Oh, oh...this one is going to get them crawling out from under their rocks!

They kept repeating "Bill Clinton did warrantless wiretapping" and then almost in the same breath they say "If this program was around before September 11 we could have prevented the attack".

??????

I liked Gen. Hayden's 4th amendment standard "reasonable suspicion" rather than "probable cause."

"Reasonable suspicion" is a notch lower than "probable cause" and a notch above a "hunch."

So, in the hands of unreasonable people so-called "reasonable suspicion" can be quite dangerous.

Main Entry: [2]hunch
Function: noun
Date: 1630
3 : a strong intuitive feeling concerning especially a future event or result
+++++++
GWB has acted on his "hunches" and look at the mess he's gotten us in!

Oh yeah baby (in my best Austins Powers voice)

Yeah baby yeah!

I might have scooped it a little check post #16 on the last thread.

Busheney know they did an end run around the constitution. The only question is . . .

Will they get away with it?

I hope not.

capt

Rumsfeld says that our troops are not too thin. They are battle hardened. Let us see how hardened they are with DU in the their bodies and malignancies that eat away at their intestines and organs. We will be adding more numbers to the nearly 600,000 soldiers who have DU in their bodies. If the enemy does not kill our soldiers, the Nazi cabal will kill them. I guess we can say when our government kills our loved ones it's called friendly killings.

Laura Bush received higher ratings than her husband. There must millions upon millions of desperate housewives who were polled. She is like a bump on a log and I guess that what it takes to have high ratings. Laura and George are good for each other; both are brain dead entities.

The US could have saved Iraq's cultural heritage

Sites were protected during the first Gulf war, but no one prevented the catastrophe in 2003, says Patrick Boylan

It is simply inconceivable that, during the planning of military action in 2002-3, the Pentagon did not turn up the detailed heritage-protection rules and maps applied so relatively successfully in the first Gulf war. Almost the first move of military planners in preparing for a possible conflict is to dust down records and maps, perhaps many decades old, and build on these. In this case, many of those responsible for developing and implementing the Desert Storm policy were still in the Pentagon. Someone or some group must have taken a positive decision to scrap the US's established protection policies and ignore the January 1993 assurance to Congress given by the defence department, still under Dick Cheney at the time.

Who made that fatal decision? Who back in Washington refused to allow the Baghdad commander to move a tank 200 yards to protect the National Museum from looting - despite pleading by the museum and international experts - and who authorised the building of a gigantic military base in the middle of Babylon's archaeological zone and allocated an adjacent area of the site to the Kellogg, Brown, Root subsidiary of Halliburton, Vice-President Cheney's old firm?

*****end of clip*****

The loss of some of the oldest artifacts of human civilization is a crime against all of us. This crap is beyond shameful. Should be more jail time for Busheney but I am sure they would prefer to blame a handful of rogue nightshift reservists.

Will Busheney ever be held to account for their crimes?

capt

I just finished reading "A Single Star", by Stan Barnett.

Within this work of fiction chock-full of intense action, legal manuevering and military heroism lies a deeper and poignant issue. Just how far are American citizens willing to be pushed with lies and criminal acts from this government before they throw down their distractions and apathy and state, loudly "ENOUGH"?

And then, with what resolve do they stand up together and confront the power- and money-mad politicians and the leeches who use them to suck dry the essence of a free people?

"A Single Star" refers to the white star on a field of blue, the flag flown to signify "secession". I read this book last night beside the light of a single blue star, on a white field bordered in red that signifies yet again, a son of this family sent into harm's way in the name of "We the People".

In the book it is the ram-rodding of nuclear waste on a population, against its will by the Federal Government. What will it be in our own (questionably) "real" times?

I once believed that "We the People" would not stand for being openly lied to, but I was wrong.

I once believed that "We the People" would not stand for our children being sent off to foreign lands to die in illegal wars of greed, but I was wrong.

I once believed that "We the People" would never, EVER stand idly by while those elected to "represent" us failed to pursue the nefarious actions of others who would steal from us, lie to us, cheat us of our money and undermine the very foundations of our freedoms. I was horribly, horribly wrong.

I even, childishly it seems, believed that any breech of the basic rights of Americans by an overzealous federal government would be IMMEDIATELY answered with the most vociferous convictons of those charged with protection of those rights. It saddens me to no end to be wrong yet again.

What will it take for "We the People" to stand together against such tyranny? What will it take for "We the People" to finally, individually and collectively reach across to our neighbors and say it loudly and in harmony..."ENOUGH!"

-T

What will it take for "We the People" to stand up?

Thanks David...more news of the growing contradictions, spin and lies that spew out of this administration...who can keep up. I still think someone needs to publish ...The CULTURE OF CORRUPTION GUIDEBOOK FOR DUMMIES...it would be a best seller. Here is the latest message from our friend Peggy Gish with the Christian Peace Maker Team. She has been in Iraq 2 out of the last 3 years. January 21, 2006 Dear Family and Friends, � It has now been a month since I came back to Iraq, and close to two months since our four colleagues (one regular team member and three on a two week delegation) were kidnapped. We have started back into some or our regular work, but much of what we do still centers around seeking the release of Tom, Jim, Harmeet, and Norman. � Besides the uncertainty about the condition of our four men, much of the stress I feel comes from constantly meeting together to discern how to handle the many dilemmas, deal with rumors, and respond to requests and advice. This feels heavy because we know that what we decide has serious consequences. We often get very contradictory information and advice. There are times we feel overwhelmed by the pressures to make decisions where there is little certainty. The only thing that works for us in this situation is to try to base these difficult judgments and decisions in our faith--what we know to be the way that leads to life. � This means trying to deal with the things that clutter our spirits, like our own pettiness or the strong feelings that naturally build up in such a situation. It means keeping our relationships clear so we can together sense the Spirit�s leading. It means being patient with each other when we get tired and frustrated. And it pushes us to grow and to build close bonds of friendship and love. � This week three of us accompanied a man to an Iraqi military base to find his wife and daughter in law who were detained there along with his sons who had been accused of involvements in the violent resistance. We ended up meeting with the top commander and discussing using humane treatment in military operations. We talked with the detained family members, but weren�t allowed to be with them alone, so felt like they were not free to speak freely and honestly about their treatment. From the beginning of the meeting to the end, the story changed about why the women were being held. First it was for getting information about people involved in violence in their family and neighborhood, which we see as being held hostage to put pressure on other family members. Later the reason was for holding them was to protect them. The commander promised to release them in two days, and we just heard today that they had been released. � The uncertainty of the situation with our four colleagues is difficult, but I find more strength being and working here when we are able to work closely with Iraqi people. � Thank you all for your constant prayers for us and we continue to walk ahead,� Peggy

The unexplained contradiction between the Administration's public rejection of the "reasonable suspicion" standard for FISA, and its secret adoption of that same standard was noted yesterday by attorney and blogger Glenn Greenwald.

Was I right about Greenwald or what?

By the way, Robb, I saw your post in the last thread. I'll e-mail you with my itinerary as well to see if we can set up a lunch.

OT, but very entertaining.

Last year, someone (I can't remember whether it was capt or James) linked to The [Buffalo] Beast's 50 Most Loathsome People in America, 2004.

Here's the 2005 version. Very funny.

I loved this comment on DeLay:

A politician so horrible, his prior career as an exterminator constitutes fratricide.

Too good!

Are you ready to be bugged and tortured by George W. Bush?

It's not really terrorists George W. Bush wants to bug and torture. It's YOU.

It's not really terrorism he wants to fight. It's opposition from people he can't control.

It's not really US security he wants to protect. It's the power of his regime.

The Constitutional debate about whether these executive privileges are allowable in war is a smoke screen.

This isn't about war: It's about dictatorship. It’s about making power permanent by using private information against you, and by terrifying you with torture.

Team Bush believes it rules by Divine right. It has already re-defined "terrorist" to mean anyone who questions its power. It will use "anti-terrorist" wiretapping as a tool against anyone who dares oppose it.

All serious indicators show that "information" extracted by torture is virtually worthless in fighting terrorism. So is the information taken from wiretapping huge numbers of people, which Bush has been doing since before 9/11.

So ask yourself: if granted the power to torture, do you trust the Bush Administration---or any regime- - to refrain from torturing its political opponents? If granted the power to record private phone conversations, do you trust Karl Rove to not use this material against his political opponents?

*****end of clip*****

The abuse of power already from this WH is just sick.

This kind of goes with the "Posner Waiver."

capt

"The [Buffalo] Beast's 50 Most Loathsome People in America, 2004."

I WISH I was the source, that is some funny stuff. Must be from the good Mr. Ha!

Thanks!

Great posts and such! Kudos all around!

capt

Don, I think your sparring buddy must be scrambling for his talking points! "Help, help, what do I say now??!! I'm lost without my talking points!"

You were right!

http://www.billolielly.com/

HA!

capt

micki,

Well, he'll get the RNC fax sooner or later. It will have some variation of the "Well, the president can order warrantless wiretaps because, hey, he's the PRESIDENT!" explanation.

By the way, I felt much better about myself when I toned down the hyperbole.

OK, I really didn't, but it's nice to say so.

From the [Buffalo] Beast's 50 Most Loathsome People in America, 2005

LOL! Nancy Grace: Looks like a camel in drag.

...ya know, she does!

Off I am now to dinner with a group including 1.5 year-old grand-daughter AllieB.

Sometimes, it requires looking into the eyes of a child to regain ANY sense of hope. One often wonders how the world will look to those eyes in 40 years or so...

-T

Sometimes, it requires looking into the eyes of a child to regain ANY sense of hope.

You're right, and it's because of them we HAVE to hope.

Don,

That was great! Especially:

#4 You

The rebuffed lowering the FISA standards because they had already side stepped FISA and were doing warrantless wiretapping by that time. From what I've heard they had started the NSA spying before 9/11.

Why bother changing the rules when you don't play by the rules in the first place?

*They rebuffed...

Bush Authorized Domestic Spying Before 9/11

The National Security Agency advised President Bush in early 2001 that it had been eavesdropping on Americans during the course of its work monitoring suspected terrorists and foreigners believed to have ties to terrorist groups, according to a declassified document.

The NSA's vast data-mining activities began shortly after Bush was sworn in as president and the document contradicts his assertion that the 9/11 attacks prompted him to take the unprecedented step of signing a secret executive order authorizing the NSA to monitor a select number of American citizens thought to have ties to terrorist groups.

In its "Transition 2001" report, the NSA said that the ever-changing world of global communication means that "American communication and targeted adversary communication will coexist."

"Make no mistake, NSA can and will perform its missions consistent with the Fourth Amendment and all applicable laws," the document says.

However, it adds that "senior leadership must understand that the NSA's mission will demand a 'powerful, permanent presence' on global telecommunications networks that host both 'protected' communications of Americans and the communications of adversaries the agency wants to target."

*****end of clip*****

Must read the whole thing if you have not already. It really is the most important point that Busheney were doing this before 911.

capt

The right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing and Bush doesn't know what either are doing. "Incompetence" is a kind word for him and his gang. "Corrupt", "stupid", "arrogant", "criminal", "fuckups" are terms that only begin to capture the true flavor.

The thing that scares me most about the Bush administration is what we don't know.
Cover up du jour.

On the Domestic Spying Program

Cheney: And that when we have a situation where we have communication between someone inside the U.S. and an acknowledged al Qaeda or terrorist source outside the U.S., that that's something we need to know.

And he has authorized us to look at that. And it is, in fact, consistent with the constitution. It's been reviewed. It's reviewed every 45 days by the president himself, by the attorney general of the U.S., by the president's council, by the director of CIA.

It's been briefed to the Congress over a dozen times. And, in fact, it is a program that is, by every effort we've been able to make, consistent with the statutes and with the law. It's the kind of capability [that], if we'd had before 9/11, might have led us to be able to prevent 9/11.

We had two 9/11 terrorists in San Diego prior to the attack in contact with al Qaeda sources outside the U.S. We didn't know it. The 9/11 Commission talks about it. If we'd had this capability, then we might well have been able to stop it.

From UPLINK

'It's the kind of capability if we'd had before 9/11 might have led us to be able to prevent 9/11,' Cheney said in an interview with ABC's 'Nightline' program."

There is a problem with his view. This capability was around before 9-11.

But there is a far bigger problem, It seems he forgot that in 1995 the Republicans rejected Clintons proposed expansion on the FBI's wiretap authority in order to combat terrorism. The same year the OKC bombing happened....then in 1996 when Clinton asked for more counterterrorism funding...THE REPUBLICANS REJECTED HIM.

But there is even a bigger problem, Cheney claims this "capability" didn't exist before 9-11, and if it did they might have been able to prevent 9-11. We all know that the FISA courts were available before 9-11

Cheney claimed that the constitution gave Bush the authority to spy on Americans without a warrent, as we all know, the constitution was around before 9-11

So...using Cheney's logic..

*Who could have prevented 9-11 with wiretaps ?...CLINTON

*Who admits that wiretaps could have prevented 9-11 ? ....Bush/Cheney

*Who prevented Clinton from using these wiretaps ?.... REPUBLICANS

The repubs admit they didn't give Clinton the tools he needed to prevent 9-11

*****end of clip*****

Read the whole transcript at ABC - Cheney lies about nearly every point.

capt

I'm sorry, I can't resist.

10. Bill O'Reilly

Charges: Even Limbaugh must bow before O'Reilly's unparalleled bullying skills and ability to deliver undiluted bullshit with an air of brusque authority. O'Reilly is so comfortable with his astounding hypocrisy that he didn't skip a beat when he was publicly revealed to be a comically perverse sexual harasser, continuing to sanctimoniously moralize about the corrosive effects of rap music and intellectualism on American society. Main tactic against his critics, whose jobs rank among the easiest in the world, is to accuse them of his own methods: arbitrary smears, selective quotation, partisan motivation, and intellectual cowardice. Infuriatingly claims to be a political "independent" who just happens to parrot virtually every Republican talking point and equate mainstream liberals with Nazis and Stalinists. Claimed his call for abandoning San Francisco to al Qaeda bombing was "satirical," which is itself the funniest thing he's ever said. An honest to goodness list-making Joe McCarthy wannabe, with the ACLU standing in for the Communist Party.

Exhibit A: O'Reilly's novel, Those Who Trespass, which reads like an eighth grade writing assignment, is about a blustery news correspondent, demoted from foreign correspondence to less prestigious work (as O'Reilly was when he moved from ABC News to Inside Edition), who murders a string of colleagues he feels have hindered his career. "I kill you on page six," he told Charlie Gibson on Good Morning America.

Sentence: After O'Reilly's influence fundamentally changes the nature of jurisprudence, he is tortured and jailed for life when it is discovered that he once leafed through a copy of the Communist Manifesto as a teen.

---------------------
From The BEAST
You know he begs for this humiliation.

I'm going to say this very slowly, because you folks obviously have a hard time understanding nuances.

There is no contradiction.

In 2002, the standard was not lowered from "probable cause" to "reasonable suspicion" at the request of President Bush's own Justice Department. Can't fault them for that.

But that was on "domestic spying", i.e., between calls either originating in the United States to outside parties or between two calls in the United States. The Justice Department was saying you still needed FISA approval for them. These cases were, and continue to be, treated as law enforcement cases.

But the unwarranted NSA eavesdropping only came on (1)calls emanating from outside the United States (2)from AlQaeda operatives. Unlike the liberals, who want to treat the War on Terror as a law enforcement issue, President Bush believes it is a true war against not a breaker of American laws but against an enemy combatant. Don't you see the difference?

Let me give you an example. Say the FBI has permission to wiretap a member of organized crime. The mobster calls someone for whom a tap has not been approved.

Does anyone in his/her right mind believe that the person being called should be excluded from the recorded conversation? And that is between two American citizens.

Under your logic, if the person being called in America said something either self-incriminating or incriminating to the mobster, it couldn't be used because it was illegally obtained. After all, we didn't have an authorized tap on the person being called.

And what would you have the NSA do? Break in on the incoming AlQaeda call and say, "Wait a minute, Mr. Terrorist; I have to get approval to tap the phone of the person you're calling."?

We are tapping the phones of known or suspected AlQaeda operatives. They call into America. We trace those phone calls. We have already received permission to tap AlQaeda's phones. Are you now saying we can't listen to the other half of the conversation?

Please, please tell me you understand this distinction. I hope I have not given you people credit for a lot more intelligence than you really deserve.

Sinister plan uncovered for "Pesticide Experiments" by the chimpy cabal, pregnant women and infants would be included in addition to ENORMOUS loopholes. See Senator Boxers response HERE. Seems like they are getting a bit anxious and if it wasnt for an astute whistle blower we STILL would not know about it.

Get lost OReilly!

Bill,
It's 'type this slowly'. It's funny when Panda uses it. It's pitiful when you do.
If you want to repeat the Bush administration lies until doomsday, go ahead. You are preaching to the wrong church.

I'm still reading The BEAST. I just got to Thomas Friedman's roasting. So satisfying. My husband's job and many many hundreds of other programmers' jobs were outsourced in 04 and the entire time we feared for our economic survival we had to listen to that ------ talk about how outsourcing is good for the economy.
Thank you Beast. Thank you.
-----
Sentence: Column outsourced to Bangalore, where there is some difficulty in finding a peasant ignorant and ineloquent enough to please his audience. Compelled at gunpoint to write a 500-page retraction of his recent best-seller, called 'No, Actually the World is Round'.
-----------

I loved the artwork almost as much as the list at BEAST. The Tom Delay as a lizard and Robertson as the devil is just too cool!

Thanks again!

capt

Jeanne,

Pande copied it from me. And why do you think it's funny when he says it, and not so when I do? You have cut me to the quick.

You make a lot of personal attacks, but you offer no factual evidence to refute my assertion.

And I am wrong....where? Or do you just complain?

By the way, I just logged in to DailyKos for the first time. They've got a bunch of crybabies over there that make you folks look like Pollyanna Republicans by comparison.

Looks to me like a particular Smarty Pants doesn't know the difference between "unwarranted" and "warrantless." Sure makes him look kinda silly.

What a fraud. Also, what an asshole.

Illegal wiretaps started before 9/11

Another argument falls apart as the Bush Administration tries to defend its abuse of power.

Truthout is reporting that illegal wiretaps were approved prior to the attacks of September 11, 2001.

A couple points:

The president has argued the untethered wiretap authority is needed in the post 9/11 world. Even if one accepts that (which I happen not to), how does that justify wiretaps before the attacks?

The wiretapping was being used beginning in early 2001. With this new power, they still weren't able to prevent the attacks themselves.

The president is breaking the law by not abiding by congressional statutes mandating NSA obtain a warrant from FISA either before or within 72 hours after wiretapping. In the process, he's also trashing the separation of powers in the constitution itself by thumbing his nose at Congress and the courts at the same time.

*****end of clip*****

The president, his councils, the DOJ or DOD cannot assign the power to bypass the law nor ignore the constitution. The FISA court is even extra-constitutional and needs to be tested. These extraordinary powers were intended to be temporary and should be tested.

America is a country of laws not kings. No president can empower himself beyond the constitution unless he is above it. That is a dictatorship because we have no royalty. Bunnypants is a royal a**hole but that goes without saying.

He has broken the law, admitted it, claims he can continue to do so. Why? Because his personal attorney says so? Not even close.

capt

...also his (1) and (2) are BIG FAT LIES.

Maybe this asshole is Bill O'Lielly! making up crapola as he goes through his day, not knowing truth from fiction.

#37
Pande copied it from me. And why do you think it's funny when he says it, and not so when I do? You have cut me to the quick.

Bill,
Because he's funny. You sir, are amusing.

caio 4 now, I will return when you are done playing with your pet troll!

Have a blast!

Did you ever hear the one that goes "Bush never lied?" HA! I giggle everytime - tee hee!

capt

David:

Your post leaves questions in the minds of those who DO NOT devote hours daily on politics or national security or blogs BUT are interested in broadly relevant issues. So, please bear with me on my comments and impressions. And, I am NOT a lawyer!

The 2002 background you cite as "...surveillance of non-US persons under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act from "probable cause" that the target is a terrorist or agent of a foreign power to "reasonable suspicion."

Key words above are: "non-US persons"

The Fourth Amendment to Constitution:

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.

Like a majority of Americans, I have no detailed knowledge of the drafting of FISA just after 9/11 but I (and perhaps most ordinary people) would assume that FISA's "probable cause" was `lifted' straight from the 4th Amendment and given the haste at the time, was a no-brainer non-controversial threshold.

After FISA came into existence and as our intelligence got going, there are "legal & practical issues" that James Baker alluded to. I will bet that some of the issues involved terror suspects calling American citizens which conflicts with FISA's "non-US persons". Another issue I can think of is the part relating to searches required under the 4th Amendment. What if the NSA just wants to silently monitor the development of terror plots and identifying as many domestically domiciled terrorists as possible and has NO intent to search (thus requiring warrants) until much later?

I didn't spend but 10~15 minutes thinking about this post but I believe I have identified some conflicts of FISA, the 4th and the reality of the forces of evil we are combatting; in addition to plotters that are bound to include some `US Persons'. In 2002, with intelligence operations well underway, I can certainly see why the power-that-be decided to just work and interpret based on what they got instead of tipping off the enemies.

Just some quick thoughts; I have NOT visited anyone for talking points!

Oh micki, oh micki!!

I find that when a person is short on logic and short on vocabulary, he or she makes up for it by being long on personal insult.

Would you fit in that category?

And, oh, by the way, my (1) and (2) were proven up by both the whistleblowers and the Chairmen and Ranking Members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees.

Those are my sources. And your sources for their being lies are...who, again?

And, oh, by the way, "unwarranted" and "warrantless" are synonomous. That means that have the same meaning. Look it up.

micki, please don't make it this easy for me.

"I have NOT visited anyone for talking points!"

It shows. What gobbleydegook. Rove is going to withhold your paycheck.

Hey, I didn't post #45.

Often imitated. Never equaled.

"Warrantless" is legally descriptive, as in "without the required judicially approved search warrant."

"Unwarranted" in the general sense (and in the legal sense) of usage is "unfounded."

FISA requires a judicially approved warrant otherwise it is illegal -- i.e. AGAINST THE LAW.

The little boys in the white house broke everything and now they're going to go home.

Destruction Easier than Reconstruction

BAGHDAD, Jan 23 (IPS) - While politicians deliberate over Iraq's future, Iraqis are dealing with the reality of the present. They are looking at the debris of a country where reconstruction has come to a standstill.

They are also looking at a situation in which the capital of the oil-rich country has been stricken recently by a dire shortage of gas and kerosene.

Iraqis in Baghdad had been receiving 12 to 13 hours of electricity a day on average over recent months. Over the past few weeks they say supply has fallen to just a few hours a day.

"We have no services at all," Usama Asa'ad, a 31 year-old mechanic told IPS. "Our electricity is on only one or two hours a day."

Many Iraqis thought the United States would improve their situation when the occupation began in April 2003, but those expectations are long over. Iraqis complain that the situation in Baghdad now is worse than it ever was under Saddam.

Electricity supply is inconsistent, and sometimes there is no water for a week or more at a time. After the recent increase in petroleum prices mandated by the International Monetary Fund, the situation has become far more difficult for Iraqis.

"The petrol price became three times more than before, and this makes everything in the market more expensive," said Abdul Sattar, waiting in a queue at one of the petrol stations in Baghdad. "I've been waiting for six hours in this queue and I'm not even sure whether I will get petrol. Yesterday I waited for seven hours but I didn't get anything. The petrol station isn't open at night because there is no security."

Iraqis continue to blame the United States and the occupation for the petrol shortages and the lack of security. President George W. Bush has declared that he would seek no more money for Iraq's reconstruction, further angering Iraqis.

"The water is not clean enough, there is no petrol for our cars, and the occupation forces intend this," said Usama Asa'ad. "They want to make all of Iraq's services for private companies, so that United States companies will take as much money from Iraq as they can."

I find it fascinating the lengths some liberals go to defend, essentially, communications between AQ and Americans in this country.

I understand that the rule of law principle, is pre-eminent in many of your minds. And that you are all for getting AQ, you just want it done "legally," which of course is the essence of the debate.

But I wonder,in this absolutists position that many of you take, if you think about the EFFECT, if you are proven to be right? Which in the end you maybe, though i doubt it. What will be the effect? Difficult to know with any certainty, but do you honestly think that the message sent will be interepeted as a message of strengh?

Yes, i know its not about "who they are, but about who we are"

What is it that you achieve? checks and balances? rule of law? These were never endangered concepts to begin with, but rather steady.

What do you achieve? I know we, neo-cons are the FEAR-mongers, many of you believe that the terrorists threat is not REALLY that big of a threat, until they actually hit us, and then its, "you ignored the warnings" "your heads were in the sand"

Thats why I for one am so amazed at these seemingly diametrically opposed concepts

Bill, I thought you were on my side. F**k you.

CPT, how did you happen to come here at EXACTLY the right time to back me up? Amazing timing. You sound just like me.

Divine intervention?

Hey peoples, I've been busy as of late, but keeping up the best I can.

So many questions.

What was James Baker doing at the justice department in 2002? Moonlighting? Conflicting his interests?

Do we really have tens of thousands of al qaida operative living in the U.S.A.? I thought we killed them all in 2001 and 2002, they said they wiped them out. Bush said it, Rice said it, Rumsfeld said it. But according to the need for NSA tapping there must be at least 10,000 living here in the states.

What is the point system used by this gang for claiming a kill? They must have one. Bush, O'Reilly, Cheney, Rice; they all try to top the other guy with their whopping lies. I heard Gonzales say yesterday that every story about the NSA wiretaps has been wrong and the media is lying. Doesn't he deserve extra points for that kill? And O'Reilly telling Carville that Corn is the extreme left; not so good since Corn stands to the right of conservatives on his own blog.

One last question. Will the Canadians support their prime minister in his attempt to gain a missle defense system over Canada, or was that just the price he paid to get Diebold to sell voting machines to Ontario?

Micki, Kathleen, Jeanne, Hajji, Capt

All of you Negroes (conservatives) must leave this drinking fountain (blog) immediately.

Don't you know it's just for us Whites (liberals and progressives)?

Don't you know the Negro (conservative)and his ways (ideas) will contaminate this drinking fountain (blog)?

We Whites (liberals) don't want no Negroes (conservatives) coming around our White (liberal) women (preconceived ideas), either.

Don't you know the Negro (conservative) and the White man (liberal) were not supposed to be integrated? You Negroes (conservatives) get back over to the drinking fountains (blogs) on your own side of town (NRO, Powerline).

Obviously, some stupid liberal is posting using several conservative names. It is really a childish ploy. The person is a gutless wonder, an intellectual coward who is afraid to engage in the arena of ideas and logic under his or her own handle.

Gerald and all, are we really #4?

#50

'But I wonder,in this absolutists position that many of you take, if you think about the EFFECT, if you are proven to be right? Which in the end you maybe, though i doubt it. What will be the effect? Difficult to know with any certainty, but do you honestly think that the message sent will be interepeted as a message of strengh?'

What is it that you achieve? checks and balances? rule of law? These were never endangered concepts to begin with, but rather steady.'
--------------------------
Not endangered? Living in a dreamworld are we? One of the mushrooms?
You wouldn't stand up to protect to protect checks and balances? It's your country you're willing to cast aside to enable an administration that is evil, sociopathic, incompetent and greedy. Look at the facts and not the talking points.

Don #22

"Sometimes it requires looking into the eyes of a child to regain any sense of hope."

"You're right and it's because of them that we have to hope."

Your parents must have sucked! A child should be able to look at his parents/grandparents for hope of a better future not the other way around.
My grandparents lived through the depression and never once whined like you two sissies!!

Another question I've been pondering. How did Bush push his approval rating up to 43%? Then I read the postings of Bill and Happy and CPT and his friends and it became clear. The average IQ in the red states is under 90.

but that doesn't mean that they're average, does it?

David pats himself on the back for breaking the Plame outing, yet no indictments for the outing after costing taxpayers millions of dollars.

What exactly has been a victory for you lefties?

Germany & Canada are now conservative. The Supreme court is leaning conservative. The dimwit Dems can't even get any traction on Abramoff.

James Ha is still stuck on 9/11. Don and Rob, Robert S & Den are still stuck on Gore won in 2004. Capt and Gerald are stuck on quoting scripture. Corky and Jeanne are stuck on low paying jobs. Can anyone name a cause or issue that you have won on? Please help clarify!!

What are the values of our continent worth? - Council Of Europe investigator

The Council of Europe's parliamentary assembly is scheduled to receive a preliminary report into US run torture camps on European soil and "extraordinary renditions"on January 23rd. This posting is a preliminary briefing for readers.

Several investigations are now underway in Europe both into the so-called "extraordinary rendition" and the presence on European soil of
America run Soviet style interrogation camps. Of these the most important is the investigation by Swiss Senator Marty for the Council of Europe.

The Council of Europe is Europe's oldest political organisation, founded in 1949.It comprises 46 countries, including 21 from eastern and central Europe.

The Strasbourg-based Council is separate and independent from the 25-nation European Union.The Council defends human rights and parliamentary democracy.

Senator Marty* is due to present a preliminary report to the parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe on January 23.

The Washington Post reported on November 2 that the US has used "Soviet-style" prison camps to interrogate suspected terrorists in eastern Europe, most likely Poland and Romania.US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has labelled the movement of suspected terrorists as "renditions".

Key Quotes:

"If people are detained, transported and tortured without reference to the law, what are the values of our continent worth?"
---------------------
An Irish blog.

Goef01

I guess you didn't get the facts on Bush vs Kerry IQ. Bush won! You can insult the man all you want but the facts show he has a higher IQ than your man Kerry. Here's another fact, Bush is president which makes Kerry-not!!!

Jeanne,

I find that when you won't confront an argument directly, you - and others - call our assertions "talking points".

Two things. First, I have never visited a Republican website in my life. The conservative websites I visit offer a variety of ideas of various subjects. The only time I will parrot one is when I link to it or quote from it.

Second. Let's assume, for a moment, that the postings here are Republican talking points. So what?

You challenge the messenger but you seldom attempt to refute the message itself. How about, in a logical, empirical manner, attempting to address the veracity of the points themselves?

Your refusal to do so indicates that you really have no defense. All you can do is call names.

For instance, everybody says I lied, Bush lied and the NSA lied when we all said that the only "warrantless" calls were into the United States from foreign countries from suspected AlQaeda operatives.

I have given you the source of my information. Who is your source to say these are lies?

This is not a game. This is not some sophist's exercise. This is for the heart and soul of our country. But unless and until the liberals can be more logical and less emotional, you insure the dominance of the Republican Party, and that is a real pity.

It's a total lie that Bush needs to spy on American citizens without legal warrants in order to know what the terrorists are up to. The sense of immediacy is only a ploy by Bush and the prurient, prying eyes and noses of the Republican-controlled U.S. Congress snoop mob who insist that in order to protect Americans' civil liberties and freedoms, they must take them away.

It was established years ago that the newer, advanced technology using fiber optic cables and communications which are buried deep in the ground or underwater it is extremely difficult and in some cases impossible to intercept the millions of messages that are transmitted daily. Where satellite and land wire communications which are used predominantly by law-abiding American citizens are easily captured and intercepted, underground fiber optic cable is much more difficult to detect.

Not only that, but the intelligence agencies don't have even a fraction of the interpreters they need to sort out the white noise from legitimate credible information which might be useful. Anyone who has read a single newspaper ever since the initial campaign to oust the Taliban from Afghanistan knows that there are literally scores of Arabic languages and dialects, many spoken and understood only by a few tribes, making it impossible to decipher the proper translations to carry out meaningful and timely surveillance.

This latest Bush propaganda putsch to spy on ordinary American citizens so that he can gather information on and incarcerate political opponents is exactly like the ministry of information run by the Nazi, Joseph Gobbels in the Second World War.

Bush is a lying, deceitful, manipulative, exploitative little dictator who loathes the U.S. Constitution so much so that he circumvents every law that was put in place to protect against such totalitarian and abusive regimes.

Now, he claims absolute authority, exactly as one would expect from a tyrant and autocratic ruler. Bush's contempt for the Constitutional rights of the people of our country has no limits. In decreeing to himself his absolutist powers he has become the terrorists' best friend and ally by tearing apart our country -- exactly as the terrorists wish.

Careful Bill

Jeanne will start accusing you of being a women hater if you challenge her to hard!

Geof1,

You assume facts not in evidence. Why do you think I live in a red state?

And geof1, it is that kind of name-calling, that kind of infantile behavior that serves you and your side so poorly.

And, oh, by the way, from which school did you recieve your MBA with highest honors?

Conservatives Win in Canadian Election

OTTAWA - Conservative Stephen Harper pledged to quickly carry out his campaign promises to cut taxes, get tough on crime and repair strained ties with Washington after his party won national elections and ended 13 years of Liberal Party rule in Canada.

That may be easier said than done.

The Conservatives' winning margin was too narrow to rule with a majority, a situation that will make it hard for them to get legislation through the divided House of Commons.

Monday's vote showed that Canadians are weary of the Liberal Party's broken promises and corruption scandals. They were willing to give Harper a chance to govern despite concerns that some of his social views are extreme.....

....Relations with the Bush administration will likely improve under Harper as his ideology runs along the same lines of many U.S. Republicans.

Harper has said he would reconsider a U.S. missile defense scheme rejected by the Liberal government of Prime Minister Paul Martin. He also said he wanted to move beyond the Kyoto debate by establishing different environmental controls, spend more on the Canadian military, expand its peacekeeping missions and tighten security along the U.S. border to prevent terrorists and guns from crossing.

Final results for the 308-seat House showed Conservatives with 124 seats; Liberals with 103; the Bloc Quebecois with 51, New Democratic Party with 29; and one seat to an Independent.

The Conservatives also earned 10 seats in Quebec, where they were virtually shut out in the last elections of June 2004. Harper said it was symbolic of the Quebecois desire for national unity as opposed to sovereignty for the French-speaking province.

"Our government will build a new and dynamic voice for federalism in Quebec," Harper said.

Martin conceded defeat and said he would step down as head of the party, although remain in Parliament to represent the Montreal seat he won again. It was an unusual move to do both on the same night, but Martin appeared upbeat and eager to continue to fight the Conservatives from House opposition benches.

"I have just called Stephen Harper and I've offered him my congratulations," Martin told a subdued crowd at his headquarters in Montreal. "We differ on many things, but we all share a believe in the potential and the progress of Canada."

The Conservative victory ended more than a decade of Liberal Party rule and could shift the traditionally liberal country to the right on socio-economic issues such as health care, taxation, abortion and gay marriage. Some Canadians have expressed reservations about Harper's views opposing abortion and marriages between gays and lesbians.

During the campaign, Harper pledged to cut the red tape in social welfare programs, lower the national sales tax from 7 percent to 5 percent over five years and grant more autonomy and federal funding to Canada's 13 provinces and territories.

The Liberals have angered Washington in recent years, condemning the war in Iraq, refusing to join the continental anti-ballistic missile plan and criticizing President Bush for rejecting the Kyoto Protocol on greenhouse gas emissions and enacting punitive Canadian lumber tariffs.

Martin, 67, had trumpeted eight consecutive budget surpluses and sought to paint Harper as a right-winger posing as a moderate to woo mainstream voters. He claimed Harper supports the war in Iraq, which most Canadians oppose, and would try to outlaw abortion and overturn gay marriage. Harper denied the accusations.

Voters cast ballots at 60,000 polling stations amid unseasonably mild winter weather. Turnout from the 22.7 million registered voters was 65 percent, somewhat better than the 60 percent of the June 2004 election, the lowest number since 1898.

Martin's government and the House were dissolved in November after New Democrats defected from the governing coalition to support the Conservatives in a no-confidence vote amid a corruption scandal involving the misuse of funds for a national unity program in Quebec.

An investigation absolved the prime minister of wrongdoing but accused senior Liberals of taking kickbacks and misspending tens of millions of dollars in public funds.

Just as campaigning hit full swing over the Christmas holidays, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police announced they were investigating a possible leak by Liberal government officials that appeared to have influenced the stock market.

_____

AP writers Phil Couvrette in Montreal, Rob Gillies in Toronto, Shelley Knapp in Calgary and Jeremy Hainsworth in Vancouver contributed to this report.
--------------------
Long post. Sorry.

It doesn't look like the Conservatives have a clear majority. It's also going to be a rough road I think for Harper. Bush is not a person I'd want at my side. If he's smart he'd figure out what the people of Canada really voted on. If he listens to Bush he won't last.

My opinion.

Michael Moore pleads with Canadians to vote for corrupt liberals in current power to keep out conservatives.

The Canadian people have spoken and told Michael Moore to shove it up his bung hole. What an idiot.

Jeez Louise. What about all the American citizen dough the Repug$ spent on "getting" Clinton and the 10 years and $21 million spent on hounding Henry Cisneros? Chump change? I think not.

BTW, bush and his boyfriends have grown the size of U.S. government more than any other time in history (with all factors considered).

#68 Jeanne...I agree with your opinion.

Funny, when I was at the border yesterday, a Canadian reporter told me, "bush screwed all of you. We won't let Harper screw us. We're good at throwing the bastards out."

#65
Interesting post, Richard. Thank you.

Micki

I have put this challenge out there before- go to google and put in clinton indictments vs Bush indictments and you will see the long list of people who were indicted and sent to jail under Clinton vs Bush. At least the Rebublicans have something to show for it.

#73
Oh for cripes sake, get over it. It's 2006. Next I'll have to read about Clinton's blow job again. Take your suffering some where else.

Jeanne

I am over it, Clinton was impeached. I am perfectly satisfied with that resul- of the most corrupt administration to ever exist. I am only responding to Micki and still waiting by the way for someone to name one issue that the lefties here or anywhere have won on. David Corn pats himself on the back but O'Reilly is right about him and that is why he is crying like a baby.

His investigative reporting has only one credit the Plame outing which is a dud. No indictments for the outing at all. Another phony!!!

Does The Left Honestly Support Our Troops?
By Dennis Prager

Liberals, Democrats and others on the Left frequently state that they "support the troops." For most of them, whether they realize it or not, this is not true. They feel they must say this because the majority of Americans would find any other position unacceptable. Indeed, for most liberals, the thought that they really do not support the troops is unacceptable even to them.

Lest this argument be dismissed as an attack on leftist Americans' patriotism, let it be clear that leftists' patriotism is not the issue here. Their honesty is.

In order to understand this, we need to first have a working definition of the term "support the troops." Presumably it means that one supports what the troops are doing and rooting for them to succeed. What else could "support the troops" mean? If you say, for example, that you support the Yankees or the Dodgers, we assume it means you want them to win.

But most of the Left does not want the troops to win in Iraq. The Left's message is this: "You troops may think you are winning; you may think you are doing good and moral things in Iraq; you may believe you are fighting the worst human beings of our age and protecting us against the scourge of Islamic terror. But we on the Left believe none of that. We believe this war is being fought for oil and for Halliburton and other corporations; we believe you are waging a war that is both illegal and immoral; we believe you have invaded a country for no good reason and have killed a hundred thousand Iraqis [the Left's generally mentioned number] for no good reason; but, hey, we sure do support you."

Honest people on the Left need to understand that the two positions are not reconcilable. A German citizen during World War II could not have argued: "The Nazi regime's army is engaged in an evil war of aggression and is slaughtering millions of innocent people, and I therefore completely oppose this war, but I sure do support the Nazi troops."

One example is the claim made by Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry and almost all other Democrats and liberals that the war in Iraq is "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time." How does one support troops that are fighting a wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time? A few leftist writers have been honest enough to say, "Nothing personal, guys, but I sure don't support you." But the vast majority of the Left and all Democratic politicians have not been honest on this matter.

A second example is the oft-repeated line, found on liberal bumper stickers, "War is not the answer." Aside from the idiocy of this claim -- war has solved slavery, ended the Holocaust, destroyed Japanese Fascism, preserved half the Korean peninsula from near-genocide, and saved Israel from extinction, among other noble achievements -- the claim offers no support to those who do engage in war.

How could one believe that "war is not the answer" and also claim to "support the troops," the very people waging what is "not the answer"? The answer is, by being dishonest.

A third example is the Left's opposition to military recruitment on most of the elite and many other college campuses. So deep is leftist disdain for troops that most on the Left regard the mere presence of military personnel on a university campus as a form of contamination. Yet, the Left claims to "support the troops."

Many on the Left express far more contempt than support for the troops.

A Democratic senator compares our interrogators to the Nazis and Communist torturers; the head of Amnesty International in America defends likening Guantanamo Bay to the Gulag; and liberals routinely speak of troops as coming from the lowest socio-economic rungs of society (maybe that's one reason they oppose recruiters on campuses, lest the best educated actually join the military). But, hey, the Left supports the troops.

An honest leftist would say: "Because I view this war as immoral, I cannot support our troops." What is not honest is their saying, "Support the troops -- bring them home." Supporting people who wish to fight entails supporting their fight; and if that fight is opposed, those waging it are also opposed.

Many on the Left angrily accuse the Right of disparaging their patriotism. That charge, too, is false. I have never heard a mainstream conservative impugn the patriotism of liberals. But as regards their attitude toward our troops, the patriotism of those on the Left is not the issue. The issue is their honesty.

#67 ______

and #73 _______

fill in the blanks however you wish. good night folks

Lew Rockwell

Dear Cornposters:

I had an opportunity to listen to Lew Rockwell and Karen Kwiatkowski on RBN. I have tried to write down notes to share with you. Some of my words are in parentheses.

Lew Rockwell says USA freedom in Iraq means the USA rules and it is not freedom for the Iraqis. Osama bin Laden is not speaking on the tapes according to a language specialist (Lew mentioned the name but I was not able to write it down). Republicans want bigger welfare and a bigger police state. Everything that the government does to you is with a gun to your head. People who want to run our lives work for the government. Democrats are not as tyrannical as the Republicans. Republicans are big spenders, for more wars, and less freedom for Americans. Lew Rockwell was a Republican. Carter was better than Reagan. Reagan was a fraud. Carter functioned more as a Republican in being fiscally more responsible.

Democrats are less warlike. Reagan expanded government and he ran to as a person who wanted smaller government. He lied to Americans. Reagan was a bigger spender as governor of California. Pro-life Reagan as governor instituted funding for abortions. He looks like St. Francis of Assissi in comparison to Bush.

The war in Iraq was planned well before March, 2003. Bush in February, 2001 said that the central theme of his administration was to overthrow Saddam Hussein. Bush was called a fascist dictator on the program. Attacks on American soil are good because our government gains more control and power. Our government gains in power because the people want our government to have more control over their lives. Working for the government you become part of the band of thieves that make up the government.

There is hope but we must stop the government's all out power grab. If we do not stop governmental power, all hope will be lost. Our government was terrorized with the demise of the cold war and our government had to create more fear in order to control Americans.

Lincoln was a fascist dictator and his administration was a fascist regime. In the Wilson administration people were put in jail for teaching German (Who wants to learn Arabic so they can go to jail for teaching it).

Bigger government is less in control and less powerful. It is less stable and it can tumble down. Big government has the problems of how to control the people and they spend time worrying about keeping control instead of really governing and helping the people to be more effective. Government creates problems; it does not resolve problems. Government is too stupid to understand these facts. The government is effective in killing people. Our empire is too unstable. We have to push back big government. People will eventually come to hate big government.

Having foreign workers come to America is fine but they cannot automatically receive welfare, health care, and education that strain the states' budgets. The workers need to be here for a time period before their families arrive and receive some help.

The Shah of Iran was not a nice person but he was our person. Iran wants the atomic bomb as a deterrent so other countries would not attack it. Our government lies about Iran. Our government is nothing but a lie from the top to the bottom.

Our government is approaching the killing of one million people in Iraq. Saddam Hussein never killed one million of his people (Who is the real terrorist Bush or Saddam Hussein). We also attacked Iraq because Saddam Hussein was transferring their money to Euros and that would weaken the American dollar.

(I believe that Nazi America is a totally evil nation.)

Sincerely,

Gerald

Has it ever occurred to you that the only thing the bushevikian Repugs have to show for their "abilities" is that they have demonstrated that they can "win" elections come hell or high-water?

When it somes to "governing" they are total failures. When it comes to policy, they are failures. When it comes to ideas and progress, they are failures. When it comes to managing in a crisis, they are failures. When it comes to selecting the best and the brightest for key positions, they pick losers. When it comes to fair play, they are failures. When it comes to bringing peoples together, they are failures. When it comes to honesty, they are failures. When it comes to abiding by the laws of the land, they rule by fiat and by "what the president thinks" (that really makes me laugh! think?).

Fuck off.

micki @ #70,

I couldn't agree with you more about President Bush's out-of-control spending.

#56 geof01, you lost me with are we relly #4. I may have missed a post.

For all of Bush's screw ups, 43% in ratings is great for him and it says something about our brain dead Americans.

Oh, and did I mention that the busheviks are on a power trip that is anti-democratic. And that through their inept (and illegal) rush to war in Iraq, they are stretching our military to possibly the breaking point. And that old fart stand-up comedian Rummy keeps telling us that everything is hunkey-dorey? When dozens and dozens of REAL military men and women say that something is going to have to change -- or else.

The busheviks are failures and corrupt -- the most corrupt administration in the history of the United States of America.

micki,

All right, for argument's sake let's say everything needs to be changed.

What will you do differently?

Where are your ideas?

micki,

Like I said before, when people deal in rants and personal invectives, it usually means that they don't have much constructive to offer and/or their arguments (and vocabulary) are weak.

Do you have strong arguments, micki?

I know most of you folks do not subject yourselves to torture by watching the MSM...but I do. I am still periodically attempting through emails, phone calls etc. to let them know that some americans are still hoping for some fair and balanced reporting out of them.

It is fascinating how Lou Dobbs hammers the Bush administration for the outsourcing of jobs, border control issues calling the Bushies "tools of the multi-nationals". And yet he goes completely soft when it comes to the LIES about Iraq ( when Judy Miller was in jail he announced it every day) now he just seems to be taking orders not questioning the PR blitz being conducted by the "cakewalk" folks on Iran's "alleged" nuclear developments.

He did it again tonight just showed a short clip of Iranian officials meeting with the Russians and Chinese to discuss Iran's refusal to bend over for the Bush administration's claims. No in-depth reporting at all. ( I know I should not be surprised)

What does Lou have against the process of the IAEA'S inspections?

On Hardball Graner's wife (the guy who took the fall for the chain of command in the Abu Gharib torture scandal) was on. She was so nervous..but she basically verified that they(she was also in the military) had received commands from up the military chain to torture detainees. That the records that are not being released ( surprise..surprise) are the key to showing that the upper levels of the military are guilty.

Matthews actually inferred that if you traveled up the Chain of command for torture that Stephen Cambone may have given the orders. I think you will be reading more about this.

The topic switched to Hurricane Katrina and how the Bush administration refuses to release the records having to do with communications from the White House prior to the storm hitting and after.

The records these criminals continue to withhold could fill a warehouse. Enron, energy policy and Cheney, Abu Gharib, John Bolton transcripts, Hurricane Katrina, Bush's military record, Abramoff photos..etc.etc.

Nobody's winning on any issues because our GOVERNMENT is broken. The "uniter, not a divider" has turned government into a food fight.

And the "uniter, not the divider" has pitted American against American.

For chrissakes, it's all part of their plan.

Divide and conquer. It's working like a charm.

Gerald The [Buffalo] Beast's 50 Most Loathsome People in America, 2004 #4 is us (you) Check post 13

For the prepostrous troll who says we have accomplished nothing, as if we were running things this time around and somehow finds himself on the moral high ground, and high it must be to have his head so buried in the sands.

1. There were no WMD.
2. There was no slam dunk.
3. The evidence connecting Osama with 911 does not exist.
4. A 757 did not evaporate after penetrating a 20ft hole in the pentagon.
5. There is an oil tanker called the "Condaleeza Rice".
6. The deficit for 2005 was $320 billion, even after revenues went up $120 billion.
7. The poverty rate encompassed 37 million human beings in the United States last year.
8. 45 million AMericans have no health insurance.
9. GM and Ford continue to reinvent themselves at the expense of tens of thousands of workers.
10 No net jobs have been created in the past five years.
11. The Iraqis do not embrace us with open arms.
12. The mission has not been accomplished.
13. Unless that mission was the loss of 20 trillion dollars to the american economy.
14. North Korea has nuclear weapons capability.
15. China will soon decide how many mexican's should be allowed into the US.
16. China already decides the value of your dollar.
17. In spite of defense increases of over a trillion dollars, our ill equipped troops are being killed daily by militiamen.
18. Kenneth Lay and Jack Abramhoff were both working associates of George W. Bush and among his top fundraisers.
19. What evidence is there that any of the tax cuts going to the top income levels has been reinvested in Americas economy?
20. In 1988 Osama was supported by the CIA. Some things just don't change.
21. We have seen behind the curtain, and there is nobody there.

22. How is being misled by your government a virtue?

chris, thanks for filling Gerald in. I too was lost until I saw the link early on in this sequence.

Bill:

I `caught' the knockoff! These Lefties are always good for some fun when I want some fresh roadkill-type entertainment! My cap off to you for going to the mats with them.

I even laugh when you are `aiding and abetting the `enemy' (uber Corn Liberals) contraray to what I keep telling them to "Keep up the Good Work"! I want the visitors that are brought here by some mention of David somewhere in the media world to see his Groupies as they really are in their natural environment! Our role is to both rebut David, with tact, and to stir up the `animals' here so that visitors aren't disappointed!

micki, you sure predicted this one. "Oh, oh...this one is going to get them crawling out from under their rocks!"

geof01 #89 you're welcome. Correction though, should read The [Buffalo] Beast's 50 Most Loathsome People in America, 2005 not 2004

Bill, what are your ideas?

Bill, will you answer me?

Bill, I keep talking to you and you don't answer?

Oh, it's me I'm talking to.

That's why I don't get answers.

FORT BRAGG, Calif. (AP) -- A man on a weekend getaway was arrested after allegedly burglarizing the Fort Bragg motel where he was staying, then leaving a note indicating where to find him. Enrique Rodriguez Vasquez, 37, was arrested on suspicion of burglary and possession of methamphetamine after police confronted him at the Best Western motel room he'd described in the note. Police found a computer hard drive, television satellite device and $200 reported missing from the motel, said Fort Bragg Police Lt. Floyd Higdon. The stolen equipment was valued at $1,500. Vasquez's poorly spelled note berated the motel manager for being absent from the office. "There was no one here to attend us guest in rm427. You even left the office unattended. You could have been burglurized ... Your lucky I didn't steele," the note said in part.
Vasquez said his companion, Dana Lynn Jensen, 41, was unaware of the theft until afterward. She did however, admit owning half the methamphetamine and the stolen cash was in her suitcase, authorities said.

I hope none of you know anyone this stupid, and if you do, I hope your continued association with them is purely for entertainment purposes.

#83 Bill...here are a few PRO-LIFE IDEAS

1. NATIONAL HEALTH CARE SYSTEM

2. EQUITY IN EDUCATION (same amount of money spent on every child in america on their education)
3. ACCESS TO COLLEGE OR A TRADE SCHOOL
4. CORPORATION OR BUSINESSES THAT MAKE OVER A PRE-DETERMINED AMOUNT (small businesses making under a determined amount are not subject to this) PAY THE LIVING WAGE FOR THAT GEOGRAPICAL LOCATION
5. Enforce present enviromental standards and regulations

6. REAL EFFORTS, MONEY AND RESEARCH PUT INTO ALTERNATIVE ENERGY (many experts say that we could easily supply our energy need with alternatives at this time Jeremy Rifkin MIT...E.O. Wilson etc.)We need to get off of the OIL TEAT SO THAT OTHERS AROUND THE WORLD DO NOT HAVE TO CONTINUE TO DIE DUE TO OUR ENERGY NEEDS.

7. Deal with the Israeli/Palestinian conflict in a fair and balanced and honest way.

8. Join the International Criminal Court ICC (00ps that would mean that this administration could be held accountable for war crimes)

9. shut down the tax breaks for multi-nationals outsourcing jobs overseas( they do not care who they make their billions off of the Chinese , Guatemalans, or American workers.

1o. Follow the NON-PROLIFERTION TREATY OURSELVES and stop allowing DEFENSE CONTRACTORS TO MAKE BILLIONS OFF OF PEOPLE AROUND THE WORLD KILLING EACH OTHER.

geof1,

And your answers for fixings things are....what?

You would replace President Bush with...whom?

Who would do...what, specifically?

Damn Bill this sounds like I might be a "compassionate conservative".

so many things that I forgot Bill But a major one is ROLL BACK THOSE TAX CUTS THAT THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION HANDED OUT.

U.S. Must Submit Papers to Moussaoui Team

WASHINGTON -- A federal judge has ordered the government to give admitted terrorist conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui's defense team documents describing what officials knew before Sept. 11, 2001, about al-Qaida threats and some of its hijackers.

ha. it'll be another cover-up along the lines of the 911 cOMMISSION

Bill, the far left kooks have NOTHING to offer. It's all Bush hatred. Do they honestly think that bashing Bush is going to help them be victorious?

You don't win elections by just bashing your opponent, you have to have rational alternative IDEAS. The left has none! You have to give voters a reason to VOTE FOR YOU, not just against your opponent.

kathleen,

Thank you for your post. While I don't agree with what a lot of what you say, you articulate your position extremely well.

National Health Care - who pays for it? Who runs it? Can people opt out of it? How do we fix the $37 trillion underfunding in the one national health care program, Medicare, we have now?

Education - don't you agree with me that, to insure educational standards across the board, that the money should follow the student and not the school? Give each child a voucher for the exact same amount of money and let them spend it at whatever school they think is best. Get rid of the horrible inner-city public schools that are truly enslaving our children.

Corporations - who sets the "predetermined amount" the corporation is allowed to make?

Living wage - who sets it? If people are making over a living wage, can a company reduce their pay to bring up others?

Energy - how about a strong, clean nuclear program like many other countries have? And let's put those windmills back up off Nantucket. I'm serious.

I don't know how you deal "fairly" with Palestinian/Israeli conflict, quite frankly.

ICC - so, you would cede American sovereignty over to a foreign court? Can't agree with you on this one.

Cut out corporate welfare? Absolutely.

Defense - as much as I'd like to be able to sit around and beat our swords into plowshares, there are some bad people out there who are just not going to abide by our wishes. They've been out there for thousands and thousands of years (not the same ones, hopefully), and I don't think that anything that you and I might say to them to the contrary is going to turn them into pacifists. It didn't work for Chamberlain, it didn't work for Truman, it didn't work for Gerald Ford, it didn't work for Reagan (see Beirut - 1983) and it certainly didn't work for that hapless Jimmah Carter.

At least now we know each other's positions.

Thank you for the post.

And tax cuts:

You want to put the money back into bureaucrat's hands rather than the people who know how to create wealth?

No, I want more tax cuts, and only to the wealthiest. Since they don't need it to spend, they will invest it. And by investing it they will hire you and me.

Or we can collect the taxes and spend it on military weapons.

Bill I am very tired so for more details I can certainly be more specific at another time.

But here is my core belief. Life is not perfectly fair, but it is important to try to make it so. If we are truely ever going to attempt to create a level playing field you know "THE LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL" idea. It is critcal to level that playing field via education and a fair and equitable health care system and pay scale.

After a person has a fair shake and a more solid foundation...then what they do with it is up to them...that is where the freedom of choice comes in...but JESUS why not provide people with a chance in the formative years.

How in the hell are people supposed to pull themselves up by their boot straps if they do not have any boots.

I do not TRUST the private sector to do the right thing. Look how the gap has grown the last twenty five years...we have lost a large sector of the middle class. Many CEO'S (Enron etc. etc.) make 300 times what the average worker makes. One third of the homeless on the streets are Vietnam vets.

Fifty percent of black and hispanic young men do not graduate from high school.

I do not believe in turning schools and health care over to the private sector...I REPEAT I DO NOT TRUST THEM for very good reasons.

Great to dialogue a bit...sorry I am so tired..long day.

How does raising taxes help the economy?? It doesn't.

Free health care for every American would be way too expensive to to afford. Not only would it put us in way greater debt than we are now, but with health care being free, the quality of it would inevitably diminish. Look at countries with nationalized health care, people sometimes have to wait MONTHS for surgery.

You liberals have to stop basing your ideas on emotion, and start using logic.

Kathleen,

Good night. Great posts.

Didn't say you had to turn the schools over to the private sector. The kids could spend the money on a good public school, a parochial school, a charter school, etc. Doesn't have to be the private sector.

Same for health care.

Bill and Tim L...three books written about and by conservatives.

THE BUSH DYNASTY...by Kevin Phillips.

THE PRICE OF LOYALTY by Ron Suskind) this is about Secretary of the Treasury Paul Oneil's experience ( he was in the first term of the Bush administration.) According to this book he and Greenspan had plans to take the surplus from the Clinton years and turn it over into the Social Security System and also slowly feed the Bush BASE/THE ELITE their tax cuts in what they considered to be a responsible way. ONEIL WAS CANNED.

WHERE THE RIGHT WENT WRONG...By Patrick Buchanan.

These folks are the REAL CONSERVATIVES.

The group that is in the White House now are RIGHT WING RADICALS and the REAL CONSERVATIVES KNOW IT and are very concerned about the direction of this country.

THESE ARE ALL GREAT BOOKS

Free health care for every American would be way too expensive to afford.

ya. especially on top of the cost of the war on iraq. how much is that COSTING OUR CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN? 6 BILLION $$ every month? ha. it would be cheaper by far to ensure the health of every american than it is to ruin the health of every iraqi.

Bill wrote in #31:

But that was on "domestic spying", i.e., between calls either originating in the United States to outside parties or between two calls in the United States. The Justice Department was saying you still needed FISA approval for them. These cases were, and continue to be, treated as law enforcement cases.

Twist and contort all you want. Wiretapping an American citizen, REGARDLESS of where a call originates, is "domestic spying." Anyway, nobody is saying that the NSA cannot place wiretaps on American citizens suspected of conspiring with terrorists. However, FISA requires a warrant. The administration has admitted wiretapping without warrants, therefore the law has been broken.

But the unwarranted NSA eavesdropping only came on (1)calls emanating from outside the United States (2)from AlQaeda operatives.

You have no evidence of (1) or (2) other than this administration's word. I question this administration's credibility.

Unlike the liberals, who want to treat the War on Terror as a law enforcement issue, President Bush believes it is a true war against not a breaker of American laws but against an enemy combatant. Don't you see the difference?

Congress has not declared war on anyone, much less American citizens.

Let me give you an example. Say the FBI has permission to wiretap a member of organized crime. The mobster calls someone for whom a tap has not been approved. Does anyone in his/her right mind believe that the person being called should be excluded from the recorded conversation? And that is between two American citizens.

On one hand, you chastise those who would treat terrorism as a law enforcement issue (and I am one of those people)...and then you use a law enforcement analogy. It is certainly a poor one (for you), because it proves our point: There is a warrant approved to listen to the mobster's conversations regardless of the person on the other end.

Under your logic, if the person being called in America said something either self-incriminating or incriminating to the mobster, it couldn't be used because it was illegally obtained. After all, we didn't have an authorized tap on the person being called.

No, this is your logic, because it is your straw man argument.

And what would you have the NSA do? Break in on the incoming AlQaeda call and say, "Wait a minute, Mr. Terrorist; I have to get approval to tap the phone of the person you're calling."?

I'm sure you are well aware that FISA allows a 72 hour window for obtaining a warrant. You're being obtuse.

We are tapping the phones of known or suspected AlQaeda operatives.

Again, you have no evidence of this.

They call into America. We trace those phone calls. We have already received permission to tap AlQaeda's phones. Are you now saying we can't listen to the other half of the conversation?

Yes, unless you obtain a warrant.

Please, please tell me you understand this distinction. I hope I have not given you people credit for a lot more intelligence than you really deserve.

I believe it is you who is having trouble with "distinctions." The only other explanation would be that you are blowing smoke to cover for the Bush administration.

We live in one of the most educated, industrial, modern countries in the world and our health care system is one of the worst. We need national health care. That doesn't mean free health care. Many companies are accepting this fact too. In fact some companies, like Wal-Mart are skirting around the full time label to get states to pay the way of the lower income employee. Why not accept it for what it is? Why not start buying into National health care?

Don, do you realize that NOTHING will come of this whole FISA thing??? Nothing will happen to Bush or his administration. Get the fantasy out of your head that he will be impeached! It aint gonna happen!

January 25, 2006The Bush War Economy& Exporting Jobs and Security;By BRUCE K. GAGNON

;Ford Motor Company announced On January 23 that it will be cutting as many as 30,000 jobs and will shut down 14 factories as a result of continuing losses. Ford, now hires about 123,000 workers in North America and lost $5.5 billion in those operations in 2005. ;

General Motors Corporation last year decided to close all or part of 12 plants and 30,000 jobs in the U.S. by 2008. ;With China's recent introduction of a car selling for $10,000 in the U.S., Ford and GM have hit the wall. They have been building big SUV's in recent years and now that gas prices are rising dramatically their sales are dropping significantly. The workers on the China car are making $3.50 an hour compared to the good wages and benefits at the unionized auto plants in the U.S.

Television manufacturing in China pays workers there about 50 cents an hour. Thus TV manufacturing is virtually non-existent in the U.S. any more. On and on the story goes ......

Secretary of War Donald Rumsfeld has a "strategy guy" by the name of Thomas Barnett. Barnett's job is to teach "military transformation" to high level Pentagon officers and CIA operatives. I've seen Barnett on C-SPAN several times during the past year saying that we are not going to have industrial jobs in the U.S. anymore. The big corporations will move overseas where production costs can be significantly lowered.

America's role in corporate globalization will be "security export" says Barnett. We will build the weapons systems and send our children into endless war in order to protect the profits of the corporate elite. Under corporate globalization, Barnett says, there are places called "the non-integrating gap" that have not yet submitted to the authority of the new world order. The job of the U.S. will be to go into the "non-integrating gap" and make sure these countries comply with the dictates of corporate globalization.

Barnett has identified the gap as the Middle East (where we fight in Iraq today), Central Asia (where we are now building six permanent bases in Afghanistan), Africa (where Barnett says the U.S. will be fighting for oil 20 years from now), and Latin America (where you have Venezuela and others not carrying the water for big business).

Barnett says that the U.S. won't do international treaties anymore because they would limit the ability of the Pentagon to do preemptive first-strike attack on any country that is not complying with corporate globalization.

What does this mean for social spending back home? As the job base dries up in the U.S. so will the tax base at the local-state-federal levels. There will increasingly be cuts in social programs. Education will be cut and privatized so that only the children of the rich can afford, without incurring massive debt, a college education. Thus the only real job prospects for many young people will be in the military - endless warriors. Thus the Pentagon's statement that there will be no need for a draft. When the military is the only job around legions of poor and working class kids will have few other options.

This is the not-so-bright picture that the corporate dominated government of the U.S. is creating for us. It will become a reality if we don't begin to protest now against this re-introduction of feudalism. We must fight to have a fair tax system in the U.S. that does not let the rich, powerful, and corporate elite get away with not paying taxes. We must fight for public education and affordable college options for our kids. We must fight to create new jobs in manufacturing sustainable technologies like solar, wind power and public mass transit systems. We must fight for health care for all. And we must escalate our educational work and action now, before it becomes too late.

;Bruce K. Gagnon is Coordinator of the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space. He can be reached at: globalnet@mindspring.com

I have not posted to this Blog for some time, but I came across an article in CommonDreams.org that I feel is worth quoting, in part, and directing you to. It is titled Warriors and Wusses by Joel Stein, published in the LA Times Tuesday, Jan. 14th. While not specifically on topic, it does raise some questions as to the meaning of "supporting the troops".

"I don't support our troops. This is a particularly difficult opinion to have, especially if you are the kind of person who likes to put bumper stickers on his car. Supporting the troops is a position that even Calvin is unwilling to urinate on...

"But I'm not for the war. And being against the war and saying you support the troops is one of the wussiest positions the pacifists have ever taken — and they're wussy by definition. It's as if the one lesson they took away from Vietnam wasn't to avoid foreign conflicts with no pressing national interest but to remember to throw a parade afterward...

"But blaming the president is a little too easy. The truth is that people who pull triggers are ultimately responsible, whether they're following orders or not. An army of people making individual moral choices may be inefficient, but an army of people ignoring their morality is horrifying. An army of people ignoring their morality, by the way, is also Jack Abramoff's pet name for the House of Representatives...

"I know this is all easy to say for a guy who grew up with money, did well in school and hasn't so much as served on jury duty for his country. But it's really not that easy to say because anyone remotely affiliated with the military could easily beat me up, and I'm listed in the phone book. I'm not advocating that we spit on returning veterans like they did after the Vietnam War, but we shouldn't be celebrating people for doing something we don't think was a good idea. All I'm asking is that we give our returning soldiers what they need: hospitals, pensions, mental health and a safe, immediate return. But, please, no parades. Seriously, the traff