin' sumthin'" have succeded in staving off all evil.

Vile's quotes...

And you still seem to never mention that in an emergency the taps could be in place before a warrant was sought, so your complaint is meaningless.

Yes, but then you'd have to go and prove that you have probable cause to monitor the phone calls of someone here in the U.S. which takes time and if you can't prove probable cause you're SOL, I guess. Also, you are treating this as a law enforcement matter, it's not. It's military and we are at war, whether you wish to view it that way or not. We're not talking about a gang of drug smugglers or bank robbers, we're talking terrorism. If these guys get hold of a dirty bomb.... And yes, Bush does have the power to do roving wiretaps on suspected Al Qeada sympathisers here in the U.S.



A complete load of bull. The FBI ignored memos from its own agents who were concerned about arabs attending flight schools. 9/11 didn't happen because of FISA.


Whether or not the FBI ignored it's own agents is somewhat irrelevent. There was a wall of seperation between the Intelligence agencies and Law Enforcement not to mention FISA red tape that prevented the dots from being connected that may have prevented 9/11. My point is that the FISA beauracracy was one of the many stumbling blocks that allowed for 9/11, dammit.



Perhaps. Darth, I think you're making the wrong argument. I don't care who Bush decided to tell. There were laws in place to cover this sort of circumstance and the issue is why Bush decided to go around the law, not who he informed of that fact. It's about the separation of powers and the limits on executive authority.


Vile, you keep moving the goal posts back. FIRST you stated that Bush had no oversight on domestic spying, I detail that a court and some at least two democrats did know and review Bush's "domestic spying" program. You dismiss that as no real oversight. I then go and find the names of the Senate Intelligence Committee ALL of whom knew what Bush was doing, I pointed out that the Justice Department knew and was kept informed of what was going, I pointed out that Congressional Minority and Majority leaders were also aware of what Bush was up to. NOW you dismiss that by stating that they couldn't have stopped Bush. :rolleyes: First it was Bush had no oversight, then not enough oversight, NOW it's ineffective oversight. Your arguments are getting weaker, Vile.


Could Bush have been stopped? Objectively that answer is yes and no. Bush did get a mandate from Congress to combat terrorism (I'm going out on a limb again and I know I'm labelling things wrong here, but the gist is accurate.) When a President gets a resolution authorizing him to take military action, which Bush has, the President, being the executive and in charge of the war he does have certain powers to take actions that are deemed necessary to protect and defend the country. EXACTLY what a President can or can't do is somewhat vague, and no politician, democrat or republican, in their right mind is going to get too specific on exactly a prez may or may not do. Lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus. That was legal at the time and under the circumstances. This was basically the justification Bush used for the roving wiretaps and the spying on people suspected of being in contact with Al Qeada.

Please don't bother replying to this. I know EXACTLY what you will say. It's now in the hands of the American people to decide whether they want National Security or an Impeached President, dammit.

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
Vile, you keep moving the goal posts back. FIRST you stated that Bush had no oversight on domestic spying, I detail that a court and some at least two democrats did know and review Bush's "domestic spying" program. You dismiss that as no real oversight. I then go and find the names of the Senate Intelligence Committee ALL of whom knew what Bush was doing, I pointed out that the Justice Department knew and was kept informed of what was going, I pointed out that Congressional Minority and Majority leaders were also aware of what Bush was up to. NOW you dismiss that by stating that they couldn't have stopped Bush. :rolleyes: First it was Bush had no oversight, then not enough oversight, NOW it's ineffective oversight. Your arguments are getting weaker, Vile.
That was an astute observation, Darth. Well said.

Thank you, Prae! Your remark made my day! Dammit.

I had to post my reply and leave it half done, I had to go and convince my girlfriend's two teenage kids that yes, you do have to do dishes!:rant:


My other point(s) where that at any time, Congress can cut off funding to any of Bush's activities, which include the "domestic spying" program. Also, with most of the Democrats in congress ready to impeach Bush, I have my doubts that Bush could've or would've walked all over the Justice Department had it decided to tell Bush that his "domestic spying" program was illegal and it gets shut down. The second Bush would've said no to that, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, the New York Times and the ENTIRE moveon.org crowd would've been howling for Bush's blood. Impeachment procedings would've been laid out about five minutes after Bush ever dared decide to ignore the Justice Department.

But both arguments are really irrelevent now. See, the domestic spying program has already been effectively stopped. Whoever leaked the news of the "domestic spying program" has now told terrorists that they are getting spied. And now that the people who want nothing more than to strike at the U.S. again and have 24/7 to figure out how to do so, now know that they are being spied upon. They now know that if they are going to have to get more sophisticated to avoid detection. Finding terrorists is about to get harder. How many lives have been put at risk? Is undermining the Bush Administration worth it?

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
Yes, but then you'd have to go and prove that you have probable cause to monitor the phone calls of someone here in the U.S. which takes time and if you can't prove probable cause you're SOL, I guess.

If you can't prove probable cause, you have no business tapping someone's phone in this country.


Also, you are treating this as a law enforcement matter, it's not.

That's because I think the war on terror would be best handled as predominantly a law enforcement matter.


It's military and we are at war, whether you wish to view it that way or not.

I chose not to accept that premise simply because you and George Bush say we're at war.


We're not talking about a gang of drug smugglers or bank robbers, we're talking terrorism.

Correct. In other words, we're talking about an international gang of mass murderers. A very well-armed and well-financed gang, but still a gang.


If these guys get hold of a dirty bomb....

Which means what exactly?


And yes, Bush does have the power to do roving wiretaps on suspected Al Qeada sympathisers here in the U.S.

Darth, I have no problem with covert surveillance of suspected Al-Quaida operatives here in this country. I do have a problem with the President ignoring the procedures for conducting such intelligence gathering, and making up a new procedure he likes better.


Whether or not the FBI ignored it's own agents is somewhat irrelevent. There was a wall of seperation between the Intelligence agencies and Law Enforcement not to mention FISA red tape that prevented the dots from being connected that may have prevented 9/11. My point is that the FISA beauracracy was one of the many stumbling blocks that allowed for 9/11, dammit.

You have failed to make a convincing argument that the FISA procedure created any hindrance whatsoever.


Vile, you keep moving the goal posts back. FIRST you stated that Bush had no oversight on domestic spying, I detail that a court and some at least two democrats did know and review Bush's "domestic spying" program. You dismiss that as no real oversight.

So far, so good.


I then go and find the names of the Senate Intelligence Committee ALL of whom knew what Bush was doing, I pointed out that the Justice Department knew and was kept informed of what was going, I pointed out that Congressional Minority and Majority leaders were also aware of what Bush was up to. NOW you dismiss that by stating that they couldn't have stopped Bush. :rolleyes: First it was Bush had no oversight, then not enough oversight, NOW it's ineffective oversight. Your arguments are getting weaker, Vile.

That's because you seem confused as to what oversight entails. It's not a matter of simply informing some group of people. Oversight implies control. Where, in Bush's made-up procedure, did the intelligence gathering body report to an oversight body that had the ability to curtail or modify their methods? If no such oversight body existed, there was no oversight.


Could Bush have been stopped? Objectively that answer is yes and no. Bush did get a mandate from Congress to combat terrorism (I'm going out on a limb again and I know I'm labelling things wrong here, but the gist is accurate.) When a President gets a resolution authorizing him to take military action, which Bush has, the President, being the executive and in charge of the war he does have certain powers to take actions that are deemed necessary to protect and defend the country. EXACTLY what a President can or can't do is somewhat vague, and no politician, democrat or republican, in their right mind is going to get too specific on exactly a prez may or may not do. Lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus.

That's all well and good if you believe we are "at war".


That was legal at the time and under the circumstances. This was basically the justification Bush used for the roving wiretaps and the spying on people suspected of being in contact with Al Qeada.

I have no problem with that as long as a judge signs a warrant that states why they suspect these people of being terrorists.


Please don't bother replying to this.

And let you get the last word? Never! :D


I know EXACTLY what you will say. It's now in the hands of the American people to decide whether they want National Security or an Impeached President, dammit.

So...were you right about what I was going to say?

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
My other point(s) where that at any time, Congress can cut off funding to any of Bush's activities, which include the "domestic spying" program.

Assuming of course that Bush's administration submitted a budget request for this program, and didn't just hide it in some general defense bill.


Also, with most of the Democrats in congress ready to impeach Bush, I have my doubts that Bush could've or would've walked all over the Justice Department had it decided to tell Bush that his "domestic spying" program was illegal and it gets shut down. The second Bush would've said no to that, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, the New York Times and the ENTIRE moveon.org crowd would've been howling for Bush's blood. Impeachment procedings would've been laid out about five minutes after Bush ever dared decide to ignore the Justice Department.

The Justice Department is part of the Executive Branch of our government. The DoJ works for the President. As I've posted many times, I would prefer to have a judge approve warrants for wiretaps as set forth in the FISA system.


But both arguments are really irrelevent now. See, the domestic spying program has already been effectively stopped.

Really? You know this how?


Whoever leaked the news of the "domestic spying program" has now told terrorists that they are getting spied. And now that the people who want nothing more than to strike at the U.S. again and have 24/7 to figure out how to do so, now know that they are being spied upon.

Do you honestly think this is news to them? ::chuckles at the notion::


They now know that if they are going to have to get more sophisticated to avoid detection. Finding terrorists is about to get harder. How many lives have been put at risk? Is undermining the Bush Administration worth it?

You're smarter than this Darth. What utter nonsense.

"what a maroon..."

Its just another waste of time Vile.

Vile: Present facts
Darth: Deny reality
Vile: Present facts
Darth: Deny reality
Vile: Present facts
Darth: Deny reality
Vile: Present facts
Darth: Deny reality
Etc, Etc, Etc...

That fact that Darth showed he hasn't a clue how the system works yet keeps pushing his flawed notions (delusions?) should be a clue for you Vile...

In this case 500, it is Darth stating facts, and Vile is denying the validity of those facts. The only thing that leads you to make a statement like the last one is that you agree with what Vile is saying, you agree with his frame of reference for the debate.

Darth says there was oversight. This is a factual statement. Vile replies by saying that that doesn't count as oversight, which is an attempt to reframe the discussion.

I happen to agree with Vile as well, but I have to call it as I see it.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
In this case 500, it is Darth stating facts, and Vile is denying the validity of those facts.

No, I was denying the relevancy of the facts, not their validity.


Darth says there was oversight. This is a factual statement. Vile replies by saying that that doesn't count as oversight, which is an attempt to reframe the discussion.

I'm not sure I can agree with that either. Oversight means you are "overseeing" a program and that means you can modify or curtail that program. I'm not sure that's the case here.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
That's all well and good if you believe we are "at war".

Actually, I disagree. Because it's a war without end, and if that's the case, we just signed away a bit of the Constitution. Willingly, it would seem.

If you're going to justify something because we're at war, Darth, then one should at least designate some point at which there's a possibility of it ending.

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
Whoever leaked the news of the "domestic spying program" has now told terrorists that they are getting spied. And now that the people who want nothing more than to strike at the U.S. again and have 24/7 to figure out how to do so, now know that they are being spied upon. They now know that if they are going to have to get more sophisticated to avoid detection.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
You're smarter than this Darth.

Uhhh....no.........he's not.

Seriously.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
And let you get the last word? Never!




:D :D :D

Originally posted by LionelHutz
If you're going to justify something because we're at war, Darth, then one should at least designate some point at which there's a possibility of it ending.

Which is one of the reasons I don't believe we are "at war".

Here's a great example of AG 'oversight':

Gonzales Is Challenged on Wiretaps
Feingold Says Attorney General Misled Senators in Hearings

By Carol D. Leonnig
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, January 31, 2006; A07



Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) charged yesterday that Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales misled the Senate during his confirmation hearing a year ago when he appeared to try to avoid answering a question about whether the president could authorize warrantless wiretapping of U.S. citizens.

In a letter to the attorney general yesterday, Feingold demanded to know why Gonzales dismissed the senator's question about warrantless eavesdropping as a "hypothetical situation" during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in January 2005. At the hearing, Feingold asked Gonzales where the president's authority ends and whether Gonzales believed the president could, for example, act in contravention of existing criminal laws and spy on U.S. citizens without a warrant.

Gonzales said that it was impossible to answer such a hypothetical question but that it was "not the policy or the agenda of this president" to authorize actions that conflict with existing law. He added that he would hope to alert Congress if the president ever chose to authorize warrantless surveillance, according to a transcript of the hearing.

In fact, the president did secretly authorize the National Security Agency to begin warrantless monitoring of calls and e-mails between the United States and other nations soon after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The program, publicly revealed in media reports last month, was unknown to Feingold and his staff at the time Feingold questioned Gonzales, according to a staff member. Feingold's aides developed the 2005 questions based on privacy advocates' concerns about broad interpretations of executive power.

Gonzales was White House counsel at the time the program began and has since acknowledged his role in affirming the president's authority to launch the surveillance effort. Gonzales is scheduled to testify Monday before the Senate Judiciary Committee on the program's legal rationale.

"It now appears that the Attorney General was not being straight with the Judiciary Committee and he has some explaining to do," Feingold said in a statement yesterday.

A Justice Department spokesman said yesterday the department had not yet reviewed the Feingold letter and could not comment.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/30/AR2006013001318_pf.html

Good un-biased post by napster.... its good to see

I dont think 500 is capable of seperating what is happening with what his beleifs are....

As for wiretaps... both sides make a good point. I guess it comes down to whether national security or upholding the constitution is more important.

The thing is, we probably cant trust the gov't to act in OUR best interests, so i guess the only thing left to do IS blindly follow the constitution....

I mean, you cant deny that wire-tapping only HELPS us in our attempt to befuddle upcoming terrorist attacks and movements... along with sniffing out spies and what not. The thing is that what happens when it goes too far??? Who checks the gov't??? Noone does.

Various stuff.........


Good un-biased post by napster.... its good to see

I agree, Decka, and it's a lesson everyone here on these boards can learn, dammit.


Actually, I disagree. Because it's a war without end, and if that's the case, we just signed away a bit of the Constitution. Willingly, it would seem.


Not with oversight, Lionel. Bush willingly had his NSA info gathering project reviewed every 45 days. The Justice Department knew, the Senate Intelligence Committee knew, Congressional Majority and Minority leaders knew. Bush was NOT on a secret fishing expedition. That is what comforts me. Bush set parameters and abided by them, that is what comforts me. Can both sides of the political aisle agree to track the terrorists now and undermine Bush later when we're safer?


Assuming of course that Bush's administration submitted a budget request for this program, and didn't just hide it in some general defense bill.

Vile, with the political climate we've got today, I find it highly unlikely that Bush is going to go and do an Oliver North. If you happen to be in Washington and turn over a rock and spot some Bush wonk working phone taps on the one hand and shredding papers in the other, I'll concede the point to you, dammit.


Do you honestly think this is news to them? ::chuckles at the notion::

*sigh* No, Vile it's not. But on the other hand it's not really a good idea to splash NSA counterterrorism projects all over the front page of the New York Times.


That's because I think the war on terror would be best handled as predominantly a law enforcement matter.....Correct. In other words, we're talking about an international gang of mass murderers. A very well-armed and well-financed gang, but still a gang.


No, it's a group of people who have the support, backing and resources of entire Middle Eastern countries, Iran and Syria comes to mind, as well as Saudi Arabia though they pretend to do no such thing. Terrorist KNOW that they can't stand toe to toe with the U.S., so they have resorted to a form of guerilla warfare called terrorism. PLUS these guys are looking for chemical, biological or nuclear material to use as a weapon. This is just a bit beyond the scope of the FBI.



That's because you seem confused as to what oversight entails. It's not a matter of simply informing some group of people. Oversight implies control.

Bush had his NSA activities REVIEWED every 45 days by those who worked for the Justice Department. Parameters were sought for by Bush. This constiutes oversight, dammit. If Bush did this Oliver North style, you'd have a point.


So...were you right about what I was going to say?


Actually, I thought you'd be nastier.

I agree, Decka, and it's a lesson everyone here on these boards can learn, dammit.

I feel dirty...

Originally posted by Napsterbater
I feel dirty...

See how easy it is to be lauded by the rightwing faction, Napster...?????!

All you have to do is tell the little fascists that they've ""made a good point"" (even when they didn't) and then bend over and take it up the ass from them, and suddenly you're just a PEACH of a goddamned fellow!!!!

As Vile pointed out, you were incorrect in sucking up to Darth and making him think he had a point, because Vile was questioning the relevancy of the facts being presented, not their validity.

No wonder you feel dirty............

Originally posted by LionelHutz
If you're going to justify something because we're at war, Darth, then one should at least designate some point at which there's a possibility of it ending.
Originally posted by Vilepagan
Which is one of the reasons I don't believe we are "at war".
:confused:

So what...we're giving finite timelines to warfare now? Which episode of the Twilight Zone are you guys in?

Gee,

So much for an ounce of civility. Take a shower napster and rest assured I won't compliment you again, dammit.

Darth says there was oversight. This is a factual statement. Vile replies by saying that that doesn't count as oversight, which is an attempt to reframe the discussion. Get a clue. Having someone look at something is not oversight. Oversight can only be done by someone with some sort of authority to hange or deny what tehy see as not legal. Getting some lacky lawyer to say "A-OK" is not oversight. A system for oversight is in place. Bush obviously wasn't doing something that would be approved so he went around the guidelines in place.

It like if the cops booted my car. I go ask my friend "you think it'd be OK to take the boot off?".
he replies "Well it says not to on the boot but, it's probably legal anyways. I mean it's your car right? you can do what you want with it."
"OK then"
...later on "this is bullshit my friend said it was OK!!!wah wah wah..."

The only difference is that people are too stupid to see that just because you are president doesn't mean you don't have to follow the law.

BTW this is another great example

Decka posts something he has no clue about.
Napster admits to not really knowing but agrees anyway.
Decka then assumes hes right.

Collective jackassery is fun kids!

Originally posted by The Praetorian
:confused:

So what...we're giving finite timelines to warfare now? Which episode of the Twilight Zone are you guys in?

No Prae, that's not what I was getting at...there is no timeline in the sense that the goals of the WoT are ill-defined. How will we know when the war's over?

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
The only difference is that people are too stupid to see that just because you are president doesn't mean you don't have to follow the law.

Don't worry. They'll change their tune. One day in the future.

The next time a Demoncratic President gets in office and does the exact same thing, the same Rightwingers who are now making every excuse imaginable for Bush will do a one-eighty and scream for the evil Democrat to be impeached immediately.

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
Not with oversight, Lionel. Bush willingly had his NSA info gathering project reviewed every 45 days. The Justice Department knew, the Senate Intelligence Committee knew, Congressional Majority and Minority leaders knew. Bush was NOT on a secret fishing expedition.

I'm not that worried about Bush being on a fishing expedition, but I am worried that some President or other person in power may be on a fishing expedition some day. And I'm also worried about what they might do if they don't find any terrorism information but happen upon some other tidbit of illegal information. Like maybe the suspects are trading illegal song downloads. You never know what our government will get into, whether intentionally or not.

And oversight is irrelevant to me. If someone does something wrong and some other idiot gives it the thumbs up - it's still wrong, dammit.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
So what...we're giving finite timelines to warfare now? Which episode of the Twilight Zone are you guys in?

No, although from what I posted I can see how you got that. The war on terror should be fought for however long it takes. But as it will most likely never end, then you can't use the excuse of being at war to justify temporary powers. Because obviously they won't be temporary.

Aww, whatsamatter Darth, can't take a little joke? :)

But, as Frogger surely knows now, sucking up to the great Napsterbater won't get you anywhere when I've got something to say. I've taken too much shit in my life to let such a little matter as what other people think influence me. That, my friend, is character.

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
Bush willingly had his NSA info gathering project reviewed every 45 days. The Justice Department knew, the Senate Intelligence Committee knew, Congressional Majority and Minority leaders knew.

No doubt a lot of people knew.


Bush was NOT on a secret fishing expedition.

I never implied that what he did, he did in secret.


That is what comforts me. Bush set parameters and abided by them, that is what comforts me.

I'm not as comfortable as you are with letting Bush set the parameters, or trusting him to abide by them.


Can both sides of the political aisle agree to track the terrorists now and undermine Bush later when we're safer?

Blah, blah.


No, it's a group of people who have the support, backing and resources of entire Middle Eastern countries, Iran and Syria comes to mind, as well as Saudi Arabia though they pretend to do no such thing.

I think we both agree that this "group of people" is well-financed.


Terrorist KNOW that they can't stand toe to toe with the U.S., so they have resorted to a form of guerilla warfare called terrorism.

Thank you for stating the obvious.


PLUS these guys are looking for chemical, biological or nuclear material to use as a weapon. This is just a bit beyond the scope of the FBI.

Nothing you have said would indicate to me that these guys are beyond the scope of the FBI, or some other investigative arm of our law enforcement apparatus.


Bush had his NSA activities REVIEWED every 45 days by those who worked for the Justice Department.

Who also work for Mr. Bush.


Parameters were sought for by Bush. This constiutes oversight, dammit.

No it doesn't Darth and you damn well know it. You can provide as many lists as you want of people who "knew" about this project, but unless some of these people had the power to stop the program or modify it, there was not "oversight". I really don't understand why you can't grasp that simple concept. Oversight means control, not just knowledge.


Actually, I thought you'd be nastier.

C'mon Darth...I'm not a nasty guy. :D

It would seem that the Justice Department may have their own misgivings about the legality of Bush's surveillance program.


The Bush administration is rebuffing requests from members of the Senate Judiciary Committee for its classified legal opinions on President Bush's domestic spying program, setting up a confrontation in advance of a hearing scheduled for next week, administration and Congressional officials said Wednesday.

The Justice Department is balking at the request so far, administration officials said, arguing that the legal opinions would add little to the public debate because the administration has already laid out its legal defense at length in several public settings.

But the legality of the program is known to have produced serious concerns within the Justice Department in 2004, at a time when one of the legal opinions was drafted. Democrats say they want to review the internal opinions to assess how legal thinking on the program evolved and whether lawyers in the department saw any concrete limits to the president's powers in fighting terrorism.

On the notion that this is all about Democrats wanting to "undermine" Bush...


While the administration has spent much of the last two weeks defending the legality and necessity of the surveillance program, the Judiciary Committee session will be the first Congressional hearing on it. Senator Arlen Specter, the Pennsylvania Republican who leads the panel, said Wednesday that he had "a lot of questions" the administration had not yet adequately answered about the program's legal rationale.

Mr. Specter would not address the committee's request for the classified legal opinions, except to say, "that's not a closed matter — we're still working on that."

Several Democrats on the panel have made formal requests for the legal opinions, including Senator Dianne Feinstein of California.

In the interview, Mr. Specter said that he wanted a fuller explanation as to how the Justice Department asserts that the eavesdropping operation does not conflict with the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which set strict and "exclusive" guidelines for intelligence wiretaps.

The operation was approved by President Bush, to allow the National Security Agency to conduct wiretaps on Americans' international communications without a court warrant.Mr. Specter said his view was that the operation "violates FISA — there's no doubt about that." (emphasis mine)

And the big unanswered question...


He (Specter) also questioned why the administration did not go to Congress or the intelligence court to seek changes in the process before moving ahead on its own with the classified program after the Sept. 11 attacks.

A question Bush has yet to answer...

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/02/politics/02nsa.html?ex=1296536400&en=71fa2ef6c33bfde0&ei=5089&partner=rssyahoo&emc=rss

Originally posted by Vilepagan
A question Bush has yet to answer...Bush hasn't, but Cheney did in an interview with Hugh Hewitt on 1/20/06:

Q One of the biggest objections to the NSA surveillance of al Qaeda agents in the United States program is that the administration didn't go to FISA. And the question keeps coming up, and I'll ask you, why not go to FISA for some of these programs?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, we've made it clear that what we have is a presidential -- the President has described it -- that what we're interested in are intercepting communications, one end of which are outside the United States, and one end of which we have reason to believe is al Qaeda-related. I don't want to go into any more detail than that.

We have, we believe, all the authority we need in Article II of the Constitution, the President's authority as Commander-in-Chief under the Constitution, as well as previous actions of the Congress, to justify and authorize exactly what we're doing.

We do safeguard the civil liberties of the American people. This is not a domestic surveillance program, as it's been referred to frequently by the press or some of our critics. It is, in fact, about communications that, say, that involve -- at least one end of the communications involve al Qaeda and a connection outside the U.S.

I can say for a fact that it's been a very valuable program, that it's saved lives and let us interrupt terrorist operations. I can also say that it's been briefed on a regular basis to the Congress, that on more than a dozen occasions, congressional members have been informed of the status of the program.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/01/20060120-1.html
________________

Is that a great answer, or what?

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
It like if the cops booted my car. I go ask my friend "you think it'd be OK to take the boot off?".
he replies "Well it says not to on the boot but, it's probably legal anyways. I mean it's your car right? you can do what you want with it."
"OK then"
...later on "this is bullshit my friend said it was OK!!!wah wah wah..."
Great analogy, genius. That's, like, exactly what happened...

Originally posted by Napsterbater
I've taken too much shit in my life to let such a little matter as what other people think influence me. That, my friend, is character.
No, correction, my friend, that's called gross arrogance with a massive side of pomposity. In your case, it's a five-course meal, and while given time to examine the obvious, you're extremely well fed. Of course, that aside, let me oblige FT anyway - you ARE just a peach of a guy! ;)

THE VICE PRESIDENT: " I can also say that it's been briefed on a regular basis to the Congress, that on more than a dozen occasions, congressional members have been informed of the status of the program." __Cheney

Here's what Senator Harry Reid of Nevada said about "Congress being briefed"........

""The President asserted in his December 17th radio address that "leaders in Congress have been briefed more than a dozen times on this authorization and the activities conducted under it." This statement gives the American public a very misleading impression that the President fully consulted with Congress.

First, it is quite likely that 96 Senators of 100 Senators, including 13 of 15 on the Senate Intelligence Committee first learned about this program in the New York Times, not from any Administration briefing.

I personally received a single very short briefing on this program earlier this year prior to its public disclosure. That briefing occurred more than three years after the President said this program began.

The Administration briefers did not seek my advice or consent about the program, and based on what I have heard publicly since, key details about the program apparently were not provided to me.

Under current Administration briefing guidelines, members of Congress are informed after decisions are made, have virtually no ability to either approve or reject a program, and are prohibited from discussing these types of programs with nearly all of their fellow members and all of their staff.

We need to investigate this program and the President's legal authority to carry it out. We also need to review this flawed congressional consultation system. I will be asking the President to cooperate in both reviews."

Mmmm, arrogance, pomposity, yum! Can I have a side of ignorance and one of assholery too? I just might eat the rest of you off the table!

I'll bet.

Correction: There probably won't be anyone left...

What I find deliciously ironic is ThePraetorian calling another person pompous.

Boys, boys...play nice. :)

And Prae, you seem to be tossing out a bit more invective than is usual for you...and that's saying something! :D

Originally posted by Napsterbater
What I find deliciously ironic is ThePraetorian calling another person pompous.
Well, between you, FT, and I, I guess we're all vying for position. However, given the obvious, think it's safe to say that you two have me beaten. Badly.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
And Prae, you seem to be tossing out a bit more invective than is usual for you...and that's saying something! :D
Nonsense.

I'm a kitten. :D (Oh, and leave the pussy jokes out of this one, guys. LOL.)

Originally posted by sedan
Is that a great answer, or what?

Given the choices, I'd have to go with "or what".

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
BTW this is another great example

Decka posts something he has no clue about.
Napster admits to not really knowing but agrees anyway.
Decka then assumes hes right.

Collective jackassery is fun kids!

whoa... where did i "assume i was right"??? Here let me REPOST what i said so you can point it out to me nice and clear....

Good un-biased post by napster.... its good to see

I dont think 500 is capable of seperating what is happening with what his beleifs are....

As for wiretaps... both sides make a good point. I guess it comes down to whether national security or upholding the constitution is more important.

The thing is, we probably cant trust the gov't to act in OUR best interests, so i guess the only thing left to do IS blindly follow the constitution....

I mean, you cant deny that wire-tapping only HELPS us in our attempt to befuddle upcoming terrorist attacks and movements... along with sniffing out spies and what not. The thing is that what happens when it goes too far??? Who checks the gov't??? Noone does.

Dont make claims that have no backing.... like i said, i dont NEED to be right to boost my ego, like you guys usually do. I'd gladly be wrong if it meant something good came from the convo.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
Given the choices, I'd have to go with "or what". I should have said "non-answer" because he completely ignored the question. They can't defend the indefensible so they don't even try. That's the whole strategy in a nutshell.

it's safe to say that you two have me beaten. Badly.

Haha, you can't even win a pomposity contest! What a loser! *does victory dance*

:)

Decka - sorry I guess I jumped to Darths post without realizing it.