Mr. David Corn,

I hope you did not miss the question about "Brokeback Mountain". (link on the last thread)

Great post.

Thanks

Kirk

Bush got a round of applause at Kansas for declaring that he had approved no-warrant eavesdropping.

The people that they gather for these "town halls" would applaud if Bush fucked a goat on stage right in front of them.

Just remember Don, Bush is the likable one. He gets by with this BS because he pretends to ride a horse and he knows how to saunter like John Wayne. Seriously, how would this spying go over if Cheney was the president?

This isnt Kansas any more Toto, slowly, bit by bit we are drifting into a position where the Reich Wing will be able to impose their Nazi will upon Kansas and the rest of the country. Wonder if they will applaud then. Rather they will be whining about not seeing it coming. By then it will be TOO LATE!

I posted this a few minutes ago on the other thread. Good article.
Heads roll at Veterans Administration
Mushrooming depleted uranium (DU) scandal blamed

Preventive Psychiatry E-Newsletter charged Monday that the reason Veterans Affairs Secretary Anthony Principi stepped down earlier this month was the growing scandal surrounding the use of uranium munitions in the Iraq War.

Writing in Preventive Psychiatry E-Newsletter No. 169, Arthur N. Bernklau, executive director of Veterans for Constitutional Law in New York, stated, "The real reason for Mr. Principil's departure was really never given, however a special report published by eminent scientist Leuren Moret naming depleted uranium as the definitive cause of the 'Gulf War Syndrome' has fed a growing scandal about the continued use of uranium munitions by the US Military."
Bernklau continued, "This malady (from uranium munitions), that thousands of our military have suffered and died from, has finally been identified as the cause of this sickness, eliminating the guessing. The terrible truth is now being revealed."
He added, "Out of the 580,400 soldiers who served in GW1 (the first Gulf War), of them, 11,000 are now dead! By the year 2000, there were 325,000 on Permanent Medical Disability. This astounding number of 'disabled Vets' means that a decade later, 56% of those soldiers who served have some form of permanent medical problems!" The disability rate for the wars of the last century was 5 percent; it was higher, 10 percent, in Viet Nam.

"The VA Secretary (Principi) was aware of this fact as far back as 2000," wrote Bernklau. "He, and the Bush administration have been hiding these facts, but now, thanks to Moret's report, (it) ... is far too big to hide or to cover up!"

--------------------------
It's a daily cover up story. When the Bush administration is long gone the historians will still be discovering cover-ups.
It is so sociopathic. Get caught, lie, lies don't work, lie some more and make it sound more believable with the right audience. Pick the audience so that the applause gets heard.

Bush's actions fail the "appropriate" test as David observes, but they also fail the "necessary" test. It's bad enough that he violated the 4th Amendment, and hid his actions from all but a few members of Congress, the folks who supposedly green-lighted the wiretaps. (Talk about a convoluted argument--Congress can't be trusted to know what they agreed to!) But the most galling part of this is that Bush could have immediately gotten wiretaps for any halfway reasonable wiretaps he wanted. The extent of his contempt for even the most pliable Court in the land and for a legislative branch that is firmly in his pocket is staggering. GOP Congressmen should be embarrassed and angry at Bush's disregard for them, if they had any capacity for shame at all.

This Detention Facility brought to you by your friends at KBR (Halliburton), please enjoy your stay and if released come back and see us real soon. Brought to by the good folks at Kellogg Brown and Root.... BS?... think again

Hand injury? Hmmm, maybe that is why the White House is reluctant to go on fishing expeditions.

Fishing injuries. I have had my fair share of those. Usually involving a lot of beer.

The real Cisneros scandal: There was no cover-up
It's independent counsel's behavior that warrants probe

By ROBERT LITT

An independent counsel has issued a report claiming that officials of the Clinton administration blocked his investigation into allegations of tax violations by former Housing Secretary Henry Cisneros. Although these sensational charges have been trumpeted by partisans as evidence of Democratic corruption, they are completely false.

I know; I was there.

The independent counsel, David Barrett, was appointed to investigate charges that Cisneros had lied about payments he made to his mistress. (After investigating this charge for several years, Barrett meekly allowed Cisneros to plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge with a promise of no jail time.)

In 1997 Barrett came to the Justice Department, where I was serving in the Criminal Division, and asked permission to expand his case to investigate whether Cisneros had evaded income taxes over four years. The law allowed the attorney general to grant him that jurisdiction if there were "reasonable grounds to believe that further investigation" of possible tax violations was needed.

Nonpartisan career lawyers in the department's Criminal Division and in the Tax Division studied the independent counsel's application in great detail over several weeks. They met with his office, reviewed documents and interviewed witnesses. Each of them concluded that, with the exception of a single year's tax return, there were no reasonable grounds to investigate Cisneros for tax violations.

These career lawyers found that the independent counsel's submission was full of legal and factual errors. For example, the independent counsel claimed that Cisneros had failed to report more than $100,000 in income during 1991, but he was unable to produce evidence that there was any unreported income at all.

The conclusions of the career lawyers were reviewed in detail by other officials including myself, up to the attorney general. Every single lawyer in the Justice Department who reviewed this matter concurred in the analysis.
---
---
In short, there was no conspiracy, no outside political influence, no improper conduct. There was only a good-faith evaluation of the facts and the law that produced a different result from the one the independent counsel desired. Even the Bush administration told Barrett that there was "no actual evidence" of a conspiracy to obstruct justice.

Litt, a Washington lawyer, served from 1994 to 1999 in the Justice Department, where his last position was principal associate deputy attorney general. This article originally appeared in The Washington Post.

Just so we can all be on the same page:
(1)Do you understand that the only calls eavesdropped were ones originating from outside the United States, from known AlQaeda operatives, into the United States?

(2)Do you understand that President Bush informed both the Chairmen and Ranking Members of both the Senate and House Intelligence Committees of the wiretaps?

Uh, you know this how?

Bill 11 I'd like to be on the same page but Bush's credibility is almost zero with me. If he needed these extra powers why didn't he change the law rather than break it?

Bill,
And with no oversight who is there to back that up? If they followed FISA it would be documented.

General Michael Hayden, the former head of the NSA, offered defense of the department's actions. For those with the intellectual fortitude to read something that may differ with their own preconceptions, please read here:

http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2006/01/hayden012306.pdf

Bill,
He's screwed and so is the American public.

Bill wrote:

Just so we can all be on the same page:
(1)Do you understand that the only calls eavesdropped were ones originating from outside the United States, from known AlQaeda operatives, into the United States?

You have absolutely no evidence of this. If this was the case, they would have had no problem getting warrants under FISA.

(2)Do you understand that President Bush informed both the Chairmen and Ranking Members of both the Senate and House Intelligence Committees of the wiretaps?

Informing them is not the same thing as getting their consent. Several of them questioned the legality, but they were sworn to secrecy.

Your game is weak, Bill.

David: I know how it feels (quite often) to have your hands injured clearing hooks/brush but still needing to type!

You said: "Bush is right: he's not a lawyer. He miscited the congressional law and overstated Hamdi."

Most people don't doubt politicians `miscite' or `overstate' on any of a number of occassions; including quite likely for Bush here. The head of our government, like a CEO, must have command of the generalities of many issues while relying on their staff for specifics. For most people, it is enough that Bush consulted w/his legal counsel and received their `lawyerly' OK opinion before proceeding on now-questioned-by-the-Left actions.

Do we really want to turn future SC rulings, Congressional authorizations, laws, et.al. into something resembling our tax code nightmare where even business grads have trouble following because of all the exceptions, ifs, buts, but onlys, maybe able to..... There is a reason to having a Unitary Executive...

If the Left is so upset about the civil liberty issue, let it define exactly what it is that it will NOT allow the CIC to do, have it debated in Congress and whatever compromise gets set in stone. Anything not spelled out and not in CLEAR violation of the Constitution shall then be permitted in national security matters.

You also state: "...but it did not grant the Bush administration the right to seize and hold suspected terrorists indefinitely without granting them access to courts or lawyers--a right the White House had claimed."

My question is, did the court prohibit this `right' to hold such suspects? Assuming most suspects are in fact, enemies, don't you think we can get more useful information, to saving lifes, if there are no lawyers present?

Lastly, you said: "I know that Bush went to business school (where no doubt he learned much about deficit-financing) and not law school."

The correct terminologies (in this MBA's HO), instead of "deficit-financing", is combinations of `Leveraging', `Return on Equity', Debt/Equity Ratio, Debt Coverage Ratio,......

Well, it looks like it was the day to say, I AM NOT A LAWYER...This is astounding!

QUESTION: Jonathan Landay with Knight Ridder. I'd like to stay on the same issue, and that had to do with the standard by which you use to
target your wiretaps. I'm no lawyer, but my understanding is that the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution specifies that you must have
probable cause to be able to do a search that does not violate an American's right against unlawful searches and seizures. Do you use --

GEN. HAYDEN: No, actually -- the Fourth Amendment actually protects all of us against unreasonable search and seizure.

QUESTION: But the --

GEN. HAYDEN: That's what it says.

QUESTION: But the measure is probable cause, I believe.

GEN. HAYDEN: The amendment says unreasonable search and seizure.

QUESTION: But does it not say probable --

GEN. HAYDEN: No. The amendment says --

QUESTION: The court standard, the legal standard --
GEN. HAYDEN: -- unreasonable search and seizure.

QUESTION: The legal standard is probable cause, General. ... I'd like you to respond to this -- is that what you've actually done is
crafted a detour around the FISA court by creating a new standard of"reasonably believe" in place [of] probable cause because the FISA court
will not give you a warrant based on reasonable belief, you have to show probable cause. Could you respond to that, please?

GEN. HAYDEN: Sure. I didn't craft the authorization. I am responding
to a lawful order. All right? The attorney general has averred to the lawfulness of the order. Just to be very clear -- and believe me, if there's any amendment to the Constitution that employees of the National Security Agency are familiar with, it's the Fourth. And it is a
reasonableness standard in the Fourth Amendment. And so what you've raised to me -- and I'm not a lawyer, and don't want to become one --
what you've raised to me is, in terms of quoting the Fourth Amendment, is an issue of the Constitution. The constitutional standard is
"reasonable." And we believe -- I am convinced that we are lawful because what it is we're doing is reasonable.
++++++++++++++++++++
"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."
-- Fourth Amendment of the Constitution

see:

LTG Hayden is Bush's point man on this scandal. He is not a constitutional scholar as evidenced by this Editor and Publisher interview.

Still weak.

Hi there everybody . Today I'm announcing
that " Operation Truth " has changed its name
to " I.A.V.A. " . That is a condensed
way of saying " Iraq and Afghanistan
Veterans of America " ; it is possible
to hit them up at www.iava.org and quite
frankly, it is still perfectly okay
to find them via www.operationtruth.com .

As for me, I am NOT a military person,
I just be a big-mouthed American with a lot of questions .......

Here's a " for instance "

WHY is it , even after a horrible event
like 9-11-01 occurred involving SAUDI
ARABIANS , the mainstream American media
still does NOT have a dialogue going
with the typical, average, non-royal ,
regular citizens of Saudi Arabia ? ?

Is that so much to ask for ? ?

Anderson Petition

micki beat me to that interview, but the link is good for the whole thing.

We know this to be true, and it backed up, because President Bush reported the details to both the Chairmen and Ranking Members (Democrats)on both Senate and House Intelligence Committees. I would think that if the facts were something other than what had been told them (e.g., only incoming calls from known AlQaeda operatives being monitored), at least the Democrats would have said so.

Don't you just know the Democrats are just itching to catch President Bush in an untruth here? So far, no luck. Everything he told them is true.

Happy wrote:

If the Left is so upset about the civil liberty issue, let it define exactly what it is that it will NOT allow the CIC to do

Get the fuck out of here. It isn't up to "the Left" to define the what the executive branch can and cannot do; that's the Constitution's job. You're an idiot.

Everything he told them is true.

So I take it you have a list of those investigated? Should we expect a series of arrests?

I find it hard to believe that you're actually this naive. I suppose if Hillary said, "It's only terrorists, cross my heart and hope to die," everything would be hunky-dory as well.

You're reading too much Powerline, Bill.

Don,

Regarding the informing of the Chairmen and Ranking Members:
(1)How did the Senators question the legality of President Bush's eavesdropping? And questioning it is different from declaring it illegal. As Senators, they should report any illegalties. So, what actions did they take to satisfy themselves that the actions were legal or illegal?

(2)As members of the Intelligence Committees, they are sworn to secrecy on everything they receive. This was no different.

And again, we have the typcial liberal tactic of shooting the messenger, in this case General Hayden. That's why I don't link. You liberals lack the intellectual fortitude to attack the message rather than the messenger. With what in General Hayden's presentation do you have specific disagreements?

Haven't read it - have you?

Do any of you have a clue that General Hayden was appointed by President Clinton and not President Bush?

Do any of you have a clue that he retired from the NSA, so he can now say anything he wants?

He is also one of the most distinguished members of the U.S. military. For you to impugn his integrity, without knowing anything about the man, is beyond reproach. It is also why the American public will have nothing to do with the Leftist agenda. You are simply not credible.

Don,

So, I suppose if what President Bush did was illegal, we should be expecting his impeachment and conviction sometime soon?

I've mentioned in previous threads that Glenn Greenwald, a real Constitutional scholar and lawyer, is doing excellent work on civil liberties during the age of Bush. Here's his latest post on the domestic spying scandal. He dismantles Hayden.

Why engage trolls? Now trolls are engaging each other, this is NOT a Reich wing blog! Good posters are getting edged out by the moronic exchange. Not responding to the trolls does work.

So, I suppose if what President Bush did was illegal, we should be expecting his impeachment and conviction sometime soon?

Uh, Bill, are you aware that the Republicans hold both the House and Senate? Just checking. So, no, I don't think that "we" should be expecting that anytime soon.

Glenn Greenwald is a hard-working
man . He is excused from the assign-
ment of asking working-class Saudi Arabians what their future plans are .

Anderson Petition

DEN,

I am well aware that the trolls who post here have absolutely no principles when it comes to their Dear Leader and that there is no convincing them. However, I have to watch this drivel on television and hear it on the radio without responding and it annoys to me no end. I therefore reserve the right to give the virtual bitch-slap whenever I so desire. Just sayin'.

I encourage all to reserve all rights
for they are in constant jeopardy.

Anderson Petition

www.warisaracket.org

Please join me in wishing
Rachel Jean Marteen a very, very
happy birthday !!! !!!!!
Yows - zerrrrrrrrr ......

American Soldiers

More American soldiers are killed in the Middle East.

2,495 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan for Bush's evil lies.

Military men are just dumb stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy. Henry Kissinger

Very well said Bill.

For those of you saying 'where is the proof that Bush is telling the truth', innocence is virtually impossible to prove; only guilt can be proven to a legal standard. Since you can put forth no evidence of guilt then by legal defination he is considered innocent. Al I hear in these post are ravings against Bush with hereasy statements being taken as evidence.

Go back to school and take some logic courses... it will help you with critical thinking when you grow up and facethe real world. You must present provable facts and then draw logical conclusions. Without this you are only blowing hot air.
If these are you opinions then present them as such, and stop trying to make opinion into fact. Remember, everyone is entitled to their opinion and like buttholes, everyone has one.

Why should I argue about LTG Hayden's BS when I have Glenn Greenwald to do it for me?

"In light of Gen. Hayden's new claim yesterday that the reason the Bush Administration decided to eavesdrop outside of FISA is because the "probable cause" standard for obtaining a FISA warrant was too onerous (and prevented them from obtaining warrants they needed to eavesdrop), there is a fact which I have not seen discussed anywhere but which now appears extremely significant, at least to me."

Click the link, Bill. You want to argue with someone with "intellectual fortitude," argue with Glenn Greenwald in the comments section. As I said on a previous thread, you will have your ass handed to you.

I'm done with you for now, so don't waste any more time.

EXTRA, EXTRA, READ ALL ABOUT IT...

The following is an excellent example of why the Left loses when facing serious issues:

Post #24 from DON
Get the fuck out of here. It isn't up to "the Left" to define the what the executive branch can and cannot do; that's the Constitution's job. You're an idiot.

Posted by: Don at January 24, 2006 02:53 PM

Everybody, is the Constitution a `living' thing or even an electronic-enhanced document where like a children's learning aid, you can press Q&As? Does this Don (Corleone) have any intelligence at all? Does he know what are Constitutional Scholars? Oh, also NOTE the name-calling!

Keep it up, Don, Good work!! It is just your types that make our work easy.

BTW, just got this week's issue of Business Week, cover article "The Future of Outsourcing". This is one megatrend issue, regardless of party, we all need to stay abreast of!

Everything Is Relative!

Dear Cornposters:

If you noticed, I will from time to time post the number of killed American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. Nazi trolls have said that the number is small in comparison to the World Trade Center. Let us not forget that Iraq is a war of choice and not necessity.

I guess that the 519,000 soldiers with permanent medical disabilities from the Gulf War is a small number because they are not dead due to depleted uranium. Our soldiers cannot receive health care because all the money is going to rich Nazi Americans to horde. 11,000+ soldiers are dead from related DU malignancies. But I guess the Nazi trolls will still consider this number small. They will not be happy until six billion people are exterminated on planet, Earth. The six billion figure of dead human beings is the goal for the Nazi cabal who make up the Project for the Next American Century. But I guess six billion killed human beings is a relatively low number. Everything and every number will appear to be relatively low for the Nazi trolls.

With the Iraq war there will be more soldiers with permanent medical disabilities due to depleted uranium. But these numbers will be low for the Nazi trolls. They are never satisfied with any number of killed and maimed American soldiers. I guess that is why we will have to carry out endless wars and maybe at some point the Nazi trolls will accept a certain number of killed and maimed American soldiers that will make them happy.

Sincerely,

Gerald

Remember, everyone is entitled to their opinion and like buttholes, everyone has one.

And in your case, Elton, you are one.

Don,
Glad you are reading Glenn Grenwald. He is a hard-Left Democrat, opposed to the war, opposed to Iraqi elections.

So, what we have are opinions from the Right and opinions from the Left on the legality of the NSA actions.

You weren't trying to infer that Grenwald was an unbiased observer, were you?

Personally, I'd rather believe General Hayden. And his arguments are more persuasive to me.

I think your postings here are helpful to understand both sides of an issue. Thanks for the tone of the posts.

Don:

You can fool most of your Lefty buddies on running a warehouse business but you don't fool me. Unlike you, I have run more than one business.

There is no way your temperment and `moth' can run a warehouseing/forwarding business with the time pressures of client loads, full or less-than-trailer load. Of course, your temperment will also not let you take the `abuse' of irate clients.

Bill,
We can play a hundred million scenarios for why the Congressmen failed to say anything. Most notably I would say it was because they were sworn to secrecy as a duty of the office. Furthermore we can take it farther by saying 1) Democrats have no spine. They wont stand up to anything unless theres at least 10 of them in the room. Maybe 8 as evidenced by the Alito confirmation.
2) Republicans have surrendered their right to being individuals. Each Republican is now known as 5 of 1500 or 12 of 1500. Since Bush took office they marched lock-step with every order he has issued. In short, they have no spine.
Personally I will not say anything about General Hayden, I am well aware of just how far you have to bend at the knee to buy time to make change later down the road. I can't even begin to imagine the amount of pressure on the shoulders of someone in his position. Besides, the Attorney General said it was a lawful order. A soldier or airman or marine cant be expected to be a constitutional scholar. Sometimes you just have to take the advice thats given to you and do your duty. Again though, all of this could have been avoided if FISA was used, and it wasn't. And I have yet to hear any decent justification for why FISA had to be circumvented.

Oops, an expose needs better spelling!!

Don:

You can fool your Lefty buddies on running a warehouse business but you don't fool me. Unlike you, I have run more than one business.

There is no way your temperment and `mouth' can run a warehousing/freight forwarding business with the time pressures of client loads, full or less-than-trailer loads. Of course, your temperment will also not let you take the `abuse' of irate clients.

EXTRA, EXTRA, READ ALL ABOUT IT...

The following is an excellent example of why the Left loses when facing serious issues:

Yeah, because some guy on a blog calls an idiot an idiot, Kerry lost the election. Please.

Everybody, is the Constitution a `living' thing or even an electronic-enhanced document where like a children's learning aid, you can press Q&As?

I guess wasn't clear enough; it's so hard to reply to you without disdain. Here's what you wrote: "If the Left is so upset about the civil liberty issue, let it define exactly what it is that it will NOT allow the CIC to do." My point was that the Left doesn't have to define anything in this particular case. The Constitution is clear enough. The president doesn't have the right to spy on American citizens in the United States without a warrant. Congress hasn't given him that power, and even if they did it would be unconstitutional. Simple enough?

Does this Don (Corleone) have any intelligence at all?

Apparently, much more than you.

Does he know what are Constitutional Scholars?

Yes, but I'm not telling.

Oh, also NOTE the name-calling!

SCANDALOUS, isn't it?

Keep it up, Don, Good work!! It is just your types that make our work easy.

That's me, I aim to please. By the way, how do you like that 36% approval rating?

BTW, just got this week's issue of Business Week, cover article "The Future of Outsourcing". This is one megatrend issue, regardless of party, we all need to stay abreast of!

Don, please rethink your approach, this pointless debate is hogging major bandwidth. Thanks

Happy #43,

Who said I was running a "warehouse business" or a "freight forwarder?"

I own one business that uses a warehouse, and another (in the same complex) that acts as a retail business.

As I'm the boss, I can say whatever I please! My customers love me! I don't give a shit whether you believe me or not! And you're still an idiot!

DEN,

Why, that's mighty audacious of you, DEN. You're free to mind your own business. I've been posting here for almost two years now and I believe I'll write whatever and whenever I please until the owner of the blog decides otherwise.

Ciao!

Citizen X:

You know that the Right supports you and your fellow soldiers. But I still want to personally give you my utmost and hearfelt thanks; even those that aren't fully on the same page as our President and much of the Right.

I don't know how my comment will go down w/you but here it goes: You're a 12-year man, I am going to guess that in times of peace, the atmosphere around the military/base is more relaxed and (polite/well-expressed) qustioning of command and control may even be tolerated. But when in times of war, things get quite serious; especially at the `frontline' where lives are at stake. At the front, presumably everybody takes their jobs seriously and follow orders explicitly.

In a very, very real sense, Bush and our country are at the `front', ever since WTC in 1993 and much more dramatically so since 9/11/01. What bothers many of us on the Right (I am a moderate just so you know) is the unwillingness of the Left to recognize the changed reality we all face.

No one can guarantee that there won't be other devastating attacks in the US, but the Amercian people has very clearly indicated its approval of the approach Bush has taken. Personally, I think if other attacks are forthcoming, OBL will seek to up his `shock and awe' inflicted on 9/11! Not a Happy thought!

Don,
I enjoyed that link you posted. I even bookmarked it. Now if more people read content instead of the authors name and background we might actually see monumental achievements.
I'd really like to see this hit the media and let every rabid dog have a bite of it, just to see how it stands up.

Happy,
I appreciate it, but:
You're corect in saying that things do change in a time of war, but not that dramatically for us. In times of peace we always have to be prepared for war. So in reality we try to maintain a consistent standard. Consistency in standards insures morale and dedication. I'm sorry, but Bush isn't at the front line of anything. When he or any pompus, leather-chair-bound-washington-dc-prick picks up a weapon and joins the fight, I'll say he's at the front line. I still believe he lives in a perfectly created Karle Rove bubble. And I dont think he's intelligent enough to lead this country, let alone execute a war.
You and I agree that the Left is out of touch with (wait a minute, the extreme left) how we do need to be focused. The extreme right is just as guilty. But in the words of Benjamin Franklin (and this isnt an exact quote so dont torture me) "Anyone that would surrender liberty for security deserves neither.

Citizen X,

I'm glad you liked Unclaimed Territory. His commentary is excellent. Greenwald also posts occasionally at Crooks and Liars. He takes part in his comments section as well, which is one reason why I recommend it to anyone who is truly serious about debating civil liberties issues. But I doubt that I'll ever see "Bill" or "Happy" there because RNC talking point parrots usually get schooled, sometimes by their own "comrades."

Hey, we know that Hayden was appointed by Clinton in March 1999 -- but keep in mind that the busheviks kept Hayden in the NSA director's position until 2005, and now he serves as the deputy to John Negroponte in the Directorate of National Intelligence. Now that the busheviks have "designed" an intelligencce reorganization that includes a super-bureaucracy above the CIA, HAYDEN is bush's rotten choice, not Clinton's.

Besides, we aren't knee-jerks like you bushbots who would gladly follow your hapless "leaders" over a cliff. Hayden doesn't know jackshit about the Constitution or the law -- but he's good at following orders.

Ask Gerald how good Nazis followed orders, too.

Bill,

Let's turn this around.

Glad you are reading Glenn Grenwald. He is a hard-Left Democrat, opposed to the war, opposed to Iraqi elections.

And what are your objections to his arguments? Your ad hominem is no better than mine.

(By the way, if you could link to something showing that he was opposed to the Iraqi elections, I'd appreciate it.)

Sorry Don no offense intended, just trying to de-troll the place. Do whatever you want, I apologize.

Oh micki, you're so fine, you're so fine you blow my mind (with pardons to Toni Basil):

Now that you have the General Hayden name-calling out of your system, what specific complaints do you have with the logic and legality of General Hayden's presentation about NSA eavesdropping?

Or have you even considered its logic?

I know you're not just a left-wing reactionary robotess, spouting the party line, are you? What do you think of the presentation, specifically?

Jonathan Turley (not exactly a leftie!), a professor of Constitutional law at George Washington
University, said "It was an extraordinary event [Hayden's speech at the National Press Club]. Like President Bush, Gen. Hayden stands accused of committing federal criminal acts. His primary defense is that my lawyers told me I could do it. That is hardly a defense. What he did not address was the clear violation of the exclusivity provision of federal law, where it expressly restricts such surveillance to Title III [the federal wiretap law] and FISA."

Turley said that Hayden's remarks should reaffirm the need for comprehensive congressional hearings, particularly in the House, as soon as possible.

I heard on AM1090, Air America Seattle station, that a bushevik (I didn't catch the name) said that "we are not eavesdropping on innocent Americans, we are conducting terrorist surveillance."

Oh, now I get it.

#55 Mr. Logic Brock -- I stopped addressing you back on arianna's blog a loooooong time ago. Shove it, bucko.

Don,

So we agree that you are posting opinions from hard-left opponents of the war and NSA eavesdropping(Greenwald) , while I am posting opinions from hard-right proponents (Hinderaker).

Neither John Hinderaker nor Glenn Greenwald are what you would call unbiased observers in this mess, although both are eloquent in defense of their positions.

And I think you'd agree with me that it's important to get all sides out there and let the American people make up their own minds.

Just to put a fine point out here, we are not in a 'war' it is just a brain fart of the prez. No declaration of war, just a reaction and not a very focused one either. The invasion of Iraq is a war crime, using war to commit a crime. But remember there was no congressional declaration of war, and without that the war powers don't fall to the president, so whatever he is doing it ain't under the war powers act. You have to have a state to wage war, he is waging war or aggressive manuevering on a tactic, not going to win, ever, but will destroy one nation by doing this. Too early to determine how long the US can withstand this bozo but if it comes down to it, this country won't be converted to a fascist state, there will be no jobs, so no cooperation with the powers that think they run this show. IMagine if people lose hope in our form of government it will fall apart into different areas of loosely allied fiefdoms and not much else. The US needs a unifying feeling and if the central government gets into the personal lives of the citizens then they will react, and there won't be enough troops or storm troopers to control them.

DEN #54,

It's all good. My feathers were already a bit ruffled, so I'm sorry for snapping at you. However, I do think the trolls will continue to post regardless of my reaction.

Bill,

Neither John Hinderaker nor Glenn Greenwald are what you would call unbiased observers in this mess, although both are eloquent in defense of their positions.

Well, unlike Rob Corddry of the Daily Show, I don't believe that facts are biased. Hinderaker has repeatedly demonstrated that there is absolutely nothing that George Bush could do that he wouldn't defend, whereas Greenwald is simply defending his interpretation of the Fourth Amendment and the Constitution (an interpretation that is shared by many conservatives and libertarians).

Greenwald has dismantled every argument that the Bush administration has used for their spying. You disagree. I would think that this calls for an independent investigation. What do you think?

So we agree that you are posting opinions from hard-left opponents of the war and NSA eavesdropping(Greenwald) , while I am posting opinions from hard-right proponents (Hinderaker).

haha So what, that makes us 'even'?? But wait, which side are these people on?

Report Rebuts Bush on Spying
Domestic Action's Legality Challenged

By Carol D. Leonnig
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, January 7, 2006; Page A01

A report by Congress's research arm concluded yesterday that the administration's justification for the warrantless eavesdropping authorized by President Bush conflicts with existing law and hinges on weak legal arguments.

The Congressional Research Service's report rebuts the central assertions made recently by Bush and Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales about the president's authority to order secret intercepts of telephone and e-mail exchanges between people inside the United States and their contacts abroad.

The findings, the first nonpartisan assessment of the program's legality to date, prompted Democratic lawmakers and civil liberties advocates to repeat calls yesterday for Congress to conduct hearings on the monitoring program and attempt to halt it.
===================
hit that pretty blue text and read the rest

When SCOTUS rules on this dogpile of presidential abuse of power we will have the final word for our time.

I am more interested in the answer to this question:

Assuming SCOTUS rules that the IV Amendment has been violated will there be any repercussions whatsoever?

If there are no repercusions then Bush and his team are correct: they can indeed do whatever they like. There will be no turning back then. It'll be open season on the Constitution of the United States of America.

Hey micki, Hey micki,

No stomach for political debate? Facts and figures (and opposing opinions) have an ugly way of intruding on life's fantasies, don't they?

And the only Brock I know is some gay guy who wrote a good book on Anital Hill when he was straight.

No, that's wrong. Lou Brock was a great outfielder for the St. Louis Cardinals. Stole 118 bases one year, which I think is still a ML record. Do you think I am he?

Nice link, Alan.

Fact-check on the Bush Adminstration's Defense of its Secret Wiretapping Program

"fact check" is just that... a list of what they say, with links to the source... and the facts to show it's wrong, with more links (17 in all).

Don, its hard for me to sit here and watch an otherwise great blog turn into a Reich wing pissing match for PAID OBSTRUCTIONISTS. I am not a purist by any means and have no desire to limit free speech but resorting to name calling is the sign of a weak mind in a place normally occupied by folks with strong beliefs engaged in meaningfull discussion.

Don,

Absolutely, I think this calls for an independent investigation.

And you are wrong about Hinderaker. He has serious difficulties with the President on several issues. But I would consider him Right, if not hard-Right.

And please don't argue that Greenwald is "simply defending his interpretation". He is a hard-Left opponent of the war, opponent of Iraqi elections, and opponent of the NSA activities.

Let's call both of them what they are. Advocates for their preconceived positions.

#62 was their first report... this link refers to their second, more up-to-date report

Congressional Agency Questions Legality of Wiretaps

By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, January 19, 2006; Page A05

The Bush administration appears to have violated the National Security Act by limiting its briefings about a warrantless domestic eavesdropping program to congressional leaders, according to a memo from Congress's research arm released yesterday.

The Congressional Research Service opinion said that the amended 1947 law requires President Bush to keep all members of the House and Senate intelligence committees "fully and currently informed" of such intelligence activities as the domestic surveillance effort.

The memo from national security specialist Alfred Cumming is the second report this month from CRS to question the legality of aspects of Bush's domestic spying program. A Jan. 6 report concluded that the administration's justifications for the program conflicted with current law.
=========
again, click the pretty blue text (that's for the trolls that can't comprehend) to read the whole article

Alan,

Good post from the Washington Post about the Congressional Research Service.

So, now we have an "opinion" from one branch of government, (the Justice Department in the Executive Branch), that says the wiretapping was legal. We have another branch (the Congressional Research Service of the Legislative Branch) that has a different "opinion".

I think we can both agree that neither of the divergent "opinions" contstitutes a "fact", can't we?

That's why I agree with Don and Citizen X that an independent, bipartisan inquiry needs to be conducted. Lay it all out on the table, behind closed doors for security reasons, if necessary.

But, there has never been an assertion made by anyone, by anyone, that there has been anything but eavesdropping on incoming calls into the United States from known or suspected AlQaeda operatives from outside the United States. If there have been any other "eavesdropping" (not just information gathering that you might find distasteful) assertions made, can you please link me to them/it?

Bill,

He is a hard-Left opponent of the war,

He is indeed an opponent of the war; it is you who characterizes him as "hard-Left."

opponent of Iraqi elections,

Again, please link. I have read nothing showing that he opposed the Iraqi elections, but if you have something, I will look at it.

and opponent of the NSA activities.

Straw man. He opposes wiretaps without warrants; he has never written that he opposes legal NSA "activities."

Godzilla in the Room

Ban a free lunch? You bet, do it, say elected officials of both parties. Cancel those reservations to Scotland? That too, say our lawmakers. But take the big-interest money out of our campaign coffers? ...(silence). It's not the elephant in the room in Washington DC, or the donkey, either. Big money's the 900-ton Godzilla.

Consider this. Senator Rick Santorum, the Senate's self-proclaimed "liaison to K Street" and Majority Leader Bill Frist's point person for crafting the GOP lobbying reform agenda, leads all senators in contributions from lobbyists in the current political cycle. Since 2001, he's received $182,470 from lobbyists. But that's just slightly less than the two percent of the $11.5 million total in campaign cash he collected during that same period. In contrast to his lobbyist totals, Santorum's taken $1.3 million from finance, insurance, and real estate companies -- the kind of high-powered corporate interests that hire the elite "K street" lobbyists. During the 2004 election cycle, Congress as a whole took in $26.9 million from lobbyists, a figure dwarfed by the $1.5 billion contributed by business interests overall. Dealing with this massive political investment will take more than new restrictions on lobbyists. Indeed, it will require an end to the private financing monopoly that Congress has established as the only way candidates can run for the U.S. House or Senate.

Sorry about your hand David. Hopefully not a serious injury. The hearings on Alito today were worth listening to. Senator Lindsey Graham sounded serious when he shared his concerns about the unwarrented searches.

@Bill If they haven't already I do expect them to find evidence of spying on U.S. citizens who are not terrorists. The problem that I see in this particular issue is: who is defining what constitutes a terrorist? Is it Bush, is it the NSA who is conducting the wiretaps? Food for thought.

DEN #67,

Don, its hard for me to sit here and watch an otherwise great blog turn into a Reich wing pissing match for PAID OBSTRUCTIONISTS.

I understand your frustration. They annoy me, too. However, I don't know if they are paid obstructionists or not, but I find that debating on the blogs helps me in real life.

I am not a purist by any means and have no desire to limit free speech but resorting to name calling is the sign of a weak mind in a place normally occupied by folks with strong beliefs engaged in meaningfull discussion.

Touché. You'll note I've been restraining myself on the more recent posts. But there is a certain amount of emotional satisfaction to be gained from the use of snark, not to mention that many of my fellow regulars here enjoy laughing, so I reserve the right exercise my weak mind at any time. How will I get it any stronger?

Cheers!

Why I Left

Many of you know that I am a recovering republican. What you may also know from reading the trolls' comments how lame and stupid these comments are. Many trolls are paid operatives prowling the websites in order to ruin souls.

What you do not know that before I could become a full fledged repugnant, I would have to undergo a lobotomy. I refused and so I was rift from the party. It was the best decision that I ever made. I did not want someone in control of my thought processes. I did not want to be programmed to hate, murder, and torture any of God's children.

Alberto Gonzalez' defense of the NSA actions this morning at Georgetown Law School, if anyone is interested in opposing views, interested in learning something new.

http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/speeches/2006/ag_speech_0601241.html

Don - Greenwald opposition to Iraqi elections:

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2005/12/what-exactly-do-iraqi-elections-prove.html

Sorry, didn't mean to infer he opposed all NSA activities - just the ones of which we were talking.

My name is Gerald and I am a recovering Republican. I want to apologize to any Democrat whom I have offended in any way. As a recovering Republican, I can now look at issues more objectively. Looking at how Bush II is destroying the Republican party deeply saddens me.

After returning home from a hate and destroy mission against the Democrats I would read Mattie Stepanek's writings to try and feel better. One of his writings transformed me to take a look at my hate and destroy mentality. His letter, "Dear Mr. Bush," in one of his books changed my life for the better. I do have relapses from time to time but for help I read, Matthew 25:31-46.

In regard to warrentless wiretaps...I keep going back to the John Bolton hearings. When Biden, and Kerry kept demanding Bolton's NSA transcripts. Those requested transcripts were never handed over. There have been so many inferences.... that Bolton may have been intercepting Powell's INternational communications, specifically in regard to Iran.

Gerald,

You might want to rethink that lobotomy thing again.

By the way, not only am I not getting paid, it is costing me a fortune to sit here and debate instead of working.

Such is the cost of freedom.

Dear Mr. Bush by Mattie Stepanek, June, 2002

You said we are caught
Between terrorism and hopelessness.
You said we cannot
Find peace in this situation.
I caught your words, but
I cannot agree with the conclusion.
Clearly,
We cannot perpetuate terrorism.
But perhaps,
If we choose to accept
Hopelessness with a catch,
We will find peace in all situations.
Hope, or lack of hope,
Is an attitude.
And an attitude is a choice.
In this great country,
We do have a choice.
And so, in conclusion,
We cannot get caught
With a bad attitude,
Or we are not choosing peace.

Repugnants' Sins

Repugnants and the Ten Commandments

1. I am the Lord your God: you shall not have strange gods before Me. Repugnants have chosen money, nuclear weapons, and bush for their god.
2. You shall not take the name of the Lord in vain. Cannot determine at this time!
3. Remember to keep holy the Lord's Day. Cannot determine ay this time!
4. Honor your father and mother. Cannot determine at this time!
5. You shall not kill. Repugnants are guilty of rape of our planet's land and resources, pollution of the air, land, and sea, murders, and war crimes.
6. You shall not commit adultery. Cannot determine at this time!
7. You shall not steal. Repugnants take away money from the poor and the middle class and oil from the Iraqis and they give it to the rich.
8. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. Repugnants say that they are saints and the Democrats are devils. Repugnants say that they are not murderers and war criminals.
9. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife. Cannot determine at this time!
10. You shall not covet your neighbor's goods. Repugnants take away from the poor, middle class, and Iraqis and they give to the rich.

Repugnants and the Seven Cardinal Sins

1. Pride/Vanity Repugnants say that they are always right. They are our Earth’≥ saints.
2. Lazy/Sloth Cannot determine at this time!
3. Intemperate Repugnants are into pork barreling, quick to murder and commit war crimes, and they lack control in spending money prudently.
4. Anger Repugnants hate anyone who does not agree with their evil ways.
5. Gluttony Repugnants use our beautiful world for personal gain and destruction.
6. Greed Repugnants want more and more money for the rich.
7. Impurity Cannot determine at this time!

But, there has never been an assertion made by anyone, by anyone, that there has been anything but eavesdropping on incoming calls into the United States from known or suspected AlQaeda operatives from outside the United States.

oh yeah?? How 'bout this...

Spying on U.S. Government
"the National Security Agency (NSA), on the orders of the Bush administration, eavesdropped on the private conversations and e-mail of its own employees, employees of other U.S. intelligence agencies -- including the CIA and DIA -- and their contacts in the media, Congress, and oversight agencies and offices." [5] (http://mediachannel.org/blog/node/2599),[6] (http://www.altpr.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=562&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0)
"The journalist surveillance program, code named "Firstfruits," was part of a Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) program that was maintained at least until October 2004 and was authorized by then-DCI Porter Goss. Firstfruits was authorized as part of a DCI "Countering Denial and Deception" program responsible to an entity known as the Foreign Denial and Deception Committee (FDDC)."
=============
that's just one example, and you know there's more... there's a Table of Contents on the first link.

I'm glad you've agreed we need an independent investigation though, that was a surprise.

unfathomed dangers in patriot act renewal

Bill,

Your interpretation of Greenwald's post to be "against Iraqi elections" is kind of a stretch. Look at the title of the post: What exactly do the Iraqi elections prove? He writes:

But beyond this gloating self-satisfaction, war bloggers have apparently decided that this election, and the reaction to it by war critics, proves once and for all that war critics realize now that they were wrong. Apparently, war critics didn't say enough about the elections yesterday, and this silence has not gone unnoticed! To the war bloggers, this proves that the war critics have lost the debate over the Iraq War and just can't face up to it, so they are pretending that the proof of their defeat -- this election -- simply doesn't exist.

He is arguing that the election did not prove that Iraq war critics were wrong. Anti-war, certainly, but not anti-election.

You write:

Sorry, didn't mean to infer he opposed all NSA activities - just the ones of which we were talking.

Yes, the illegal ones.

On the subject of impeachment:

I agree with Don that it is unlikely as long as Republicans have a clear majority in both houses. But folks like Bill should know that some Republicans are using the I-word.

Here's an excerpt from Insight magazine, which is referenced (by the Huffington Post) as a "conservative publication:"

--
Sen. Arlen Specter, Senate Judiciary Committee chairman and Pennsylvania Republican, has acknowledged that the [planned February Senate] hearings could conclude with a vote of whether Mr. Bush violated the law. Mr. Specter, a critic of the administration’s surveillance program, stressed that, although he would not seek it, impeachment is a possible outcome.

"Impeachment is a remedy," Mr. Specter said on Jan. 15. "After impeachment, you could have a criminal prosecution. But the principal remedy under our society is to pay a political price."

Mr. Specter and other senior members of the committee have been told by legal constitutional experts that Mr. Bush did not have the authority to authorize unlimited secret electronic surveillance. Another leading Republican who has rejected the administration's argument is Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas.

http://www.insightmag.com/Media/MediaManager/impeachment.htm

----
This passage should also serve as a reminder to the left-of-center folks that not every Republican is a lock-step Bushevik.

You might want to rethink that lobotomy thing again.

Well, so much for "tone" and "civility," eh?

The Difference

Let us take a look at the difference between John Paul II and Bush II.

The war in Iraq remains a defeat for humanity. –†John Paul II

Do not be overcome by evil but overcome evil with good. –†John Paul II

Shortly after the death of John Paul II on April 2, 2005, Bush rightly lauded the Holy Father for his WITNESS TO THE DIGNITY OF HUMAN LIFE, for the way he showed us that HUMAN LIFE AT ALL ITS STAGES IS REVERED AND TREASURED, he called him ONE OF HISTORY'S GREAT MORAL LEADERS.

Sadly, Bush does not fully appreciate the CULTURE OF LIFE to which the Holy Father consistently and relentlessly called us all. Nowhere is this more evident than in Bush's utter disregard of John Paul II's unequivocal opposition to the invasion and occupation of Iraq, which he called A DEFEAT FOR HUMANITY.

"When war, as in these days in Iraq, threatens the fate of humanity, it is ever more urgent to proclaim, with a strong and decisive voice, that only peace is the road to follow to construct a more just and united society. Violence and arms can never resolve the problems of man," says John Paul II.

Rather than listen to ONE OF HISTORY'S GREAT MORAL LEADERS, Bush unleashed the very forces of death, destruction, and dislocation that the Pope worked relentlessly to avoid. Instead of building a culture of life, Bush and his administration's policies ARE SOWING THE KILLING FIELDS.

John Paul II has chosen the path of love, mercy, justice, and peace. BUSH II HAS CHOSEN THE PATH OF FEAR, GREED, HATRED, KILLING, AND TORTURE.

eggman wrote:

This passage should also serve as a reminder to the left-of-center folks that not every Republican is a lock-step Bushevik.

Indeed. We've seen guys like Hagel show some spine. And if an investigation into the illegal NSA wiretaps shows that the administration's political enemies were being tapped, there will be few, if any, Republicans who will offer Bush cover.

Bill, did you not see all the posts about the FBI running all over the country chasing dead ends from the sweeping intercepts of NSA?

Are you starting to 'see the light' that what Doofus has been doing is illegal and right up there with Hitler's tactics? Hell, you're so much, I'm betting your name is on their list just like ours. I haven't tried to fly lately, but...

The Bible in today's climate

Arianna was brutally attacked by our Nazi bloggers. The Bible study class may have clarified why she was attacked. During the time of Jesus the son would usually follow in the trade of the father. A brighter son or a son of a rich person would study in the temple. Today the sons and daughters of the rich will go to college and the sons and daughters of the poor such as the 90% of Americans will enter the armed forces to fight the Bush wars. The 21st century will be known as the century of the Father of Wars in Bush's honor. There were slaves during Jesus' time and the Hebrews treated their slaves well and some slaves even became part of the family. The neocons have a close alliance with Israel. It is too bad that they are not going to treat the 90% of Americans in the same way as the Hebrews treated their slaves. American slaves today will have to beg for scraps of food from the neocons. The neocons do not have a heart.

Cheney's energy policy has been kept a secret. Today I had the opportunity to find out what will be America's alternative energy policy for the 21st century. Actually it will be similar to the energy policy around the time of Jesus. Cheney and the neocons have a special place under Cheney's alternative energy policy for our women. One of the jobs that women prepared for during Jesus' time was to collect the animal dung and make cakes out of the dung for fuel. Today's women who are not in the armed services will be dung collectors for Cheney's new and great alternative energy policies. Arianna and other intelligent women are attacked because the neocons want women to be dung collectors.

During Jesus' time war was important because war served as a means of keeping the economy going. Today wars are important because with the military draft sons and some daughters who are not dung collectors can fight in the Bush wars and help keep the economy going. Plus, defense companies can keep the Bush war machine going. Plus, fatherland security will receive money to help keep the American economy going and Cheney’≥ alternative energy policy of dung collectors will also help our economy. The future looks bright for America with regard to wars and dung collecting.

*here so much

You can only give

I have from time to time shared with you that I believe we can only give what we have. America wants to spread her democracy across our planet.

Let us take a good look at the Nazi American people. I am speaking of the majority of Nazi Americans. Democracy is only a word. People are living entities.

When we spread our democracy, we will be spreading corrupt and greedy liars. We will also be spreading our mentality of hatred, killing, torture, and wars.

Is this what we want to spread to other countries so they can emulate the Nazi American way of life?

Gerald wrote:

>John Paul II has chosen the path of love, mercy, justice, and peace. BUSH II HAS CHOSEN THE PATH OF FEAR, GREED, HATRED, KILLING, AND TORTURE.

Preach it, brother. I am not Catholic, but I was a big JPII fan.

One could make an easy case, that George W. Bush is a lot closer to emulating the deeds of the Anti-Christ, than of Christ. Judge a tree by its fruits.

Bob in North Dakota

Alan & Don,
Yes, there was a lot of domestic eavesdropping, but it was all authorized, unless you have some source that says otherwise.

The NSA and CIA were trying to find the traitors who were telling AlQaeda we were intercepting their messages.

And, I'm sorry, but Gerald brought the lobotomy thing up himself. He really needs to consider it. I thought I was being facetious when I said it first, but now I don't know.

Probationary Period

Dear Cornposters:

Our natural life is a probationary period before we are judged for our supernatural life. No one receives a free pass to heaven. There was only one person who stole heaven. He was the thief on the cross, next to Jesus. He defended Jesus by saying that he deserved to die but Jesus was an innocent person.

He said to Jesus, "Remember me!" Jesus turned to him and said, "I say to you that today you will be with me in paradise."

How will we fare in our probationary period to spend or not spend our supernatural life in the Kingdom of Heaven? We are given a free will and we are subject to the consequences of our deeds.

Sincerely,

Gerald

Alan #90,

I linked to that story in a post addressed to Bill on another thread.

Bill is trying to frame the debate over illegal wiretapping into a right vs. left dichotomy, so I'm beginning to think it's pointless. At least he agrees that there should be some sort of investigation, so maybe we should declare victory and go home.

Bill,

Yes, there was a lot of domestic eavesdropping, but it was all authorized, unless you have some source that says otherwise.

Bill, saying something over and over again doesn't make it true. I can direct you to several posts in the NYT, the WaPo, hell, I can link you to FISA and, while we're at it, the Constitution if you like. But it would be pointless.

Tell me something. If the eavesdropping was authorized, what did Bush have to fear from the NYT story?

Don,

Right v. Left has now line up as right v. wrong. Most, if not all, of the left-wing pundits and attorneys have lined up to say the NSA spying was illegal. Most of the right-wingers have said it was legal. Depending on what political spectrum you're in, the Left (or the Right) is either right or wrong.

But what we are all quoting are "opinions", not facts.

What I'm trying to say is that I think the one set of opinions is correct, just as you believe another set is correct. But unless and until this matter is adjudicated in some type of tribunal, all either of us has is opinions.

Have to wrap up a few things here, but I'll be back later.

so I'm beginning to think it's pointless. At least he agrees that there should be some sort of investigation, so maybe we should declare victory and go home.

yep, it is pointless
All them posts/links, and he still says they were authorized. *thows up hands*

He says, "show me one, one case of spying that wasn't on a terrorist talking to an American" or words to that effect. When you show him, he changes it to... "but it was all authorized". haha good segue!

Ok, we've both shown him to be wrong again, so I'm going back to "ignore".

*WARNING - corny joke alert

Have you heard of the new coffee drink that's sweeping the country? It's called the Osama bin Latte. You take a half cup of strong, black coffee Add 2 double shots of bourbon Mix in three squares of ex-lax.

After consuming it you will be bombed and run like hell.

Don,
Please link me to the sites saying the domestic eavesdropping was illegal. I'm sorry; I missed them.

And was this "illegality" or "unauthorized" the opinion of some New York Times editor or writer, or found to be illegal or unauthorized by a third party?

David,
When someone says 'Don't Ask' my imagination begins to flare.

Democracy Now has a good show on the wiretapping.

NSA Expert Jim Bamford on Domestic Wiretapping: The Bush Administration Has "Decided Simply to Violate the Law"

and of course the

Former NSA Head Gen. Hayden Grilled by Journalists on NSA Eavesdropping on U.S. Citizens

Alan,

The complaints recently have been against "unauthorized" wiretaps by the NSA. You were the one who changed the subject by talking about domestic spying. But one has to do with talks between people in the United States. The other has to do with calls from outside the United States.

The only charges of "unauthorized" wiretaps by the NSA were those originating outside of the United States from known or suspected AlQaeda operatives.

Now, do you think it's alright to eavesdrop, without a warrant, on an incoming call from an AlQaeda operative from outside the United States to a person in the United States? I think it should be allowed.

And, you ask, what did President Bush have to fear by the New York Times story? What he had to fear was a huge intelligence gathering operation being compromised by a newspaper report.

Try this on one for size. What did Roosevelt have to fear by allowing the Germans to know we had broken the Enigma code?

Or, why not let the Germans know about Operation Overlord?

Please link me to the sites saying the domestic eavesdropping was illegal. I'm sorry; I missed them.

haha Try post 62 and 69. You even said yourself that it was a good post. Did you read it???

a'ight, I'm outtie... till later tonight

The complaints recently have been against "unauthorized" wiretaps by the NSA. You were the one who changed the subject by talking about domestic spying. But one has to do with talks between people in the United States. The other has to do with calls from outside the United States.

Say wha?? You're hopeless Bill. Abso-goshdernit-lutely hopeless.

Don, I would like to respond to you. Yes, if there were 10 Afghans by bin Laden, I would kill all of them! There's no way they wouldn't know who bin Laden is, so they are HARBORING him. I would be happy to kill them.

Now, if my family was there instead, I wouldn't kill them.

Bill, it's obvious to me that these leftists care much more about civil liberties than national security. I mean, it makes them angry that Bush was spying on al Qaeda operatives!! Can you believe that?? I can lol

Alan,

Both posts #62 and #69 talk about the "unauthorized" wiretaps initiated by the NSA on calls from outside the U.S. The only "unauthorized" wiretaps initiated by the NSA were the ones from outside the United States into the United States, not the other direction, and not just in the United States.

Again, unless and until you can direct me to a site showing that domestic spying (U.S. call to U.S. call) was unauthorized, I stand by my statement that the only "unauthorized" eavesdropping were on calls originating outside the United States from known or suspected AlQaeda operatives.

Folks, I think there is a huge distinction that many of you are missing. The eavesdropping conducted by the NSA without benefit of FISA warrants was not between two calls in the United States. It was not for calls from the United States to some other country. It was not for calls from just ordinary citizens in another country to this country.

It was only, only for (1)calls initiating outside the United States into the United States from (2)known or suspected AlQaeda operatives.

Please - anyone here. Which of you would not want this to happen?

Tim L,
I don't even think it's a matter of civil liberties versus security. I don't think they understand that this is not domestic spying. The NSA was trying to catch calls made into the United States by AlQaeda operatives outside the United States.

I don't think I'm endangering my civil liberties by having calls from AlQaeda monitored.

It's exactly analogous to wiretaps placed on organized crime. There is a tap on only one end of the phone. If the gangster calls you, or you call him, the wiretap may not have been authorized against you, but it is not your phone that is tapped - it is the gangster's. But the tap is still legal, even if there is a tap on one end of the phone. Both ends are being recorded.

The exact same is true here. It's not the American's phone that is being tapped; it is the AlQaeda operative's. And it is the AlQaeda operative's call that is being monitored.

Actually, there is even greater safety than taps against organized crime. In that case, calls going both ways are being taped. In the NSA's case, it was only calls being initiated outside the country that were being tapped.

Don, 32, you HAVE to watch the TV drivel and listen on the radio? Why is that? I find both venues very easy to avoid, for the very reason you stated, they are ANNOYING!
Alan, what is it that the trolls don't get about SPYING ON AMERICAN CITIZENS WITHOUT A WARRANT?? Is the constitution just a goddamn piece of paper to them as well? How is it that joe blow can come along and toss out amendments? IT VIOLATES THE F**KING FOURTH AMENDMENT!!!!! GOT IT?? AM I SPEAKING LOUD ENOUGH?? GOD, WHAT AN IDIOT!

And as I recall from reading the fourth amendment, it does NOT say, "But in case of the govt. LYING about an attack on US soil by 19 Arabs with box cutters, you may spy on any and all US citizens."

Rather than having free speech as a founding right guaranteed by the Constitution, Bush told the Kansas State University students that there's [paraphrase] "a 'custom' in our country that allows people to say what's on their mind and we're going to keep it that way." Like he called the Constitution "just a damn piece of paper" . . . and who is the "We" he referred to???

A custom? bush is an idiot too! UGH!

Tim, Bill, it's obvious to me that these leftists care much more about civil liberties than national security. I mean, it makes them angry that Bush was spying on al Qaeda operatives!! Can you believe that?? I can lol I know it wasn't addressed to me but I'll respond with the correct quote from Benjamin Franklin "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." And one more that I think was written just for this administration: "He that is good for making excuses is seldom good for anything else."

I went up to Peace Arch Park at Blaine, WA, this afternoon with my husband. Peace Arch Park is at the U.S.-Canadian border. It's a beautiful PNW day, so we went to one of our favorite parks for a walk by the sea.

Then...a car chase, police in pursuit of a medium-sized red car. The red car speeds towards the border crossing, a police vehicle cuts it off, and rams into it, there's gunfire. Additional law enforcement vehicles arrive, including a Medic One because one of the men in the red car has been shot. Unconfiremd reports are that the two men are murder suspects from California, one allegedly from Mexico and one allegedly from Pakistan.

Gee whiz, all I wanted to do was get away from the trolls and look what happens! My husband (just like a newsman) had his camcorder with him to tape some birds, so we got some footage of this instead.

Posner Waiver for Trolls

There are some who say they would sacrifice personal freedom for security from terrorism. To them I say: What's stopping you?

Just sign and date the following Posner Waiver:

I, ___________________,

hereby waive any rights of privacy in my person, property, association, thought and/or expression that I have, had or claim to have under the federal and state constitutions, statutory law or regulation of the United States or any political subdivision thereof, decisional law, common law and/or any other source of authority, real or imagined, to the extent the waiver of such rights is, in the sole judgment of any military, law enforcement or national security employee of the United States, deemed necessary to prosecute the war on terror.

This waiver applies both retroactively and prospectively.

_____________________________
(Signed)

_____________________________
(Dated)
Cut-and-paste the above waiver and e-mail it to comments@whitehouse.gov, or vice_president
@whitehouse.gov. Put "Posner Waiver" in the subject line.

******

Sign it, send it and live in your little cocoon of fear.

Yeah, that's the ticket!

capt

capt -- great idea!

Troll culture

The long history of trolling, and the strong support for anonymous and pseudonymous discourse on the Internet, suggests that the story of the "anonymous troll" is only beginning. Whether there can be a "culture" consisting of people who do not know each other, except through a common experience of being bounced from Internet forums, is questionable, but some do claim it is possible and already occurring.

There is strong evidence for this in the existence of forums that claim to exist specifically to support trolls and trolling, to exchange troll tips, and to identify targets that other trolls might fruitfully bait or debate.

Trolling culture is best observed in users, who do not know each other, working together. Because the common methods of creating inflammatory posts are well known, and a subject of jokes in many places on the Internet, it is sometimes possible for a troll to identify another troll at work. A troll, trolling another troll, often creates massive amounts of pretend drama between them that are taken seriously by non-troll observers (especially if they take sides). The end result is that the two trolls can work together to force a conversation to go off topic, or center a forum's discussion around themselves, more effectively than on their own.

Prison time for trolling?

On January 5, 2006, United States president George W. Bush signed into law a prohibition on posting anonymous "annoying Web messages" or sending anonymous "annoying e-mail messages". [4] Criminal penalties include fines and two years in prison. Concern has been raised as to the Constitutional legality of the law, as critics allege that it infringes upon the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which guarantees every U.S. citizen the right to free speech.

Resolutions and alternatives

In general, popular wisdom advises users to avoid feeding trolls, and to ignore temptations to respond. Responding to a troll inevitably drives discussion off-topic, to the dismay of bystanders, and supplies the troll with the craved attention. When trollhunters pounce on the trolls, ignorers reply with: "YHBT. YHL. HAND.", or "You have been trolled. You have lost. Have a nice day." However, since trollhunters (like trolls) are often conflict-seekers themselves, the loss usually is not on the part of the trollhunter; rather, the losers are the other forum-users who would have preferred that the conflict does not emerge at all.

Literature on conflict resolution suggests that labeling participants in Internet discussions as "trolls" can perpetuate the unwanted behaviors. A person rejected by a social group, both online and offline, may assume an antagonistic role toward it, and seek to further annoy or anger members of the group. The "troll" label, often a sign of social rejection, may therefore perpetuate trolling.

Better results normally ensue when users take the moderator role and describe more constructive behaviors in a non-judgmental, non-confrontational way. Trolls are excited by trollhunters, and frustrated by "ignorers", and neither of these emotions produce positive results for the forum. Engaging trolls results in "flame wars". Trolls frustrated by the "ignore strategy" may leave the forum (and either troll elsewhere, or become constructive users) or may become progressively more inflammatory until they get a response.

Novice trolls may experience serious "troll's remorse", a feeling of great regret after losing their account (whether it be from an Internet service provider or from a website) as a consequence of their reckless trolling.
There are those who argue that a lack of response to trolling can also inspire trolling, a "Damned if you do, damned if you don't" result. Particularly fanatical or irrational commentators will respond to a forum that irks them largely independent of responses. Trolls also often continue to post, taking umbrage with peripheral arguments or arguments that were less well-founded, until their positions become untenable, then turning either to insults or moving to another topic. By this logic, relentless confrontation through argument of trolls (when such argument is to be found) can be vital.

Usefulness of trolling

A major debate on the Internet is whether or not trolls perform any useful function. Because troll is such a broadly-applied term, if all definitions thereof are to be accepted, the answer must definitively be "yes and no".
Users performing many useful, but controversial, functions are often decried as trolls, and in these cases, so-called trolling may actually benefit the forum in which it occurs. For example, the presence of a radical right-winger, described as a troll, may allow a conservative lurker to feel more comfortable expressing his or her viewpoints, which seem very moderate in contrast. On the other hand, if trollhunters mount a flame war against this right-wing troll, the conservative bystander may feel less comfortable in expressing her views, to the detriment of the forum. As much as trolls claim to fight groupthink, they may actually encourage it by solidifying opinion against them.
Trolls can also, in some circumstances, be a source of genuine humour, which depends entirely upon whether the troll is a good or a bad troll. It is usually fairly easy to spot the difference between such actions: a bad troll resorts only to weak uncreative arguments, whereas a good troll will create a subtle set of arguments which draw people in, with cunning twists to provide a thread of non sequitur humour.

Behavioral issues

Precise definitions of "troll" have been difficult because such definitions rely on assumptions about internal motivation, which have been difficult to conculsively prove. Some behaviors, such as "name-calling" are not candidates for a "troll" classification unless their intent is to provoke a reaction, as "name-calling" could be considered more anti-social, perhaps falling under the classification of "flamer" instead.

Some have suggested that instead of calling somebody a "troll", they should focus on specific behaviors that a group finds uncomfortable, and enforce behavioral rules to consistently and fairly prevent such behaviors. The idea is to focus on the undesirable behavior itself, rather than on the motivation for the behavior. If such behaviors cannot be identified, then perhaps the alleged troll should be tolerated out of fairness. Some call this, the "If you cannot identify it, then tolerate it" plan.

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

Of course in the case of our little troll teenagers they are properly referred to as "Doctor Troll!"

HA! (it gets funnier as the day goes by)

capt

micki, so much excitement! So much for a peaceful interlude at the park.
TRH, I have a story to counter the one you told about the idiot cops and the drunk in Corvallis. This just happened a couple days ago and struck very close to home. My brother, who lives in Portland, was on his way home from work and got off the freeway onto the surface street that would take him home. Roaring up behind him in a Ford F350, as you probably know a huge truck, jacked up to the hilt, and driven by some guy who was apparently very annoyed with the speed, or lack thereof, of my brother in front of him. This is a two lane major thoroughfare running east-west, speed limit 35, my brother, named Mike, going about 40 MPH. The road-raged driver was tail-gating and being obnoxious in general. Mike tapped the brakes a couple times in an attempt to get him to back off, but that pissed him off even more and he moved closer. Instead of trying to continue the confrontation Mike pulled to the side of the road, allowing Mr. Speed Racer to pass, but instead of continuing on his way he proceeded to slow down to 15 MPH, blocking all traffic. Finally he turned North about a mile before Mike's turn. Mike continued home, driving towards his house from the south, roughly 8 blocks away. he pulled into his driveway and got out of his truck when he noticed a cop coming from the North and pulling up behind him. The cop informed him that someone had called in reporting him as a drunk driver, (one guess who THAT was) handcuffed him right in his yard, did not read him his rights or administer any sobriety tests, and took him to jail. He also called a tow company that came and towed his car right out of his driveway. It cost $550.00 to get the truck out of impound, money they did not have to spare, and to get any justice for such an overt violation of his civil rights will require money for a lawyer that they don't have. The opposite pole. Whoever thinks that this country is not fast becoming a fascist nation just needs to have an experience like this. Believe me, you will change your mind.

Another nuke exercise -- your next 9/11?

In fact, the real danger here is that an administration in danger of extinction itself for its wars, its financial bungling, its corruption, its catastrophic Katrina, its trillions in tax cuts for the rich and subsequent debt, its utterly inhumane cuts to social services, in short, its horrible five years . . . the real threat is that this administration will use this go-real nuclear holocaust to blame on Al Qaeda, and get itself off the hook and hanging platform, and elevate national terror into a national state of emergency, eliminating all democracy, with a call for martial law, under Der Bush & Company.

Does everyone understand that the only people whose phones were being tapped without warrants by the NSA were those receiving calls from (1)known or suspected AlQaeda operatives (2)from outside the United States?

This is not a security vs. civil liberties issue. I think that if you are receiving calls from a foreign country from a known or sustected AlQaeda operative, then it is permissable to tap - not your phone - but the phone of the terrorist who is talking to you.

Tell me this. If a mobster has his phone tapped and makes a call to another individual, do you think the recipient's portion of the conversation should be excluded from the recording? I mean, there was no warrant to listen in on his conversations?

Because that's what we're talking about here. The analogy is perfect.

"The Supreme Court obviously does not believe that whatever Bush does in the name of combating terrorism is a "fundamental incident." " And Bush never claimed he could do "whatever" -- that's the straw man David Corn type Leftists like to attack. Certainly if Bush (and Rove?) think the American people believe that folk in America accept his actions as "appropriate", this issue becomes a Rep plus. I think eavesdropping on those in America talking long distance to Al Qaeda is appropriate. Too bad most Dems seem not to.

Saladin,

That is a horrible abuse of justice. I hope your brother well, and wouldn't blame him at all for
finding an attorney with an axe to grind and sue the hell out of the authorities for false arrest. Just as you were posting that outrageous story, I was reading this one on FARK

SALT LAKE CITY, Utah (AP) -- A Salt Lake City man with several driving under the influence charges on his record was arrested again for the same thing. Authorities say the 44-year-old man was arrested on Saturday for his fourth DUI.
Police say the man was originally pulled over for driving nearly 20 miles-per-hour over the speed limit. Court documents say when the officer approached the car, he could smell alcohol. Police then asked him to take a field sobriety test, but he refused, saying he'll just fall down. Court records say when officers checked his record, it showed his driver's license had been revoked for an alcohol-related conviction. The man now faces several charges, including driving under the influence, driving on a revoked license and speeding.

Maybe the judge will be more lenient since he was so honest.

No Bill, In that case they would have a warrant, under FISA. We have no proof whatsoever that they only tapped Al Qaeda calls, all we have is the word of an administration that is sorely mistrusted due to their own devices. Oversight, oversight, oversight! Whats wrong with them using FISA? Noone has stepped up to the plate to give a good reason.

Saladin ,

Please tell me you understand that the only "warrantless" eavesdropping done by the NSA on American citizens was done because they were (1)recipients of (2)foreign telephone calls from (3)known or suspected AlQaeda operatives.

Please tell me that, whether or not you agree that such actions were right or wrong, you at least understand the nature of the actions.

Saladin, I'm beginning to wonder about the PDX police, too. My daughter and her husband, as pedestrians in a cross walk, were crossing a four-lane, one-way street that was controlled by a traffic light. The light was in their favor. Her husband lagged behind her slightly because he had dropped his cellphone. She turned to urge him to hurry up. Just as they were approaching the curb the light changed -- the car in the 4th lane was an unmarked PDX cop car (which they did not know). The driver made a jackrabbit start and my daughter yelled "wait a second!" They proceeded down the sidewalk. The unmarked cop car made a u-turn (into oncoming traffic) with its "sneaker" lights blazing. Pulled onto the curb and yelled at them to HALT! My daughter asked, "Who are you talking to?" "You!" was the answer. He asked for my daughter's ID. She asked him why he needed it. Anyway...he wrote her a $92 citation for "walking against the light." She asked why he didn't give one to her husband, too, since he was further behind than she was and he just smirked. She said, "Is it because I'm the one who yelled at you to wait a minute!?"

#127 Bill...John BOlton was not willing to hand over the NSA transcript that the senate demanded during his hearings. Many think these transcripts will show that Bolton was eavesdropping on both Kofi Anan and Colin Powell.

TURN THE NSA TRANSCRIPTS OVER TO THE APPROPRIATE COMMITTEE'S. LET THEM MAKE THE DETERMINATION AS TO WHETHER THE LAW HAS BEEN BROKEN.

Citizen X,

That's why there should be an oversight, ex post facto, board.

Do you have any evidence that the circumstances were other than what I have described, above?

For that matter, the Chairmen and Ranking Members of both the Senate and House Intelligence Committees were given explicit details of what was transpiring.

Don't you think that these men, especially the Democrats, would have said something if the facts were not exactly as President Bush outlined?

And don't you think that the whistleblowers, who leaked this traitorous information to the newspapers, would have said something if the facts weren't as explained?

No. You may or may not agree with the actions, but I think the facts on the ground have been proved out exactly as stated.

Think about these things.

STFU about what you think the warrantless spying is really all about. You sound like a goon for the bushevik gestapo. Actually, you sound insane.

"...Does everyone understand that the only people whose phones were being tapped without warrants by the NSA were those receiving calls from (1)known or suspected AlQaeda operatives (2)from outside the United States?..."

"...Does everyone understand that the only people whose phones were being tapped without warrants by the NSA were those receiving calls from (1)known or suspected AlQaeda operatives (2)from outside the United States?..."

"...Does everyone understand that the only people whose phones were being tapped without warrants by the NSA were those receiving calls from (1)known or suspected AlQaeda operatives (2)from outside the United States?..."

"...Does everyone understand that the only people whose phones were being tapped without warrants by the NSA were those receiving calls from (1)known or suspected AlQaeda operatives (2)from outside the United States?..."

"...Does everyone understand that the only people whose phones were being tapped without warrants by the NSA were those receiving calls from (1)known or suspected AlQaeda operatives (2)from outside the United States?..."

"...Does everyone understand that the only people whose phones were being tapped without warrants by the NSA were those receiving calls from (1)known or suspected AlQaeda operatives (2)from outside the United States?..."

"...Does everyone understand that the only people whose phones were being tapped without warrants by the NSA were those receiving calls from (1)known or suspected AlQaeda operatives (2)from outside the United States?..."

"...Does everyone understand that the only people whose phones were being tapped without warrants by the NSA were those receiving calls from (1)known or suspected AlQaeda operatives (2)from outside the United States?..."
_________________

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."

-Hermann Goering

Democrats aren't alone in questioning wiretaps

WASHINGTON - When Al Gore accused President Bush of breaking the law by authorizing domestic wiretapping, Bush's defenders had a ready response.

"Al Gore's hypocrisy knows no bounds," said White House press secretary Scott McClellan. "If he is going to be the voice of the Democratic Party on national security matters, we welcome it."

Bush's aides, though, might have more difficulty countering the rising tide of criticism from some senior Republicans and influential conservative leaders who also are troubled by the electronic eavesdropping he authorized soon after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, branded the wiretapping "clearly and categorically wrong" and set a Feb. 6 hearing on "wartime executive power."

Beyond Capitol Hill, prominent conservative groups formed alliances with established liberal organizations to present an unusual united front against the eavesdropping.

For his Martin Luther King Day address at historic Constitution Hall in Washington, Gore was introduced by Bob Barr, a former Republican congressman from Georgia who earned a reputation as a right-wing pit bull for his fierce attacks on President Clinton and his relentless championing of conservative causes.

Barr and other leading conservatives have formed a group, Patriots to Restore Checks and Balances, to press for "substantive oversight hearings" in Congress on Bush's directive - which was revealed last month - authorizing warrantless monitoring of some phone calls and e-mails by the National Security Agency.

"When the Patriot Act was passed shortly after 9/11, the federal government was granted expanded access to Americans' private information," Barr said. "However, federal law still clearly states that intelligence agents must have a court order to conduct electronic surveillance of Americans on these shores. Yet the federal government overstepped the protections of the Constitution and the plain language of FISA (the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) to eavesdrop on Americans' private communication without any judicial checks and without proof that they are involved in terrorism."

"This is not a partisan issue," said David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union. "It is an issue of safeguarding the fundamental freedoms of all Americans so that future administrations do not interpret our laws in ways that pose constitutional concerns."

Among other members of the new group are Paul Weyrich, head of the Free Congress Foundation and the man who coined the phrase "moral majority," and Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform.

Since the controversy over the wiretapping erupted a month ago, some Bush supporters have tried to frame it as just one in a long string of partisan political fights.

In a column headlined "The Paranoid Style in American Liberalism," influential neoconservative William Kristol ridiculed Democratic Rep. John Conyers of Michigan and Democratic Sens. Barbara Boxer of California and Joe Biden of Delaware for criticizing Bush.

And indeed there has been plenty of partisan outcry. In addition to Gore, scores of Democrats have excoriated Bush, while two liberal organizations - the American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights - filed lawsuits in federal court Tuesday in a bid to end the eavesdropping.

But a host of well-known Republican politicians and conservative commentators has also criticized the president, from Sens. Specter, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Richard Lugar of Indiana to columnists George Will and William Safire.

"The president's decision to authorize the NSA's surveillance without the complicity of a court or Congress was a mistake," Will wrote.

Another new alliance of strange bedfellows, calling itself the Liberty Coalition, sponsored Gore's speech and scrambled to construct a Web site.

Dedicated to "preserving the Bill of Rights, personal autonomy and individual privacy," the Liberty Coalition includes groups from across the political spectrum - such as the ACLU, Amnesty International, Mothers Against the Draft and Move.on Political Action on the left; and the American Conservative Union, Citizens Against Government Waste, the Free Congress Foundation and the National Taxpayers Union on the right.

The groups are often at one another's throats over such issues as tax reform, cyber-piracy, budget restraint, gun control and anti-war protest.

Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, said gun owners should feel especially threatened by Bush's electronic surveillance.

"If the law is not reformed, ordinary Americans' personal information could be swept into all-encompassing federal databases encroaching upon every aspect of their private lives," Gottlieb said.

Bush has insisted that the eavesdropping is being used in very limited cases in which at least one party to the communication is based abroad and suspected of being linked to al-Qaida or an affiliated terrorist group.

Some constitutional scholars and privacy experts said the reaction to the domestic wiretapping should be understood within broader cultural, historical and political contexts.

On the cultural front, Americans are struggling to come to grips with an information explosion driven by computing and other communications technologies. The debate over electronic eavesdropping comes against the backdrop of ongoing concerns over identity theft, industrial espionage and other forms of digital crime, said John Soma, professor of computer and technology law at the University of Denver and executive director of its Privacy Foundation.

In 2004, lawsuits were filed after it was disclosed that Northwest Airlines and JetBlue Airways had complied with government demands to turn over their passenger lists. Now, Soma said, there is fresh controversy over Google's refusal to hand over its user logs to help the Justice Department track child pornographers.

Daniel Solove, an information privacy law professor at George Washington University, said Americans' fear of government intrusion dates to the country's founding, but he said it has been dampened since the Sept. 11 attacks.

"Certainly, before 9/11 there was a very strong libertarian streak in the Republican Party, with very strong views on privacy, sometimes even stronger than those of the Democrats," Solove said. "One thing that Americans have always bristled at is the government snooping or interfering in their private lives."

That fear of excessive government power has flared up throughout U.S. history, whether it was liberals upset over the suppression of Vietnam War protests or conservatives angry at the FBI's Ruby Ridge assault on an Idaho family in 1992.

On the political front, Republicans have shown increased willingness to break with Bush on key issues. Before Congress adjourned last month, various groups of Republican senators helped block both a long-term extension of the Patriot Act and loosened enemy interrogation restrictions, while GOP House members upset over high government spending forced cuts in appropriations bills.

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

Just the lefties, eh?

capt

Oh I have thought about them. I have thought about them and weighed it against every conceivable scenario I can come up with and I still don't trust this or any administration to stay as clean cut and honest as they say they are. Warrants are meant as a protection to our rights as defined in the constitution, and I REFUSE to give up one iota of those rights in the "possibility" that I might be a little safer. If you are willing to, then you dont deserve the freedom that the blood of our forefathers spilled for it. Thats for anyone that thinks its ok to just let the government have total control. You're weak if you would give up one ounce of your liberty for security. Learn to defend yourselves and what was promised to you by the founders of this nation.

capt,

Thanks for the troll post. This may sound funny, but I thought the word troll was made up on this site, mainly because it was here that I first saw it. But, then again, before I visited here, I didn't visit many forums etc. Even when some of you visited my old forum, I hadn't seen that word used. Now I know where it comes from.

micki,

Another "puhthetic" example of police "bullying."

Ordinary Iraqis feel pinch of free-market reforms Grocery prices jump as cost of gasoline soars threefold

Baghdad -- At his teetering vegetable stand in Baghdad's Amil district, Haidar Gassem bashfully reminded Iraqi housewives that a kilogram of tomatoes no longer costs 350 dinars (23 cents). They grumbled and reached for the extra 150 dinars, feeling one more ripple effect from the recent threefold spike in gas prices that followed the government's decision to slash fuel subsidies.

Since 2003, the United States has been pushing for rapid free-market reforms in Iraq. Such policies, U.S. officials say, are necessary to spur development and revive Iraq's moribund economy, which is still suffering from sanctions and decades of Baath Party mismanagement.

But rapid economic liberalization here is taking a toll on ordinary Iraqis. They've seen prices skyrocket for everything from shampoo to vegetables to heating oil. Food rations meant to help the estimated 8 million Iraqis who live on less than $1 a day have been cut by 25 percent.

Many changes implemented by the U.S. occupation in 2003, after Saddam Hussein's government fell, are still in effect as Iraqi politicians await election results that will lead to the formation of a permanent government. Tariffs on imports have been cut across the board, allowing cheap goods to pour in from China and driving Iraqi manufacturers out of business. A 2003 foreign investment law continues to anger Iraqi businessmen who say it is squeezing them out of the reconstruction boom.

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

Oh yeah, we brought freedom and democracy.

capt

Seld-realization is a form of liberation the insights gained more precious than gold!

Tonight on CNN's Lou Dobbs it was announced early in the program that Russia has said that the IAEA must decide alone about Iran's nuclear capability .

Immediately after this announcement Katie Pilgrim's spot on the program focused on the "oil for food program" and other corruption within the UN. It was a complete charade. They went on to show a clip of Bolton today after Russia's announcement and he was throwing a hissie fit..practically stomping his feet...steam was coming out of this ears.

He did not say anything about Russia's decision. He just bombed the Un with every insult in the book saying that if the UN could not do the job with Iran that the U.s. may just have to move forward on it's own...DEJA VU.

Cnn allowed the program to be used (yet again) to promote the Bush administrations foreign follicies.

Of course there was absolutely no time spent on the responsible decision that Russia made to support the IAEA'S process instead of undermining it.

It continues to be troubling that so many seem to have all ready forgotten that the Bush administration was ABSOLUTELY WRONG about their WMD'S in Iraq CLAIMS/LIES. And that IAEA'S Mr. El Baradei was RIGHT.

Three cheers for El Baradei who said he would not speed up the process for John Bolton. And three cheers for Russia for supporting the IAEA's process .

Three BOO's for Lou Dobbs who allowed his program to support the aggressive policies of this administration.

Any day now I expect them to say Osama is in Iran.

KBR awarded Homeland Security contract worth up to $385M

(HAL) By Katherine Hunt

SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- KBR, the engineering and construction subsidiary of Halliburton Co. (HAL) , said Tuesday it has been awarded a contingency contract from the Department of Homeland Security to supports its Immigration and Customs Enforcement facilities in the event of an emergency. The maximum total value of the contract is $385 million and consists of a 1-year base period with four 1-year options. KBR held the previous ICE contract from 2000 through 2005. The contract, which is effective immediately, provides for establishing temporary detention and processing capabilities to expand existing ICE Detention and Removal Operations Program facilities in the event of an emergency influx of immigrants into the U.S., or to support the rapid development of new programs, KBR said. The contract may also provide migrant detention support to other government organizations in the event of an immigration emergency, as well as the development of a plan to react to a national emergency, such as a natural disaster, the company said.

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

Sure, new detention centers for the national emergency "Bush haters" HA!

Now, I wonder who is on the invite list?

I would be bummed if I did not make the "A" list.

capt

Kathleen,

I am unable to watch that MSM crud (by choice). It is good to have someone that can watch and is willing to update.

Thanks

capt

College Sophomore Stumps President Bush

Bush was stumped during the Q&A session of his speech today by a sophomore at Kansas State:

Q: My name is Tiffany Cooper. I’≠ a sophomore here at Kansas State and I was just wanting to get your comments about education. Recently 12.7 billion dollars was cut from education. I was just wondering how is that supposed to help our futures?

[snip]

Bush: Actually, I think what we did was reform the student loan program. We are not cutting money out of it.

Tiffany clearly confused Bush. Not only did he have to turn to his aide for advice, but he confused truthiness with the truth. The facts:

Student Loans: On Dec. 21, 2005, the Senate passed $12.7 billion in cuts to education programs —†"the largest cut in student college loan programs in history." Vice President Cheney cast the deciding vote in favor of the cuts. The bill also fixed the interest rate on student loans at 6.8 percent, "even if commercial rates are lower." Despite Bush’≥ claims, students will be left off the program.

Pell Grants: Pell Grants have been frozen or cut since 2002; they are now stuck at a maximum of $4,050. In his 2000 election campaign, President Bush promised to increase the maximum Pell Grant amount to $5,100. "From 2004 to 2005, 24,000 students lost their Pell grants, according to a report pre-pared by the Congressional Research Service. This was the first drop in the number of students receiving the grants in several years; the number had been growing steadily since 1999."

Full transcript below:

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

Clear proof that being a liar does not preclude being clueless. The two are not mutually exclusive, Bush proves it.

capt

# 102 Alan,

"*WARNING - corny joke alert"

HA! He said, "CORNY" joke alert.

Don't you understand that Bush administration is telling you what you want to hear and that 1)they are spying anyone that disagrees with them and 2) no one is safe.

Gerald, Don, Geof1 and I are the real trolls. We all live in lower Michigan! We live "below the bridge".

The Federal Government Has Damaged Our Country

The U.S. Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land in our country, delegates the power to declare war to the Congress and the power to wage war to the president. What that means is that only the Congress can determine whether the nation goes to war. If Congress decides that the nation shall go to war, the president then –†and only then –†has the authority to wage it. If the Congress does not declare war against another country, the president is constitutionally barred from waging it, no matter how much he desires to do so.

President Bush chose to ignore the U.S. Constitution by ordering U.S. troops into Iraq. In doing so, he sent the world the following message: While the United States is a country that has a constitution that expressly limits the president’≥ power with respect to war, in our system the president has the power to ignore the Constitution and exercise dictatorial powers if he believes it is in the interests of the country to do so.

But that’≥ not what the Constitution says. Like it or not, the Constitution is clear, and the only way it can be changed is through constitutional amendment by following the procedure outlined in the Constitution. President Bush broke the law –†the law outlined in the Constitution –†thereby conducting himself like a dictator, albeit democratically elected, in order to oust a foreign dictator from power.

Throughout the entire process, the Congress lay silent and supine, explicitly or implicitly supporting the president’≥ exercise of such dictatorial power.

Reflect on what the federal government has told the world that America stands for in terms of freedom versus dictatorship, limited government versus omnipotent government, and the "rule of law" versus the "rule of men."

What about the congressional resolution that is supposed to have authorized the president to wage war on Iraq? Doesn’¥ that count as a congressional declaration of war?

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

In a nutshell: limited government versus omnipotent government, and the "rule of law" versus the "rule of men."

One is American doctrine, tradition and well established law - the other is a dictatorship. Bush’≥ has a little blue-blood but no where near enough to be called king. (unless he says so)

capt

Carol,

But . . .

Are any of you "Doctor trolls?" HA!

capt

Eavesdropping Smeavesdropping, what does it matter
They've got control, they got what they're after

Roberts is in, Alito's on deck
The Constitution is Out - Oh, what the heck!

Since Iraq is going according to plan
It's time to drum up the support to go into Iran

Keeping the war machine going strong
Has been the BushCo plan all along.

Carol,

Ha! I'm just a hop, skip and a jump across the big lake from you in Wisconsin. But the motor city is in my blood. Both sides of the family have been in the auto industry since the 1920's.

#117
Micki,
One night we had a high speed chase down the little tiny circle I live on. It involved a red car too. Red cars are bad for your health.

"Doctor Trolls?" I know I'm not a doctor!

#120
'A person rejected by a social group, both online and offline,'

That's pretty hard to do, but obviously not impossible.

WMR

January 24, 2006 -- Hayden Ducks Questions On NSA Whistleblowing, Says Three Top NSA Lawyers Reviewed and Approved Bush Warrantless Wiretap Program.

Speaking yesterday at the National Press Club in Washington, Deputy Director of National Intelligence Gen. Michael Hayden said that when President Bush issued his order on warrantless wiretaps by the NSA of U.S. persons, Hayden consulted separately with three NSA lawyers who concluded that the eavesdropping program was legal. Essentially, three NSA lawyers determined the legality and constitutionality of a presidential order, trumping the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court set up in 1978 to deal with NSA wiretaps of "U.S. persons" and the oversight committees of Congress that are charged with ensuring the president and the Executive branch adhere to the Constitution and the duly-enacted laws of the United States. The three NSA lawyers concluded that a non-FISA and warrantless predicate of "reasonable belief" was as legal as a FISA "probable cause" warrant in order to conduct surveillance of U.S. persons.

However, Hayden’≥ three NSA lawyers apparently did not know enough about the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution to adequately brief him on the probable cause predicate. The following question was asked by Jonathan Landy of Knight-Ridder: "I'm no lawyer, but my understanding is that the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution specifies that you must have probable cause to be able to do a search that does not violate an American's right against unlawful searches and seizures." Hayden said of the Fourth Amendment: "The amendment says unreasonable search and seizure." Landy: "But does it not say probable [cause]?" Hayden: "No. The amendment says . . . unreasonable search and seizure."

It is apparent that contrary to Hayden's statement, neither he nor his NSA attorneys are familiar with the Fourth Amendment, which states, "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."

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

Not just probable cause but probable cause supported by Oath or affirmation.

Three lawyers cannot trump the constitution.

capt

Hermann,

Let's see:

The Chairmen and the Ranking Members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees have specific evidence that only (1)incoming calls from (2)foreign countries from (3)suspected AlQaeda operatives were being monitored.

The whistleblowers who leaked the story, who had everything to gain by saying something different, said that only (1)incoming calls from (2)foreign countries from (3)suspected AlQaeda operatives were being monitored.

And your source for something to the contrary is...?

David, did you hear what Bill O'Reilly called you today: radical, extreme leftwing bombthrower...or some words to that effect. Aren't you a Fox news contributor? How about going on the Factor for a face-to-face debate?

Russia, Iran want nuclear dispute to be tackled within IAEA www.chinaview.cn 2006-01-25 07:43:45 MOSCOW, Jan. 24 (Xinhuanet) -- Senior Russian and Iranian officials said on Tuesday after talks focused on the dispute over Tehran's nuclear program that both sides wanted the issue to be tackled with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Russian Security Council Secretary Igor Ivanov met Iran's top nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani in Moscow and both sides "expressed the desire to resolve this problem diplomatically withinthe IAEA framework," the Interfax news agency quoted the press service of the Russian Security Council as saying. The press service gave no details of the meeting but said the discussion will continue in Moscow. Iran is facing referral to the UN Security Council for possiblesanctions over Western fears it may seek to build an atomic bomb. The IAEA will convene an emergency session of its board of governors on Feb. 2-3 to vote on a referral at the request of the European Union. Russia, which is helping Iran build its first nuclear power plant in Bushehr, has proposed uranium enrichment -- the most sensitive part of the nuclear fuel cycle -- be carried out under ajoint venture on the former Soviet republic's soil. Russian officials said Tehran is interested in the plan and is ready for adetailed discussion. Uranium enriched at low levels can fuel nuclear reactors, but if highly enriched it can be used for nuclear bombs. The United States accuses Iran of running a covert nuclear armsprogram. Iran, however, says its nuclear work is designed merely to meet its energy needs. Enditem Related Story Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.

Funny you mention hands. Didn't Bush actually say the Handy case?

(1)incoming calls from (2)foreign countries from (3)suspected AlQaeda operatives were being monitored.
(1)incoming calls from (2)foreign countries from (3)suspected AlQaeda operatives were being monitored.
(1)incoming calls from (2)foreign countries from (3)suspected AlQaeda operatives were being monitored.
(1)incoming calls from (2)foreign countries from (3)suspected AlQaeda operatives were being monitored.
(1)incoming calls from (2)foreign countries from (3)suspected AlQaeda operatives were being monitored.
(1)incoming calls from (2)foreign countries from (3)suspected AlQaeda operatives were being monitored.
(1)incoming calls from (2)foreign countries from (3)suspected AlQaeda operatives were being monitored.
(1)incoming calls from (2)foreign countries from (3)suspected AlQaeda operatives were being monitored.

Still haven't posted it as many times as Bill....

capt #133,

Excellent link. I tried to point out to Bill that many conservatives and libertarians believe that our civil liberties are threatened by the Bush administration's concept of the unilateral executive. The NSA scandal is but one example of this.

On one hand, Bill keeps asking for evidence that the Bush administration's unauthorized wiretaps were illegal and when it is given to him, he denies that it is evidence. On the other hand, he keeps telling us that, although he has absolutely no evidence, the only phones that were tapped were those of Al-Qaeda. His evidence? The Bush administration and its apologists say so! In addition, he is using some of the administration's early arguments that have since been refuted by General Hayden himself! For example, here's Bill in post #105:

What he had to fear was a huge intelligence gathering operation being compromised by a newspaper report.

Here's General Hayden:

Hayden stressed that the program "is not a drift net over Dearborn or Lackawanna or Freemont, grabbing conversations that we then sort out by these alleged keyword searches or data-mining tools or other devices that so-called experts keep talking about. This is targeted and focused."

In other words, the NSA is doing what it has always done, just without warrants! Exactly how did the NYT report "compromise" the intelligence report?

I've been reflecting on this since posting earlier today (and I plan to be much busier tomorrow, thank God!). This debate is indicative of but many in the public forum. Bill has framed it as a matter of right and left opinion; he's learned to do that from the sad state of the media over the past 15 years. It works like this:

I say wiretapping on American citizens without warrants, REGARDLESS of where the phone call comes from, is illegal. He says it's not. We both just have opinions.

I say the Abramoff scandal is a result of Republican corruption. He says Democrats do it too. We both just have opinions.

I say Bush misled us into war; Tim L cuts and pastes the diatribe he posted every other day leading up to the election "proving" that everyone thought that Hussein had WMD. We both just have opinions.

Well, I call bullshit. The NSA was wiretapping American citizens without warrants. This was illegal under current laws. That's a fact, not an opinion.

[I apologize for the length of the post.]

#155
David,
I know how you hurt your hand. You went fishing for Bill O'Really but you didn't use a left hook.

Don't be embarrassed. We love you for it.

carol wrote:

Gerald, Don, Geof1 and I are the real trolls. We all live in lower Michigan! We live "below the bridge".

That's true, but we can point to the palm of our right hand to show people where we live!

McCain: Bush Does Not Have "The Legal Authority To Engage In These Warrantless Wiretaps"

Today on Fox News Sunday, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) said Bush’≥ warrantless domestic wiretapping program is illegal:

WALLACE: But you do not believe that currently he has the legal authority to engage in these warrant-less wiretaps.

MCCAIN: You know, I don’¥ think so, but why not come to Congress? We can sort this all out. I don’¥ think —†I know of no member of Congress, frankly, who, if the administration came and said here’≥ why we need this capability, that they wouldn’¥ get it. And so let’≥ have the hearings.

McCain is the latest addition to a growing list of prominent conservatives —†including Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) and Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN) —†who have expressed serious concerns about the legality of the program.

Karl Rove doesn’¥ want to spin it this way but concern about the warrantless domestic spying program is bipartisan.

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

I am sure the names listed above (and many other GOPhers) are just crazy lefties, eh?

"The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments." ~ Friedrich Nietzsche (1844 - 1900), The Gay Science, section 191

capt

US may use Guantanamo for military executions

WASHINGTON (AFP) - New US military rules mean that executions of condemned "war on terror" detainees could be carried out at the US naval base at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, the US Army said.

The new rules authorize the army to set the location for executions "imposed by military courts-martial or military tribunals and authorized by the president of the United States."

"Enemy combatants could be affected by this regulation," said Sheldon Smith, a spokesman for the US Army.

Only 10 war-on-terror detainees have so far been charged and referred to special military commissions for trial, and the United States is not seeking the death penalty in any of those cases.

But the United States has not ruled out the death penalty for war-on-terror detainees, and the issue has long been a sore point for some US allies with nationals detained at Guantanamo.

The army said the changes in the regulations allow executions to be conducted at locations other than Fort Leavenworth, previously the only authorized site for military executions.
-----------------------
There have been so many abuses in the rights of these prisoners I can't feel comfortable with this news.

Tim L last night:

If you were a commander and KNEW for sure, 100% positive that Osama bin Laden was hiding in a village with other civillians (innocent), you wouldn't take him out even if it meant killing those civillians? Yes

Me last night [paraphrased]: "What if the innocent civilians were your family?"

Tim L tonight:

Don, I would like to respond to you. Yes, if there were 10 Afghans by bin Laden, I would kill all of them! There's no way they wouldn't know who bin Laden is, so they are HARBORING him. I would be happy to kill them.

Now, if my family was there instead, I wouldn't kill them.

Does everyone see how the moral relativist managed to get out of the box?

Yeesh. I don't know why I bother...oh, OK, I know. I do it because I love the smell of napalm in the morning. No, no, that's not it...I do it for my country!

capt,

Yeah, that flaming Lefty McCain. I think there's, what, one or two senators with more conservative voting records? But we all know this isn't about conservatism, is it? It's the fucking Cult of Bush.

Of course, now that McCain is going off the reservation again, Rove may have to enforce disciplinary measures: "Bill! Tim L! To your keyboards, now! Let's turn another war hero into a traitor!" These guys are going to be cannibalizing each other before it's all said and done.

And with that, I'm off to watch The Shield. Back later!

Oh, by the way, in #164, I didn't italicize the last part of Tim L's statement: Now, if my family was there instead, I wouldn't kill them. Very important to understand the post.

Study: Army Stretched to Breaking Point

Stretched by frequent troop rotations to Iraq and Afghanistan, the Army has become a "thin green line" that could snap unless relief comes soon, according to a study for the Pentagon.

Andrew Krepinevich, a retired Army officer who wrote the report under a Pentagon contract, concluded that the Army cannot sustain the pace of troop deployments to Iraq long enough to break the back of the insurgency. He also suggested that the Pentagon's decision, announced in December, to begin reducing the force in Iraq this year was driven in part by a realization that the Army was overextended.

As evidence, Krepinevich points to the Army's 2005 recruiting slump - missing its recruiting goal for the first time since 1999 - and its decision to offer much bigger enlistment bonuses and other incentives.

"You really begin to wonder just how much stress and strain there is on the Army, how much longer it can continue," he said in an interview. He added that the Army is still a highly effective fighting force and is implementing a plan that will expand the number of combat brigades available for rotations to Iraq and Afghanistan...

...Army Secretary Francis Harvey, for example, opened a Pentagon news conference last week by denying the Army was in trouble. "Today's Army is the most capable, best-trained, best-equipped and most experienced force our nation has fielded in well over a decade," he said, adding that recruiting has picked up.

Rumsfeld has argued that the experience of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan has made the Army stronger, not weaker.

"The Army is probably as strong and capable as it ever has been in the history of this country," he said in an appearance at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies in Washington on Dec. 5. "They are more experienced, more capable, better equipped than ever before."
---------------------
Why do I not trust a single thing Rumsfeld has to say?

Don @ #159,

That's where you and I differ. I "believe", or have an "opinion" that what President Bush did was not only legal but just and honorable. But that is just my informed opinion. And that, by the way, is the informed opinion of a number of legal scholars.

But somehow you "know", it is a "fact", that what President Bush did was illegal. It is not your opinion, but empirical, absolute certaintude.

I believe one way, but I'm willing, as is President Bush, to send this up to Congress. I'm willing to put this up to the decision of the American people and their elected representatives.

But somehow you have already made up your mind. Are you willing to allow a third-party to decide the matter?

How about it?

CAPT ...I AM SORRY TO SUBJECT YOU TO THIS...I KNOW IT IS A TYPE OF TORTURE..HERE IS THE TRANSCRIPT FOR SOME OF THAT FAIR AND BALANCED REPORTING. WE GET A FEW SENTENCES ABOUT RUSSIAS DECISION AND THEN SLAM SLAM SLAM THE UN This is the transcript from Cnn tonight in regard to Russias decision. It appears the United States and Europe have lost a partner in their efforts to stop Iran from becoming a nuclear power. The Kremlin today declared the issue must be handled by the International Atomic Energy Agency alone. That statement reflects Russia's reluctance to send the issue to the U.N. Security Council and its outright opposition to international sanctions against Iran. As the European Union and the United States demand the United Nations resolve the uranium nuclear confrontation, the United Nations, itself, appears marginalized by both incompetence and corruption. There is the looming danger that Iran's nuclear defiance may be simply too large an issue for the scandal-plagued United Nations to handle. Kitty Pilgrim reports. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) KITTY PILGRIM, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice over): A nuclear Iran threatens the world, but the one organization that can address the threat seems paralyzed. JOHN BOLTON, U.S. AMBASSADOR TO THE U.N.: If the Security Council can't deal with something like the Iranian nuclear weapons program, then -- then it's hard to imagine what circumstances the charter contemplated to council would be involved in. PILGRIM: The U.N. in recent years has been criticized as a tower of corruption, kickbacks and cronyism. NILE GARDINER, HERITAGE FOUNDATION: Unless we are to see a fundamental wholesale reform of this organization, as well as a sea change in the leadership of the United Nations, this organization is doomed to failure. PILGRIM: For example, a few weeks ago, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan was openly hostile to a reporter when he questioned Kofi Annan's son using his father's connections to get a diplomatic discount on a new Mercedes. KOFI ANNAN, U.N. SECRETARY-GENERAL: You are an embarrassment to your colleagues and to your profession. Please stop misbehaving and please let's move on to a more serious -- no, move on to a more serious... PILGRIM: Now Annan's attorneys admit it happened. This week, an internal U.N. audit finds tens of millions of dollars of graft in U.N. purchasing operations, 200 cases of fraud. Eight U.N. employees were put on leave pending a criminal investigation. The oil-for-food program implicated some 2,000 companies. Human rights abusers, Libya and Sudan, serving on the Human Rights Commission. GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: When this great institution's members states choose notorious abusers of human rights to sit on the U.N. Human Rights Commission, they discredit a noble effort and undermine the credibility of the whole organization. (END VIDEOTAPE) PILGRIM: The new charges of fraud in the U.N. released this week were possible because U.N. employees came forward. There are now some whistle-blower protections in place. And that makes it easier for U.N. employees to come forward and challenge the U.N. culture of corruption as it's called.

Don, as I have said before, I respect you. You're one of the few people on this blog that is rationale.

Now I have some questions for you, do you agree with Capt and Gerald that 9/11 was orchestrated by the Bush administration and not al Qaeda?? How come you don't repudiate their outrageous statements??

You say Bush mislead us into war, do you mean mislead intentionally, or unintentionally?? All evidence points to Bush misleading unintentionally.

VIDEO: The State of Presidential Credibility

On January 31, President Bush will deliver his fifth State of the Union Address since becoming President. A review of his previous State of the Union addresses demonstrates that Bush often includes lofty, promising rhetoric but falls short on his pledges.

For example, this year, according to news reports, President Bush will "will attempt to shift focus from the polarizing war in Iraq to a more popular domestic priority: taming health care costs." But President Bush has pledged to tame health care costs in all his previous SOTUs. Meanwhile, the cost of health care continues to skyrocket.

Presidential Credibility

17 pages worth.

Don #161,

I can do that also but my palm has Flatwoods, KY written on it instead of not upper peninsula! Mine also has a good reminder written on it for when I have to go number 1 in a urinal, Don't eat the big white mint!

I CAN'T STAND IT ANYMORE! BUSH DID NOT USE THE LAW IN PLACE TO WIRETAP. THAT MAKES WHAT HE DID *drumroll* ILLEGAL! Now STOP already!

For what can war, but endless war, still breed? : John Milton

=
A person will worship something, have no doubt about that. We may think our tribute is paid in secret in the dark recesses of our hearts, but it will out. That which dominates our imaginations and our thoughts will determine our lives, and our character. Therefore, it behooves us to be careful what we worship, for what we are worshipping we are becoming. - Ralph Waldo Emerson:

=
"If you assume that there's no hope, you guarantee that there will be no hope. If you assume that there is an instinct for freedom, there are opportunities to change things, there's a chance for you to contribute to making a better world. That's your choice." (Noam Chomsky, The Chronicles of Dissent)

===

Thanks ICH Newsletter!

Carol,

"Bush did not use the law in place to wiretap."

There are number of constitutional scholars who disagree with you.

Now, you might be right or they might be right.

But can we agree that this is your "opinion" and not a "fact"? Otherwise, why isn't it also a "fact" for the constitutional scholars with differing views?

#173

STOP WASTING YOUR TIME TRYING TO REASON WITH THE BUSHLOVERS. THEY ARE HERE TO WEAR US DOWN, BELITTLE US, MALIGN US, MOCK US, EXHIBIT THEIR FEALTY TO A FASCIST REGIME, AND OBFUSCATE. THEY THINK SO LITTLE OF THEMSELVES, THAT THEY ARE HITCHING THEIR STAR TO A FASCIST GOVERNMENT WHICH, IN TURN, MAKES THEM FEEL SAFE AND SECURE AND BETTER THAN US.

Fascism provides the illusion of stability. They are fools...unfortunately, their willingness to heel to bush/cheney has an impact on all of us.

Don,

You can't be like some of the other nutjobs here who believe that George Bush and/or the CIA brought down the WTC, are you?

#176
I think that just about says it all.

THE NEW RNC TALKING POINT: DIFFERING VIEWS READ, YOU ARE WRONG, OUR SIDE IS RIGHT

This is right out of the playbook of Hermann Goebbels! Bill is more of a goosestepper than I thought.

Oh man, I just went to the RNC Home page. That was frightening. It's like a sale pitch, a pyramid scheme, a marketing ploy. That's all it is. Be part of the 'team'. There are no positive issues being discussed. There are no facts being addressed. There are no explanations for problems in the news. They don't care that issues are not being addressed. They are pushing a product. Goosestepping is right.

Google IMPEACHPAC!

As you know, George Bush wants to know what you've been Googling.

He says he's just looking for porn searches. Why don't we believe him?

Maybe because he lies all the time, right to our faces - like when he said this on April 20, 2004.

"Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so."

If Bush wants to use Google to find out what Americans are secretly thinking, let's tell him - LOUD AND CLEAR.

Please visit http://Google.com right now and type this:

IMPEACHPAC

That's it, just IMPEACHPAC

When you get the Google search results, click on the very first link for IMPEACHPAC.

Once you visit IMPEACHPAC, we hope you'll send a second message by making a small donation to help us elect pro-impeachment candidates to Congress. Our goal is $100,000, and we're over half-way there.

You can also send a message directly to your Representative and Senators urging them to Impeach Bush:

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

Sure, another accidental outright lie.

Hard to claim he did not know he was authorizing illegal wiretaps when he takes to explaining his crime. Even he knows he needs a warrant to obey the law but he lied straight faced and without hesitation. The earmark of a well practiced liar.

capt

Otherwise, why isn't it also a "fact" for the constitutional scholars with differing views?

The "constitutional scholars" to whom you refer (I'm assuming John Yoo is one, if not the only) have a radical interpretation of the powers given to the executive branch. The good capt listed many people who can't be summarily dismissed as "lefties" who disagree vehemently with the results of Yoo's interpretation.

But this is not the issue at hand. The issue is that the NSA does not have the right wiretap American citizens in the US without warrants under existing law (FISA). This isn't an opinion, Bill. It's a fact. The president is not above the law.

I believe one way, but I'm willing, as is President Bush, to send this up to Congress. I'm willing to put this up to the decision of the American people and their elected representatives.

That's not going to work, either, Bill. Are you saying that Congress should take a vote to see if the law was broken? We need an independent investigation of the whole mess.

By the way, there is nothing, absolutely NOTHING, in his history to suggest that Bush is a "just and honorable" man. Had he not been born to privilege, there would have been no salvaging his repeated failures. He is a petty plutocrat and I have no doubt he will go down as one of the worst presidents in our history.

proam/antibush,

You just don't pay attention, do you?

Actually, it is just the opposite of what you claim that is true.

I "believe" that my conclusions are correct, but these are my "opinions". I may be wrong, but I am willing to put this up before a bipartisan panel to sort out.

And if you have read my previous posts, you will certainly remember that I am no fawning acolyte of President Bush. I have a great many problems with decisions he has made.

But your side states with absolute certaintude that its positions are "true". Bush is Hitler. I am Goebbels.

Do you know how absolutely silly and infantile that makes you look to the American people? And, by extension, how silly that makes your position look? You do yourself no favors by these antics.

And, yet, no one has been able to offer a scintilla of evidence that George Bush did anything but monitor, without warrants, (1)incoming calls from (2)foreign countries from (3)suspected AlQaeda operatives.

Chairmen and Ranking Members of Senate and House Intelligence Committees say the same thing.

Whistleblowers say the same thing.

And yet you offer nothing but blinding hatred and ad hominem attacks.

Your side deserves better spokesmen for its cause.

*does not have the right to wiretap...

#180 Jeanne...yeah, cruising over the the RNC homepage is scary shit...they are so clever with headline such as this:

Reid All About It: Sen. Short Term Memory (D-NV)

And the trolls think that the Repugs are the party of ideas....

Tim Walz - Fighting Democrat from MN

Command Sergeant Major Tim Walz is a twenty-four-year veteran of the Army National Guard, now retired but still on active duty when a visit from President George W. Bush shortly before the 2004 election coincided with Walz's homecoming to Mankato, Minnesota. A high school teacher and football coach, he had left to serve overseas in Operation Enduring Freedom. Southern Minnesota is home to a large Guard contingent that includes Walz's unit, the First 125th Field Artillery Battalion, so the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are naturally a pressing local concern--particularly to high school students headed into the armed services.

The president's visit struck Walz as a teachable moment, and he and two students boarded a Bush campaign bus that took them to a quarry where the president was to speak. But after they had passed through a metal detector and their tickets and IDs were checked, they were denied admittance and ordered back onto the bus. One of the boys had a John Kerry sticker on his wallet.

Indignant, Walz refused. "As a soldier, I told them I had a right to see my commander-in-chief," the normally jovial forty-one-year-old recently explained to a Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party dinner in the small town of Albert Lea, Minnesota.

His challenge prompted a KGB-style interrogation that was sadly characteristic of Bush campaign events. Do you support the president? Walz refused to answer. Do you oppose the president? Walz replied that it was no one's business but his own. (He later learned that his wife was informed that the Secret Service might arrest him.) Walz thought for a moment and asked the Bush staffers if they really wanted to arrest a command sergeant major who'd just returned from fighting the war on terrorism.

They did not.

Instead Walz was told to behave himself and permitted to attend the speech, albeit under heavy scrutiny. His students were not: they were sent home. Shortly after this Walz retired from the Guard. Then he did something that until recently was highly unusual for a military man. He announced he was running for Congress--as a Democrat.

Walz personifies two of this year's most interesting political trends, both of which appear to emanate from the country's growing dissatisfaction with the war in Iraq and the party most responsible for it. The midterm elections this fall will be the first in which a sizable number of veterans from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq run for Congress. At least fourteen have declared so far. But in an era when military and national-security issues have long been the province of the Republican Party--indeed, are thought to have strengthened the GOP's grip on the White House and Congress in the past two elections--the bigger surprise is under whose banner these veterans are choosing to run. Like Walz, nearly every one of them is a Democrat.
--------------------
We need to support these guys.

From IMPEACHPAC

MR. TURLEY: I think that actually this type of
violation should be a textbook example of an impeachment
issue because not only is it a Federal crime, but it
violates the doctrine of separation of powers, and so at
issue is not just criminal conduct, but a rejection of a
central premise of the system. When the President held up
his hand and took an oath to God that he would uphold the
United States Constitution, he was promising to uphold the
doctrine of separation of powers.

When the President says that he can't live within
those limitations, it is sort of a self-disqualifying
concession in terms of holding that office. And so I would
submit to you that you're absolutely right, it doesn't have
to be a crime, but in this case I think it clearly is a
crime.

MR. NADLER: Thank you very much.

.................

MR. TURLEY: The only thing I would add is--I'm
not as solicitous as Bruce is when it comes to issues of
impeachment. To me, impeachment is not an effort to get a
President to come around. It's not the job of this body to
try to coax a President into fulfillment of his
constitutional duties. This President has already stated
quite clearly that he believes he can violate Federal law.
That, for our system, is the equivalent of a declaration of
war on the separation of powers.

________________

interesting...

Don,

You say that the President is not authorized to wiretap without warrants. The lawyers at the Justice Department, as well as a number of other legal scholars, say you are wrong.

I "think" I, and the Justice Department, are right, but I could be wrong.

How do you "know" you are right?

And I agree that there should be an independent investigation. Who should be the investigators? Who should appoint them?

And, finally, are you one of the nutjobs who believe that it was someone or something other than AlQaeda that brought down the Towers on 9/11?

You can't be like some of the other nutjobs here who believe that George Bush and/or the CIA brought down the WTC, are you?

I believe that there was, at the very least, something close to criminal neglect on the part of the Bush administration. I personally don't believe that there was a widespread conspiracy (these clowns couldn't plan a war in plain sight), but there are definitely many unanswered questions. And I don't think the folks on this blog who continue to ask those questions are "nutjobs."

The lawyers at the Justice Department, as well as a number of other legal scholars, say you are wrong.

I can understand why the lawyers at the Justice Department would say that I am wrong. They want to stay out of the federal penitentiary. And I question the "number" of other legal scholars who say I am wrong. Yoo and Posner?

But I tire of this game. Obviously, you aren't going to convince me with your continuous repetition of the administration's talking points. And we haven't convinced you with a mountain of evidence. So, barring any new developments, I will leave this subject for another day.

GWB is the man who stated with imperialist authority, "the Attorney General is the highest legal authority in the country."

No he ain't George! Why would anyone take the position that the "lawyers" at the Justice Department say that it's okay for the president to wiretape without a warrant? Huh? Career lawyers have stated otherwise. The AG said that...BUT the AG is bush's former counsel, not only at the WH but when he was guv of Texas also, and their association even predates those associations.

Can you spell B-U-T-T-B-U-D-D-Y? That's just a rhetorical question, mind you.

Okay Bill,

Keep spewing your preprogramed bullshit. Your broken-record approach to life is simply proof that you are either a paid bushbot or the biggest loser of a world-class ASSHOLE as I've ever seen!
(and after years in the ER, I've seen a LOT of ASSHOLES!)

Your obvious lies about things as simple as having a business are certainly clear. You claim you're actually losing money by taking the time to post to this blog, but you seem to have been able to piss away an entire day, just to keep repeating yourself.

Your multiple personalities show up and depart at the same times...

You come claiming to wish for rational debate while calling posters here "nutjobs". You show up daily at something called BUSHLIES.com to back the Bushcheney misAdministration at every turn. You are only here to disrupt and distain.

You are an asshole.

You are a liar.

You probably should seek help for your multiple personality disorder. I think I've mentioned "The Minds of Billy Milligan" to you more than once.

Since it seems like a day when everybody addresses the Troll, I'll say it just one more time.

Go fuck yourselves!

-kisses,
T

Don,

You seem like a rational person. I may disagree with you, but you state your positions with clarity.

Please, please don't tell me that you think President Bush either knew about or had any culpability in the planning of 9/11.

Don, that's the problem. One statement like that and the people here are so far off the radar as far as credibility with the American people that they will never regain it. They hold themselves up for ridicule and scorn, and deservedly so.

We can argue whether or not the war in Iraq is just. We can argue about the NSA wiretaps. We can argue about abortion. But only the rubber room people seriously debate the perpetrators of 9/11. It just kills anything else intelligent they might have to say.

I can't take it anymore! How about this? A game for ya. "Bush Shoot-out". Click on Oval Office.

As I read several articles on the antiwar.com website, I began to realize that only God can return sanity to the Nazi States of America. We do not have the power to change anything. I fear that Nazi Americans hatred of people and themselves will cause much hardship in Nazi America.

God works in mysterious ways. He does not broadcast the punishments. He is more subtle in His ways. God is quietly punishing Nazi America. Our country will rue the day for Nazi Americans embracing hatred, murders, torture, war crimes, corruption, greed, lies, and decadence. A return to God and His ways will save Nazi America but Nazi American pride will never let us return to God.

Oh, yeah!

The swiss-cheese "Official" 9/11 story is just SO far beyond debate!

BWAHAHAHAHA!!!

Asshole!

Hajji,

Absolutely brilliant riposte at #192. Once again, I am skewered by your rapier wit, your deft choice of words, your turn of a phrase.

Tell me, do you have to meander in the gutter long to compose such prose?

Don,
See? According to you, I spout "administration talking points" while you present "facts". Well, I don't know if I spout administration talking points or not. They don't consult with me and vice versa.

You may be right in your opinions, but a tremendous lot of learned people disagree with you.

But you have still not addressed any evidence that what President Bush did was anything other than to, without warrants, (1)intercept incoming telphone calls (2)from foreign countries, (3)placed by suspected AlQaeda operatives.

You talk about "facts". Let's see some.

I think I've mentioned "The Minds of Billy Milligan" to you more than once.

Wow, Hajji, I hadn't thought of that book in years. One of the first true crime/psychological profile books I ever read. Have you ever read The Shoemaker by Flora Rheta Schrieber (author of Sybil)? That dude was a bona fide freak. Gives me the chills to think about it now.

And you made me feel guilty about goofing off at work all day. It's just the calm before the storm...I see a shitload of travel to drum up sales in my very near future. I think I'll send myself someplace...warm.

"...We can argue whether or not the war in Iraq is just. We can argue about the NSA wiretaps. We can argue about abortion. But only the rubber room people seriously debate the perpetrators of 9/11. It just kills anything else intelligent they might have to say..."

Yeah, Tell me Mr.Bill (OH NOOOOOoooooooo!) what ELSE am I not allowed to talk about?

Asshole!

Why, indeed, should we place any faith in the legal opinions and "interpretations" of the law to bush's Department of Justice?

Gonzales is a long-time friend and confidante to bush. Gonzales has served as bush’s chief counsel since 1995, when bush was Tx guv, and has been working in some capacity close to bush since then.  In 1995-1997 he served as Texas secretary of state; he was appointed (by bush) to serve on the Texas Supreme Court; and he has served as counsel to the president.  

When bush selected Gonzales as AG, opponents were quick to point out that of all the pool of applicants, bush selected his personal lawyer. Gonzales has worked as lawyer for the Halliburton, and has worked for the heavily corrupted energy giant, Enron.

Gonzales was a pivotal figure in formulating and "lobbying" passage of the US Patriot Act. He "earned" some notoriety with his legal handiwork that led to the torture of detainees at Abu Ghraib.  He has been a central figure in the bush administration’s debate over interrogation techniques. 

He suggested that the war on terrorism was a "new kind of war" that renders ”obsolete” Geneva’s strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders "quaint" some of its provisions afforded to prisoners and commissary rights.

And...that's just the tip of the iceberg. 

Jeeze,

I guess I could just sit around on my money bags all day, hook up to a blog where I disagree everything and try to control the conversation by posting the same thing over and over!

Yeah, THAT'd bring some meaning to my miserable life!

BWAAAHAHAHAHAHA!

micki,
Once again you make ad hominem attacks against the messenger, but do nothing to refute the specifics of the message.

What did you think about his presentation at Georgetown Law School today? The link is posted by me somewhere above.

Carol...you'd better watch it! "bush" "shoot" and "out" -- those three words in one sentence on the internets probably put a bulls-eye on your back.

Tell Bob you love him before it's too late. ;-))

Don,

I have a signed copy from the author, who was teaching psychology in Kathleen's hometown back in the day.

Billy Milligan used to sell his paintings on a streetcorner in Athens, OH...

As for warm...it was something like 60 here today... After a 16hr shift last night I spent the morning reading on the porch, in the sun. (A Single Star, some fiction about the fedgummint's attempt to ram more plutonium waste down the throats of the people of SC! Some of the parallels to what happened with the Hodges' Administration are fun!)

I figgur by the end of February, I'll start swingin' the golf clubs again. Hadn't taken a swing for just over a year after some broken ribs, but spec Spank wanted to hit some balls one day when he was here.

I know the hooved ones are having to get pretty deep in the brambles to find some honeysuckle with green leaves still attatched, but by the 2nd week in March EVERYTHING will be lush again!

Anytime you're in the 'Hood, bro, I got the FIRST round!

-T

Would someone please explain the definition of "refute" to that moron? Thank you.

But you have still not addressed any evidence that what President Bush did was anything other than to, without warrants, (1)intercept incoming telphone calls (2)from foreign countries, (3)placed by suspected AlQaeda operatives. [emphasis mine]

You neglect to mention that the incoming phone calls (or may of them, anyway - enough to alarm the whistleblowers) were to American citizens. FISA prohibits warrantless wiretaps on American citizens. That means the law was broken. The president doesn't get a "do-over" for laws he doesn't like. In addition, have you read about any arrests made as a result of these wiretaps? On the contrary; the FBI spent precious time investigating kindegarten teachers and other harmless citizens.

But we've gone over this again and again. I am beginning to believe that I should've listened to DEN many, many posts ago. Must...stop...now!

...oh, never mind, he just makes up shit as he goes along anyway.

Carol,

Couldn't find your e-mail response...work e-mail said mine to you was undeliverable...but you GOT it??? Hmmm...

I have a signed copy from the author, who was teaching psychology in Kathleen's hometown back in the day.

No kidding! Daniel Keyes also wrote the great short story "Flowers For Algernon," the basis for the film Charly. One of my favorites in my youth; always made me misty-eyed. It hasn't aged that well (lots of flower power stuff; it was 1968), but it's still a wonderful story and Cliff Robertson is great.

Anytime you're in the 'Hood, bro, I got the FIRST round!

How far are you from Myrtle Beach? I have business there at the end of February and driving doesn't bother me.

The realities of exporting democracy
______________________

In its annual survey ranking nations as free, partly free or not free, the group upgraded nine nations or territories in 2005 and downgraded four. Among those deemed freer were Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan, where peaceful revolutions overthrew autocratic governments; Lebanon, where Syrian occupation troops were pressured to withdraw; and Afghanistan and the Palestinian territories, where trailblazing elections were held. Overall, Freedom House concluded, "the past year was one of the most successful for freedom" since the survey began in 1972.

At the same time, Human Rights Watch released its annual report, upbraiding the Bush administration for undermining its credibility in promoting freedom abroad through its embrace of abusive interrogation tactics in the battle with terrorists. "There's no question that the issue of torture in particular has compromised the U.S. voice, and not only torture but a manifold list of other human rights issues," said the group's associate director, Carroll Bogert.
_____________________

Freedom's at Hand! (unless it screws up the bottom line!)

-T

I'm at the upper, Westernmost end of SC. Myrtle's about a 4 - 5 hour drive. Asheville's an hour north, Charlotte's 2 northeast and Hotlanna's 2 southwest!

These mountains here at the top of the state are really beautiful and worth the trip...although end of Feb's iffy for weather, but what the hell.

If you've never been to Charleston, Beaufort or Savannah you should consider it! Those towns have been supplying southern charm since before the revolution. (the FIRST one, not the SECOND one! You don't really wanna bring up the subject of the "War of Northern Aggression" if you can help it, down there!)

Myrtle's shoreline is long and, well, kinda boring (if you golf, though, it'll blow your mind the number and quality of the courses!) the islands down the coast, Kiwah, Edisto and Hunting, around the ACE basin are really supurb for biking, hiking and estuary paddling.

-T

David, Good luck recovering from your fishing accident. Heh, heh, heh! You are always good for a laugh. Remember though, it took Dylan 10 years to release anything worth a damn after his accident.

As for you trolls that continue to show up and snipe at me. GO TAKE A LONG WALK ON A SHORT PIER!

Professor D'Gre out!

Bogus!

There ARE some nice piers on the South Carolina Coast! Many have had recent repairs and upgrades, so a Long Walk might be just the thing!

kisses!

-T

If you've never been to Charleston, Beaufort or Savannah you should consider it! Those towns have been supplying southern charm since before the revolution.

I've been fortunate enough to visit Charleston (twice) and Savannah (once). Both beautiful towns. I knew you were close to Asheville, but I wasn't sure how close. I'll e-mail you with the pertinent info and if you aren't too busy (those 16-hour days must be killers), we'll hook up...of course, I don't mean "hook-up" in the sense that the kids mean it today (not that there's anything wrong with that). No, we will show our tremendous man-love for each other in only the purest, most manly of ways...by drinking mass quantities of ale! We will recall those glory posts of yesterblog, when together we slew armies of Tims, and the internets echoed with the sounds of furious keyboard-tapping!

Or maybe we won't, but I'll e-mail you anyway!

...and with that, I bid you all a fair g'nite. Some reading by the fire (the Fed political hatchet man, ala Turdblossom, just got caught using the NSA and Navy to spy on lawyers for the State who're trying to stop dangerous shipments of old weapons-grade plutonium to Savannah River Complex! ) and a few glasses of merlot should wash the acrid taste of troll out of my mouth!

-T

I'll be here,

or Somewhere!

-t

Here's a pleasant surprise waiting for everyone in the morning's New York Times:

Audit Describes Misuse of Funds in Iraq Projects

A new audit of American financial practices in Iraq has uncovered irregularities including millions of reconstruction dollars stuffed casually into footlockers and filing cabinets, an American soldier in the Philippines who gambled away cash belonging to Iraq, and three Iraqis who plunged to their deaths in a rebuilt hospital elevator that had been improperly certified as safe.

[snip]

Agents from the inspector general's office found that the living and working quarters of American occupation officials were awash in shrink-wrapped stacks of $100 bills, colloquially known as bricks.

One official kept $2 million in a bathroom safe, another more than half a million dollars in an unlocked footlocker. One contractor received more than $100,000 to completely refurbish an Olympic pool but only polished the pumps; even so, local American officials certified the work as completed. More than 2,000 contracts ranging in value from a few thousand dollars to more than half a million, some $88 million in all, were examined by agents from the inspector general's office. The report says that in some cases the agents found clear indications of potential fraud and that investigations into those cases are continuing.

--------------

This is the administration so deserving of our unequivocal trust that it should never be questioned? Disgraceful.

I've been down to South Carolina on the way to a NASCAR race. I stopped at an All You Eat Buffet somewhere in SC. It was the best damn food I ever ate! The folks down there kept on asking me, "We're y'all comin' from?"

Yous guys can smell a yankee from a mile away.

Big Al

Thanks TRH, I know there are people who deserve to go to jail for drunk driving, but my brother is not one of them.
micki, those kinds of stories just make my blood boil! The PDX cops are WAY out of control.
Bill, were the Quakers and other peace activists in contact with AL-CIADA? Forth Amendment, remember? Or do you? Repeat after me, fourth amendment, fourth amendment, fourth amendment.
Hajji, bushbots to rubber-room people, "what other evidence? I don't see no stinkin evidence!"

Hajji, that isn't my e-mail address. Your note is lurking out there somewhere in the ether.

My gracious, Bill Fudd is certainly obsessed today! The Chimperor's ratings must really be sucking sewage.

Back to mining sodium chloride. TTWPTYK!--IBW

#121

Tell it to the Judge! Beware, Maybe the guy tailing him was an off-duty police officer or the local judge's kid.

When I ride somebodies ass for going to slow, I don't like being brake checked either. But I would not go and call the cops on him. I'd probably just flip the guy off and be on my way.

A fascist cop might react differant.

Capt

#120 was a great post, ty.

I first used the word troll online about 8 yrs. ago, I was referring to the people who would periodically "update" the software, I called them the msn bridge trolls, beginning with what was then called "communities" and is now called Groups. I also used this in msn 2.5 chat until the current msn chat.

It would be interesting to follow the word back in time cyber wise.

David,

Do us bloggers a favor and ask your geeks to give us an ignore option. Also, Never let them sell you on emoticons, Ick.

Ignore is not an option I use often but it would be ever so nice to shut up a Bushbot without becoming undignified. It works well in chat and cuts down considerably on the reading of minutia and well, crap.

I regret feeling the need for these tactics, but when I have slogged my way through a couple of hundred posts, and I found five or six I felt were worth reading.........I long for an ignore control. Food for thought.

Im an old broad, pissing contests make me irritable.

Posts I consider valuable are generally those when I am given new source trusted information. It is about the only reason I blog. I blog to learn. As I have chatted to learn for a long time.

Name calling makes me want to thump some heads, Corky can tell you about that.

The worst thing you can ever do to me is waste my time.

The calmest person in a conflict generally wins.

Things like an ignore option let us pick our battles and not spend our energies sword fights with those armed with toothpicks.

In my view, we have no choice but to empower ourselves, get up off our couch potato butts and DO SOMETHING.

ANYTHING..........Positive.

Negativity brought us to this cliff's edge.

A lot is said about the weakness of the Democratic party, I think its very unfair. There are those who have been tireless in their persuit of truth and justice. Unfortunately the media (MSM)no longer cares much, it seems that our News Media, accross the board, with the possible exception of C Span, the History channel, and perhaps Animal Planet.........Seems to think that celebrity murders, and missing blonde chicks are way more important than our kids being blown up, or the abuses of human rights this administration has systematically executed.

I have gone Way beyond Impeachment, I wan't the whole gang tried for war crimes.

While they are at it the Hauge could give Sadam a Trial, would be absolutely poetic justice. It aint about to happen in Iraq.

Trolls bait, take bait, get............fishing injuries.

Nite Cornbloggers.

You knew an industry payoff the size of the prescription drug boondoggle just had to have Jack Abrahoff's fingerprints on it.

Abramoff And Medicare

Sentence in Death Of Iraqi Angers Son
Soldier's Reprimand 'Is Not Justice'

Mohammed Mowhoush, the son of an Iraqi general who died in U.S. custody in late 2003, assailed the U.S. military yesterday for imposing a reprimand instead of prison time for an Army interrogator convicted in connection with his father's death, saying the United States has not properly administered justice.
=========================
They kidnapped his sons to get him to turn himself in. They were tortured too, but not to death like the father.
That's winning them hearts 'n minds!

And here's another coverup and a 'fk you' to oversight...

White House Declines to Provide Storm Papers

Published: January 25, 2006

WASHINGTON, Jan. 24 - The Bush administration, citing the confidentiality of executive branch communications, said Tuesday that it did not plan to turn over certain documents about Hurricane Katrina or make senior White House officials available for sworn testimony before two Congressional committees investigating the storm response.
===============
There's quotes from Republican members there too, saying the same things as the Dems.

Counterspinning McClellan

Thursday was a very bad day for the control freaks at the White House. Osama bin Laden caught them completely off guard by rearing his ugly head again, after a year of silence, and ominously making a direct threat against the American people.

Several facades carefully constructed by the White House were instantly shattered with the release of the terror kingpin's latest CD. Turns out America's Enemy No. 1 isn't dead or licking his wounds in a cave. The central front is not in Iraq, but right back where George W.M.D. Bush left it four years ago. Al-Qaeda is not broken, and we're not really winning the war on terror.

The morning news, broken by bin Laden's favorite TV station, al-Jazeera, sent White House spokesman Scott McClellan scrambling. He learned about the tape only after the American people, then had to face the press. He barely had time to craft, let alone burnish, his spin before his scheduled daily news conference with reporters –†who for once found themselves plying an uncharacteristically rattled and off-balance communications team.

Here was their golden chance, at last, to pull back the curtain and expose the tough Bush war strategy for the schmaltzy flag-waving sham it is. And they flinched. Again. Bah, bah, bleated the glorified stenographers of the White House impressed corps. They barely challenged McClellan as he threw out the same cavalier line about bin Laden being "on the run." And he and his boss lived to lie another day about the monumental failure of bin Laden's survival.

Here is the press conference that should have taken place had the sheepish scribes been less concerned about their standing with a bullying White House and more concerned about cutting through its false bravado and doublespeak so Americans could better gauge if they are being lulled into a false sense of security about al-Qaeda:

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

"should have taken place "

Why is it always what should have taken place ?

Access fetish is still the rule as our WH "press corps" never seem able to press Snotty McClueless or Commander Codpiece on a single issue. Save all of the good questions and exchanges for after and publish the "should have taken place" on a blog or alternative news source.

Maybe we should get a do-over? Kings X? Olly olly oxen free?

capt

Is A Civil War in Iraq Inevitable?

There's no one left to put Humpty Dumpty together again in Baghdad. Zalmay Khalilzad, America's feckless ambassador in Iraq, is trying. But, unwilling or unable to reach out to the Iraqi resistance, Khalilzad instead finds himself immersed instead in gooey egg mass. The Iraqi body politic is shattered, with little hope now of avoiding an all-out civil war. That's the only conclusion that can be reached by looking at the results of the Dec. 15 elections in Iraq, whose official returns were announced on Friday.

Those results gave the Shiite religious bloc 128 seats out of 275. Their junior partners, the two Kurdish warlord parties, got 53. The religious Sunnis got 44, the secular Sunni parties got 11, and Iyad Allawi's non-ethnic, secular alliance got 25. So the coalition of Shiite fundamentalists and Kurdish warlords controls 181 seats, at least, just a few votes shy of the two-thirds majority needed to form a government. Let's look at the bad news, item by item.

First, the Arab League's peace initiative for Iraq is dead. It was, I've written, perhaps the last best hope for holding Iraq together and avoiding an ethnic-sectarian war. The effort began last fall, when Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan organized an initiative to hold talks between Iraq's Shiite-Kurdish government, the Sunni-led opposition, and the resistance. Scheduled for Cairo last November, the first meeting failed when the two fundamentalist Shiite parties, Al Dawa and the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, said that they would not talk to the insurgents, whom they describe as "terrorists." (That word, in fact, is increasingly used by SCIRI and Al Dawa to refer to all Sunnis in Iraq, not just to Abu Musab Al Zarqawi's Al Qaeda or even to the Baathist-military resistance.)

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

When chaos is the goal, ineptitude the ruling force, civil war is a given. "Mission Accomplished"

capt

Reservoir Dogs star dead

Character actor Chris Penn, younger brother of Oscar-winner Sean Penn, was found dead at an apartment near the Pacific Ocean in the Los Angeles suburb of Santa Monica on Tuesday, police sources said.

No cause of death was immediately determined but there was no signs of foul play, the sources added.

A family spokeswoman confirmed the death and said the Penn family "would appreciate the media's respect of their privacy during this difficult time".

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

Rest in peace Chris.

My favorite role played by Chris was as Barry Manilows manager/roadie on "Will and Grace." He was a very funny guy.

capt

70,000 auto jobs to be lost

Automaker DaimlerChrysler said it would cut administrative staff by 20% worldwide over three years, dropping 6,000 jobs to save about $1.2 billion a year and make the company leaner and more profitable.

This comes on top of Ford and GM cutbacks with a total of up to 70,000 jobs to be lost.

Ford said earlier this week it was cutting up to 30,000 jobs and closing 14 facilities by 2012. Ford had previously indicated it was cutting about 4,000 salaried positions by the end of the quarter.

General Motors announced a restructuring plan in November that will shave its workforce by 30,000 and close 12 North American facilities.

DaimlerChrysler's stock rose $2.60, or nearly 5%, to $54.84.

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

Jobs, the life’≥ blood of the people are dropping like flies.

Are we turning the corner again? I think the WH policy on jobs is running in circles because they are truly clueless. The USA cannot run on corporate profits. The DJIA does not put groceries in the pantry or help any of the real people. Poverty has been rising at an alarming rate so to carve out a chunk of money for the illegal and unwise invasion of Iraq Busheney cuts services for the poor, cuts health care for the children.

Can you feel the love?

capt

The criminal conspiracy that destroys America

Sadly, the President of the United States is a criminal. In fact, he should be arrested, tried and sentenced to life in prison as a repeat offender.

He is a war criminal who led this nation into an illegal conflict based on lies. His criminal conduct in the invasion of Iraq has led to the deaths of more than 2,000 American military men and women and countless thousands of Iraqi civilians.

He ripped the Constitution to shreds, ordering the National Security Agency, the Pentagon and other government agencies to spy on American citizens.

America is now a totalitarian state ruled by a fascist dictator who hides behind phony claims that he is a "wartime president" who must usurp the Constitution to protect us from ourselves. Ironically, the "wartime president" is, in reality, a coward who hid out in the Texas Air National Guard to avoid his own service in wartime, a cardboard cowboy who sends others to die while he hides behind a legion of Secret Service agents who no doubt gag at the thought of taking a bullet for such a pathetic excuse for a leader.

But who protects us from the real enemy of freedom? That enemy resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, backed by a party that puts partisanship above patriotism, power above freedom and political expediency above justice.

I’ve come to the sad conclusion that the President of the United States is a madman, a raving lunatic driven by an insane lust for power, given to frequent outbursts of temper and out-of-control tantrums.

Bush has plunged this nation into a deepening Constitutional crisis, one that demands immediate action if we are to save what was once a great nation.

The last President to precipitate such a crisis, Richard M. Nixon, failed to destroy this nation because Congress, led by an opposition party, stepped up and took the actions necessary. But today’s Congress is ruled by criminally-complicit thugs who share Bush’s fanatical views.

Together, Bush and his Republican cronies in Congress have led America to ruin. Unfortunately, too many in this country have sat on their asses and let it happen.

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

If you had a chance to stop Hitler in the 1930’s would you?

That is the question - the answer is woven into the fabric of the American character.

capt

President Jonah

While contemplating the ill-starred presidency of G.W. Bush, I looked about for some sort of divine analogy. As usual, when in need of enlightenment, I fell upon the Holy Bible, authorized King James version of 1611; turning by chance to the Book of Jonah, I read that Jonah, who, like Bush, chats with God, had suffered a falling out with the Almighty and thus became a jinx dogged by luck so bad that a cruise liner, thanks to his presence aboard, was about to sink in a storm at sea. Once the crew had determined that Jonah, a passenger, was the jinx, they threw him overboard and! The storm abated. The three days and nights he subsequently spent in the belly of a nauseous whale must have seemed like a serious jinx to the digestion-challenged whale who extruded him much as the decent opinion of mankind has done to Bush.

Originally, God wanted Jonah to give hell to Nineveh, whose people, God noted disdainfully, "cannot discern between their right hand and their left hand," so like the people of Baghdad who cannot fathom what democracy has to do with their destruction by the Cheney-Bush cabal. But the analogy becomes eerily precise when it comes to the hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico at a time when a president is not only incompetent but plainly jinxed by whatever faith he cringes before. Witness the ongoing screw-up of prescription drugs. Who knows what other disasters are in store for us thanks to the curse he is under? As the sailors fed the original Jonah to a whale, thus lifting the storm that was about to drown them, perhaps we the people can persuade President Jonah to retire to his other Eden in Crawford, Texas, taking his jinx with him. We deserve a rest. Plainly, so does he. Look at Nixon’≥ radiant features after his resignation! One can see former President Jonah in his sumptuous library happily catering to faith-based fans with animated scriptures rooted in "The Simpsons."

Click HERE for more

Reid urges Bush to 'come clean'

President Bush must "come clean" in next week's State of the Union speech admitting his dishonesty, his illegal actions and acknowledge "the costs of Republican corruption," Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid said Tuesday.

"In his 2000 campaign, George Bush promised to bring 'dignity' to the White House, but we've since found that he brought Jack Abramoff instead," said Reid, D-Nev. He spoke at the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank, in remarks previewing Democratic criticism of the presidential speech on Jan. 31.

"President Bush needs to quit stonewalling about his White House's connection to corruption, and finally tell us how he's going to reform Washington," Reid said.

Asked about the criticism, White House press secretary Scott McClellan said, "This is more of the kind of partisan attacks that we see in this city that only lower the discourse in this town."

McClellan repeated refusals to disclose details of administration contacts with Abramoff, the disgraced ex-lobbyist who has pleaded guilty to corruption charges.

"There's a difference between responding to questions like that and engaging in a fishing expedition that has nothing to do with the investigation," he said.

Reid ticked off a list of what he termed Bush failures, contending Bush policies have made the country less safe, driven up debt and increased dependence on foreign oil.

He noted problems with the newly implemented Medicare prescription drug plan. "The state of our union today is that we have seniors begging in the streets for the medicine they need," Reid said.

Reid also said Bush was "deeply dishonest" when he promised in his 2003 State of the Union not to pass along problems to future generations. Instead, younger generations will pay "so he can hand out tax breaks to special interests and the wealthy," Reid said.

The 15-minute speech was prefaced by a video showing Bush clips from past speeches followed by quotes meant to show a failure to deliver. Reid said the video showed the president "has been giving us doublespeak for years."

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

Certainly all good and valid points but I hope Harry is not holding his breath. No megalomaniac is capable of admitting error.

"deeply dishonest" is politicalese for LIAR.

capt

Is your firewall spying on you?

Zone Alarm gets rumbled

By Paul Hales in Jerusalem: Sunday 22 January 2006, 12:39

IT’ì OBVIOUS, REALLY, that the best way of penetrating users' PCs to see what they get up to online would be to become a Firewall maker.

Like, when I wanted a Firewall and was too tight to pay for one, I turned to Checkpoint’≥ little freebie Zone Alarm. It sits there between you and the Internet and lets you know when someone’≥ trying to sneak in through your backdoor or when a program you’≤e running tries to connect to the Web for no apparent reason. When you’≤e as techie as me –†not very –†you just have to trust it.

Of course, Checkpoint’≥ an Israeli company and as a foreign journalist working in Israel you know the hyperactive security services here would like to keep tabs on you. And you know that they do. It has been confirmed to me by a security sources here that mobile phone conversations I have had have been listened to –†and in circumstances which I won’¥ reveal, the contents of a call I have been involved in have actually been relayed back to me.

It’≥ part of the game –†like the airport interrogation, or the surreptitious copying of your notepad while you’≤e off having a body search. You know what goes on but you have a job to do and just get on with it –†hoping that what you get up to in the legitimate pursuit of your business won’¥ upset anyone to the extent that they’¨l come break your door down and cart you off somewhere.

Now, the handsomely-named Mr Cringely has revealed that a colleague of his at Infoworld noticed that Zone Alarm 6.0 was sneakily sending off data to four different servers. Cringely says that Zone Labs (acquired by Checkpoint in March of 2004) at first denied the activity for a couple of months before deciding the software had a "bug" even though, as he points out, "the instructions to contact the servers were set out in the program’≥ XML code."

The company says it will fix the "bug" soon. In the meantime you can work around it by adding:
# Block access to ZoneLabs Server
127.0.0.1 zonelabs.com
to your Windows host file.

The "bug" seems to be present in the retail version of Zone Alarm, so there’≥ no telling what the freebie gets up to. We called Checkpoint here in Israel to find out, but were referred to a US spokeszoner. Trouble is they’¨l all be in bed there on this sunny Sunday morning.

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

We all must be hyper-vigilant about the security of our computers.

capt

Post 26 (from Bill): "You liberals lack the intellectual fortitude to attack the message rather than the messenger."

And this is different to you in what way, Bill? You're broadsiding liberals here - they being the messengers of liberalism, not the message.

If its such a loathsome strategy, perhaps you should refrain from using it, particularly when using it to criticise its own useage.

If its not a loathsome strategy, one must ask what your issue is with others using it in a manner similar to how you employ it yourself .

CIA flights likened to the work of gangsters

The United States was accused of "gangster tactics" yesterday, and European governments were accused of turning a blind eye to the "outsourcing of torture", as a human rights watchdog concluded that the CIA conducted illegal anti-terror activities in Europe.

Dick Marty, a Swiss parliamentarian conducting a formal inquiry, said evidence pointed to a system of "relocation" of torture of terror suspects, and that reliable indications suggested secret interrogation centres may have existed in Europe.

The document highlighted cases under legal investigation in Europe involving an Egyptian cleric, Osama Moustafa Hassan Nasr, also known as Abu Omar, who disappeared from Milan in 2003, and a Lebanese-born German, Khaled el-Masri, who was abducted in Macedonia last year and flown to Afghanistan where he was held for four months.

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

Interesting analogy but seems to me the actions of the CIA are going to be nefarious and sinister or seem as much to one side or the other.

I do not mean to give the CIA a pass but I wonder how "spy" tactics would differ from mafia or gangster tactics. All trying to fly beneath the "legal" radar.

capt

Time to stand against Alito confirmation

These are the times both we and our representatives need to stand up against the imperialism of the Bush administration in its nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court.

Sen. Patrick Leahy, in a prophetic denunciation of Alito's nomination, warns us that Alito helped shape the notion that the president can ignore and violate laws he doesn't like (like the McCain amendment outlawing torture).

On the Supreme Court, he will contribute to solidifying "imperial" presidential power over Congress, the courts and the country.

Let us do the truly American thing by standing with these courageous senators in opposing the tyranny befalling this country. Call the U.S. Capitol number at 202-224-3121. Ask for one senator from your state, and then call back for the other one.

When you reach each office, ask to speak with whichever staffer is dealing with the Supreme Court, give them your name and address and something about yourself and urge them to oppose confirmation and to use the filibuster.

If your religious values are involved, tell them so.

Ralph Martin

That Dang Petard

George also keeps flapping his gums as though he's never heard his Miranda Rights. We're still reading those to suspects, right? Or maybe they've become another casualty of the War on Terror, along with evidence and motive, because neither the president nor his lawyers are remaining silent. One of them, Dan Bartlett, announced that George "doesn't have a personal relationship with [Abramoff]," despite photos of the two yukking it up. Now, Dan, come on: would Grandma be presumed innocent if pictures of her with Bin Laden surfaced? Not on your life, not even if the picture was with one of his underlings. Heck, she could pose with her grandson and Justice would nab her so long as the boy wore a towel on his head.

Dan blundered on. "We acknowledge [Abramoff] attended some Hannukuah celebrations." Reckon my invitation got lost in the mail, because I wasn't there; were you? Funny how the White House, which supposedly belongs to "the people," is off-limits to its owners. Good gracious, they'd shoot us for climbing the fence we've paid for: it's not as though we're welcome to visit. I bet Abramoff wasn't, either. I bet he was screened and cleared and background-checked worse than a poodle at a dog show, and if he still got in, it wasn't because the FBI didn't know about his shenanigans and advise the president. Though maybe George could argue that the team investigating Abramoff was the one that didn't see 9/11 coming.

Dan's desperate, as most lawyers with obviously guilty clients and bad cases are. He huffed, "Any suggestions by critics or anyone else to suggest the president is doing something nefarious with Abramoff is absurd." As if that'll cut any ice with Justice! Look, the only evidence those whizzes need to get Grandma –†a foreign citizen, no less –†is a contribution to an orphanage. No grip-'n'-grin photos, no money dancing from presidential pockets to Heart Associations, no dirty dealers invited to her home, yet she'd still do time. If I didn't know better, I'd say the president's prospects are grim.

Which explains the howls as George is hoisted overhead. His petard's too tight.

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

I think it remains to be seen if he has been hoisted on his own petard. Anything short of impeachment will be short of justice.

capt

US Orders Syria To Do the Impossible

Is there a person anywhere in the world who still thinks there is an ounce of sanity in the Bush administration? If so, let that person read John Bolton’≥ orders to Syria in the January 24 online edition of the Israeli newspaper Haaretz.

Bolton is Bush’≥ unconfirmed ambassador to the United Nations. Bolton, a neoconservative warmonger, has managed to get the UN Security Council on January 23 to instruct Syria to disband and disarm the Lebanese militias. Bolton says, "I hope in Damascus they read it very carefully and then comply."

How is Syria to meet this demand?

Last year Syria complied with US demands to withdraw its troops from Lebanon. As Syria has no military presence in Lebanon, it could not disarm a local police force, much less the Shia militias that defeated the Israeli army and drove it out of Lebanon and that have representatives in the Lebanese parliament.

After three years and unimaginable expense, the superpower American military has proved that it cannot disarm the recently formed Iraqi militias. Yet, the idiot Bolton thinks puny Syria can disarm the Lebanese militias that defeated the brutal Israeli army!

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

The formula is consistent: make a demand or some sort that cannot be satisfied (proving the negative is a favorite) then use it as a pretense for whatever purpose serves the masters of world domination. (no names mentioned but the initials are Busheney) HA!

capt

The Demagogue Neocons Love to Hate

That the administration, which promulgated and then implemented a doctrine of preventive war against presumed enemies allegedly bent on acquiring weapons of mass destruction, should come under attack from all these sources for excessive passivity is ironic. But it is also testimony to the degree that it has been forced by its Iraq adventure to adopt what can only be described –†to the disgust of the neoconservatives, in particular –†as both a new humility and a new realism with regard to Tehran.

Noting how Iraq has overstretched U.S. ground forces, officials who bragged in the immediate aftermath of the Iraq invasion in 2003 that "Everyone wants to go to Baghdad, [but] real men want to go to Tehran," now admit that that such an option is completely out of the question. The most Washington can do militarily, in their opinion, is use air power to take out as many nuclear-related sites as possible –†reportedly more than 300, requiring three days of nonstop bombing –†and hope for the best.

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

President Dummypants has screwed the pooch for the neocons by doing their bidding. They are just to blind to see it. Kind of funny from a distance, completely ridiculous up close.

capt

Bill, Bill, Bill...
And, finally, are you one of the nutjobs who believe that it was someone or something other than AlQaeda that brought down the Towers on 9/11?

it's really very easy to see how bushco is able to perpetuate such a whirlwind of deceptions on the american people with rightwingnutjobs such as yourself ruuning around loose; first they say whatever they want about whatever they want, and the media, despite all evidence to the contrary parrots that almost verbatim. then it's picked up by the likes of yourself and taken as gospel, again, despite all evidence to the contrary. FACTS which contradict the official fairytales are then pointed out to yourself (and others), but obviously to no avail. well ok. you guys win. it's obvious that osama bin laden was behind 911, especially after reading THIS.

Stop Alito!

Judge Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court poses a grave threat to the nation.

President Bush's nomination of Third Circuit Judge Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court poses grave threats to numerous progressive values. Unlike recently appointed Chief Justice John Roberts, Judge Alito has an extensive paper trail documenting the right-wing political agenda that he has actively advanced, not only as a high-ranking official in the Reagan Administration, but also as a judge.

Read more HERE

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

More keyboard activism.

capt

There Rove goes again

There may be depths to which Karl Rove wouldn't sink, but it's difficult to imagine what they might be.

Mr. Rove, President Bush's chief political adviser, defended the administration's domestic eavesdropping program last week by saying that "President Bush believes if al-Qaida is calling somebody in America, it is in our national security interest to know who they're calling and why. Some important Democrats clearly disagree."

What rubbish. Once again, when this administration is challenged, it lashes out at the patriotism of its critics.

Mr. Rove (who is being investigated by a federal grand jury for possible involvement in the unpatriotic act of leaking the name of a CIA operative) would not be able to identify a single "important Democrat" who opposes monitoring all al-Qaida communications. He didn't even try.

Clearly, Mr. Rove continues to believe that terrorism provides political opportunity for Republicans. Uniting Americans to combat terrorists seems far less important to him than dividing (Americans) and conquering (Democrats).

The nation should hope that Mr. Rove's speech was not a preview of what to expect from a public relations blitz by the President this week in defense of his surveillance program.

The President has yet to make a clear case that it was necessary to break laws that provide for obtaining wiretapping warrants in secret courts in terrorism cases -- and that allow for warrants to be sought after the fact in emergencies. He has yet to explain why, if he felt the law is inadequate, he did not ask Congress to change it.

Meanwhile, he and Mr. Rove might take note that it is a Republican, Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, who plans hearings on the eavesdropping.

And another Republican, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, said the President lacks legal authority for warrantless eavesdropping. He also defended Democrats' concerns about national security.

Someday, the nation will have an administration that views the 9/11 tragedy as more than a cheap political card. That will be a better time.

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

Spector and McCain both lefties! How dare they screed against the new messianic matinee idol! Busheney have never lied and are without fault! (read - without feck - as in feckless).

capt

#231 Capt..of course anyone in their right mind would stop Hitler.. he was an insane madman filled with hate and poison. Hopefully there is a hell.

American Soldiers

More American soldiers are killed in the Middle East.

2,496 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan for Bush's evil lies.

Military men are just dumb stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy. Henry Kissinger

G.K. Chesterton said, "Jesus speaks sanity to a world of lunatics."

#228 Capt...we know that this quagmire in Iraq is part of the "creative destruction" strategies of the right wing radicals ... Michael Ledeen, Bill Kristol, Wurmser, Bolton. Some of these individuals are as sick and full of poison as Hitler. No regard to the tens of thousands of Iraqi's who have been killed in their little project in Iraq. They just do not care.

Again I hope there is a hell

.Until Hell I HOPE AND PRAY THEY GO
TO JAIL....

Kathleen,

No doubt about it!

capt

So, my friends, how do you feel about the new Rove tactic of labeling anyone who does not agree with Emporer Bush as "lefty terrorist helpers"?

So, if Bush's approval rating is at 36%, does that make the other 60% of us "terrorist"s"?

Are we now in the "Axis of evil"?

Should we begin a "shock and awe" bombing campaign against ... ourselves?

Now it all makes sense...this is why Bush is trying to destroy the United States.

My recent exploration of U.S. politics has left me with one conclusion.

I HATE POLITICS!!!

I have an almost equal amount of disdain towards both political parties.

At least, when Bush finally completes his despotic destruction of our democracy, I won't have to be bothered with stuff like voting anymore.

Contamination

Linda Schrock Taylor says, "When God means to punish a nation, He deprives its rulers of wisdom."

Hitler Bush and the Nazi cabal will prowl the world seeking endless wars. With endless wars and depleted uranium the Nazi States of America will contaminate people, land, air, and water. In time our entire world will become contaminated through the use of depleted uranium in fighting our endless wars.

The Nazi States of America is an evil nation.

USA - the "Ask us of evil"!

HA!

capt

#246 kathleen, it seems that the Hitler followers use creative language to promote murder, such as creative destruction. To me creation is building up something and destruction means to tear down something. Good post! They should go to jail but I do not want anyone to go to hell.

Internet Freedom Under Fire: Act Now

"The CEOs of the largest cable and telephone companies are hatching a scheme that would give them control over what content you can view and what services you can use on the Internet.

Their plan would do away with the principle of "network neutrality" and shut down the open roadway we've come to expect on the Internet.

If big media companies are allowed to limit the fastest services to those who can pay their toll, upstart Web services, consumers, bloggers and new media makers alike all could be cut off from digital revolution...."

To those from or living in Michigan:

HAPPY ADMISSION DAY!

On Jan. 26, 1837, Michigan became the 26th state.

capt

WHO WILL CONTROL THE INTERNET?

Summary: Foreign governments want control of the Internet transferred from an American NGO to an international institution. Washington has responded with a Monroe Doctrine for our times, setting the stage for further controversy.
KENNETH NEIL CUKIER covers technology and regulatory issues for The Economist.

WASHINGTON BATTLES THE WORLD

FYI

Micki,

Signed and sent from #253!

Thanks

capt

O'Reilly's employers happy to take money from Stalinist group

Fox betrays the Bill and the Right...

And you thought UNICEF was this humanitarian project gathering money, pennies at a time, to feed hungry children in developing countries.

Chump.

According to Bill O'Reilly: "[I]f Joseph Stalin was still alive, he'd be the UNICEF spokesperson."

Yet, a recent Fox email has a big banner splashed across the top advertising UNICEF. What gives?

In all fairness, O'Reilly's asinine comment was spewed during his radio show and not his Fox performance.

But let's face it, O'Reilly's just a performer in Fox's third-rate vaudevillian universe. It's just sadly ironic that O'Reilly's half-cocked rants bring in ad revenue from some of the same folks he pillories on air.

Perhaps Tim Karr has the answer in his post: "Fox News Drifting Left?"

On the O'Reilly factor recently: "Arch-conservative watchdog Cliff Kincaid worries that Fox News Channel has turned coat and is now a propaganda front for 'extreme' liberal views -- like the harebrained notion that global warming is real."

Global Warming? Support for UNICEF? O'Reilly may need to migrate to a White Power outlet -- he's a got a reputation after all... (Mediacitizen)

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

Anybody that does not see through the act is hopeless.

capt

#253 micki, we are about 2 or 3 years away from the internet being controlled. With our suspended 2008 elections it will be the nail in the coffin for the internet posters like we have on the David Corn website.

Let me mention creative destruction! Creative destruction is part of the Project for the Next American Century to exterminate 6 billion people. They are feeding the sheeple's minds to accept the idea of creative destruction. I wonder how we can create the person with his or her body parts splattered against a building?

Capt, 243, they will play that idiotic AL-CIADA card once too often. I have a glimmer of hope that the 64% of us "lefty Terrorists" out there will finally get fed up with those lying, murdering traitors and do the right thing, which is to grab the tar and feathers, torches and pitchforks, and march on DC!
corky, you're right, both political sides SUCK! And the worst thing about them is they have allowed this third party, (who says we don't have an effective third party?) to stage a coup and proceed to drag our country into hell. The few on both sides who speak out are labeled unpatriotic and completely ignored. I have a bad feeling this horrible play will have to reach it's bitter conclusion before people wake up, but what will they wake up to?
Gerald, DU will come around to haunt us, there is no way you can dump that amount of radioactive poison and not pay the price. We have become a deadly virus inhabiting the earth, and I am dreading the day when earth's immune system rises up to rid herself of this plague.

Crunch Time For Senate Democrats

Now is that time. Democrats chose to let John Roberts Jr. pass based primarily on his testimony before the Judiciary Committee, where he agreed that Roe v. Wade was "settled law" and thus bound by precedent.

Alito refused to make such a statement. Between that, and his record indicating that he would vote to overturn Roe in a heartbeat, the time has come for a blockade of Bush’s appointment.

What are we saving it for, the next Supreme Court pick Bush gets? The one after that?

While this country is as divided as it's been in my lifetime, one thing that’s common across all ideological lines is that Americans like people with backbone, who stand up for what they believe in. Now is the time for Senate Democrats to do exactly that.

Is Bush too popular to mess with? Hardly. No matter how he spins the Iraq war and regardless of how many times he chants "September 11," his approval ratings stay lower than the proverbial snake’s belly. His policies are unpopular across the board, Americans roundly rejected his Wall Street enrichment scheme to privatize Social Security and even conservative red-state voters watched in shock as his team thoroughly botched the response to Hurricane Katrina.

So what’s the big risk here?

Read more HERE

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

If the Democrats cannot make a stand there will be no stopping the proverbial handbasket. The big risk is doing nothing. To do nothing is to surrender as an opposition.

I have no great hope they will do anything. *sigh*

capt

Global Warming?

We had a massive thunderstorm last night, kinda wierd for the end of January.

capt. 260

Yeah, kinda hard to convince the American people you the democrats protect them from terrorist's when they act like jellyfish.

Like the old Parkay commercial:

"You don't fool mother nature"

HA!

capt

Capt, I'm trying to think of even ONE effective roadblock the dems have managed to place in the path of this train wreck, I can't recall any. alito will be confirmed and then the new 4th Reich will be complete. The dems have completely ignored the million red flags that surround the BS 9/11 story, and so we continue on our way to hell. I gave up hoping in them when I realized that they weren't going to use the opportunity to expose those liars and put a stop to the insane PNAC cabal. We are well and truly screwed.

Deja-vu? T. Jefferson vs. A. Lincoln, principals of politics duke it out, see who wins Here . Apparently our forefathers faced the same trials and tribulations.

We need troops on the Mexican border to stop infiltration of the evil WEED. All the more reason to legalize it and grow it here. Further waste of taxpayer dollars by the repugs.

The Democrats could do the right thing but there is no reason to think they will do so. If history is any guide they will manage to lose what is left of the American experiment.

Seems like the public at large needs a civics lesson, the hard way.

capt

Oh yea, theres this little tidbit of the pot calling the kettle black, HERE for those that remember the newtster and his "Contract on America"

#225
That story is heart breaking. We didn't liberate Iraq. It's time we start telling it like it is. We are trying to conquer it. All these techniques were used by the Europeans as they marched into Latin America in the 16th Century. It was ok because they succeeded. But as history shows us, it wasn't ok and the war in Iraq will never be ok.

DEN, the worst thing is that it isn't even tax payer money! We have to BORROW money to pay for dipshit policies like that! AAAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!

Medical marijuana goes on session agenda

SANTA FE (AP) - Governor Richardson says he will put medical marijuana legislation on the agenda for the 30-day session that began Tuesday.

Richardson earlier had said he doubted he would do so because the issue is controversial and the session is short, but he said Wednesday he had decided there were too many New Mexicans suffering to delay the issue further.

The bill would allow patients suffering from certain illnesses, such as cancer and AIDS, to legally use marijuana to relieve their symptoms.

The state Department of Health would oversee the program.

Similar legislation passed the Senate last year but did not make it through the House.

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

Medical marijuana is a very important issue. I hope the next generation is smarter about weed. So backwards to have liquor and drunk driving related deaths at 17,000 a year while weed is illegal?

Legalize it, tax it (if that is what it takes) but the money we spend trying to prohibit it is a giant waste of reasources. But cheap or free prison labor will drive more and longer sentences for people that are not criminals just citizens with a buzz.

capt

Who can blame anybody for a little escapism in these screwed up times!

#253
Thank you Micki, I sent a message of my own, signed and sent. This is a very important campaign.

I enjoy the keyboard activism. It may never even do anything except get me on a list somewhere but it always carries the potential of having a positive effect so I will sign every petition, send emails and such.

capt

What an uproar there was about John Kennedy's Catholicism! Now with Alito's confirmation hanging over us like the Sword of Damocles, we're gonna have a Catholic Majority on the Supreme Court. Damn! The times they are a'changin'.

Alito, John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy=five Catholics.

I listened to an interesting show on Minnesota Public Radio today on the midmoring show.
Minding the wage gap
Guests:
Nan Madden, director of the Minnesota Budget Project at the Minnesota Council of Nonprofits. Rebecca Sohmer, principal author of a paper called "Minding the Gap: Disparities and Competitiveness in the Twin Cities" and a research analyst in the Brookings Institution Metropolitan Policy Program. Jared Bernstein, senior economist with the Economic Policy Institute in Washington, D.C.
Minding the wage gap
--------------------------
Good points were brought up about the struggles of the middle class, the widening gap between the middle class and the rich, and the difference between what we expect of those in poverty and what we help them achieve. For the poor and middle class it is becoming harder and harder to succeed because higher education is becoming impossible to pay for.

#274
Isn't being on a list kind of an honor now? I think so. It is an automatic badge of courage against torture, lies and corruption in government, incompetence, oh and all the stuff we still don't know about.

Jeanne, soon the goal of absolute equality for all will be reached, we will ALL live in poverty!

Don wrote:

"I believe that there was, at the very least, something close to criminal neglect on the part of the Bush administration. I personally don't believe that there was a widespread conspiracy (these clowns couldn't plan a war in plain sight), but there are definitely many unanswered questions."

Criminal neglect?? If you're referring to the PDB memo, "bin Laden Determined to Attack", please spare me and Bill. That memo says absolutely NOTHING about terrorists or al Qaeda flying planes into buildings, the WTC or the Pentagon etc. What that memo describes is about al Qaeda using bombs to blow up financial centers in New York city, not flying planes into buildings.

The real reason why 9/11 was not prevented, was because a certain person known as Jamie Gorelick of the Clinton administration who came up with this wonderful idea (which was implemented unfortunately) of preventing the CIA and FBI from communicating. That's a swell idea isn't it?? Now because of that STUPID idea, we weren't able to connect the "dots" to prevent 9/11.

"And I don't think the folks on this blog who continue to ask those questions are "nutjobs."

The longer you and your party continue to not repudiate their radical and nutty statements, the longer the democratic party will be out of power. With statements like "Bush a terrorist, nazi, Hitler", or calling America a fascist or terrorist nation just makes the democratic party seem radical. If the leaders of your party don't repudiate these far-left nut jobs, your party will never regain power.

#278
That's true. Too bad the wealthy don't realize it. The damage they are doing to the economy to make more money for themselves is destroying their livelihood as well.

Mr. Corn: Please read about this law student protest of AG Gonzalez who is on a little tour to whitewash Bush's trashing of the Fourth Amendment. It took place right in your neighborhood yesterday.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/1/24/104921/342

Do you take a dim view of this kind of grass roots protest? FOr me, I think it's beautiful and gives hope. Wish I could've been there with them.

Juan Cole's last few posts are a must read. I think the good Capt. drew attention to one of them.

Cheers, folks (except the mult-headed trolls as always).

2005 was warmest year on record: NASA

Last year was the warmest recorded on Earth's surface, and it was unusually hot in the Arctic, U.S. space agency NASA said on Tuesday.

All five of the hottest years since modern record-keeping began in the 1890s occurred within the last decade, according to analysis by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

In descending order, the years with the highest global average annual temperatures were 2005, 1998, 2002, 2003 and 2004, NASA said in a statement.

"It's fair to say that it probably is the warmest since we have modern meteorological records," said Drew Shindell of the NASA institute in New York City.

"Using indirect measurements that go back farther, I think it's even fair to say that it's the warmest in the last several thousand years."
--------------------
President Bush, how's FEMA working for you these days? I think you're going to need it.

Corporate America, you know all those regulations and environmental protections you don't want to put into place in order to save money? How much is it really saving you?

Prince Harry Joins Army Regiment

LONDON - Prince Harry, the third in line to the British throne, will join the armored division of the army's oldest unit and could serve in Iraq, the Ministry of Defense said Wednesday.

Harry, 21, will serve in the Blues and Royals regiment of the venerable Household Cavalry, which already has been deployed to Iraq.

"It's fair to say that if his squadron goes to Iraq, he will probably go with it," a ministry spokesman said on condition of anonymity in line with ministry policy....

...In an interview to mark his 21st birthday, Harry said he was keen to fight for his country.

"There's no way I'm going to put myself through Sandhurst and then sit ... back home while my boys are out fighting for their country," he said.

Harry is following a royal tradition by joining the military. Charles was a pilot with the Royal Air Force and Royal Navy, and Harry's grandfather, Prince Philip, had a distinguished career in the Royal Navy.

Harry's uncle, Prince Andrew, was a Royal Navy pilot and served in the Falklands war against Argentina.

Prince William, Harry's 23-year-old brother and second in line to the throne, currently is undergoing military training at Sandhurst.

Tim L,

The longer you and your party continue...

Who is this "you?" I don't belong to any party.

Patriot Police

PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS | January 25 2006

A provision in the "Patriot Act" creates a new federal police force with power to violate the Bill of Rights. You might think that this cannot be true as you have not read about it in newspapers or heard it discussed by talking heads on TV.

Go to House Report 109-333 -USA PATRIOT IMPROVEMENT AND REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2005 and check it out for yourself. Sec. 605 reads:

"There is hereby created and established a permanent police force, to be known as the 'United States Secret Service Uniformed Division'."

This new federal police force is "subject to the supervision of the Secretary of Homeland Security."

The new police are empowered to "make arrests without warrant for any offense against the United States committed in their presence, or for any felony cognizable under the laws of the United States if they have reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing such felony."

The new police are assigned a variety of jurisdictions, including "an event designated under section 3056(e) of title 18 as a special event of national significance" (SENS).

The obvious purpose of the act is to prevent demonstrations at Bush/Cheney events. However, nothing in the language limits the police powers from being used only in this way. Like every law in the US, this law also will be expansively interpreted and abused. It has dire implications for freedom of association and First Amendment rights.
We can take for granted that the new federal police will be used to suppress dissent and to break up opposition. The Brownshirts are now arming themselves with a Gestapo.

Many naive Americans will write to me to explain that this new provision in the reauthorization of the "Patriot Act" is necessary to protect the president and other high officials from terrorists or from harm at the hands of angry demonstrators: "No one else will have anything to fear." Some will accuse me of being an alarmist, and others will say that it is unpatriotic to doubt the law's good intentions.

Americans will write such nonsense despite the fact that the president and foreign dignitaries are already provided superb protection by the Secret Service. The naive will not comprehend that the president cannot be endangered by demonstrators at SENS at which the president is not present. For many Americans, the light refuses to turn on.

In Nazi Germany did no one but Jews have anything to fear from the Gestapo?

By Stalin's time Lenin and Trotsky had eliminated all members of the "oppressor class," but that did not stop Stalin from sending millions of "enemies of the people" to the Gulag.

It is extremely difficult to hold even local police forces accountable. Who is going to hold accountable a federal police protected by Homeland Security and the president?
------------
Now I know Paul Craig Roberts is just another liberal leftie looney, but he does have a point! I wonder why the SS was not very concerned about protecting the president when they KNEW box cutter armed "terrorists" were flying around for almost two hours crashing into buildings? One of many unsolved mysteries. Have the trolls purchased their brown shirts yet? Soon they will have the job of reporting all us "unpatriotic" traitors to the Gestapo to get the punishment we so richly deserve!

David:

To address political corruption, Thomas Sowell posted a commentary today that joins the conventional fix of Term Limits with an out-of-the-box HOMERUN solution of paying $10 miilion per year to Congressman. No more lobbying and influence peddling, no more reelctions! And the really exciting upside is to attract really smart people to serve without losing out financially.

Wow, I had thought increasing pay to something super comfortable, like $300~$500k/yr, but Mr. Sowell's finacial incentive is the No Ifs and No Buts solution!

So many of your core fans just hog the keyboard throughout the day! Amazing but power to them!

Don it was a general statement. But I wanted to add that Michael Moore, George Soros, employees of the Nation magazine, Moveon.org all GREATLY contributed to Bush and the republican's victory in 2004. Now, you don't have to agree or believe this, but it is the truth. Non-political people who may strongly disagree with Bush on many issues, are turned off by far-left nut jobs like Soros and Moore talking down about this country and it's leader. The democratic party needs to purge itself of the far-left, if that happens, then it will be competitive.

Den #266

Den, you seem to think that weed is the focus of the drug war with Mexico. I would agree that we should get out of the drug enforcement of weed. However, weed is a miner issue in the drug war with Mexico. Meth is the real drug problem facing the west coast at this time. It is destroying communities and families. This is one of the most dangerous drugs on the black market.

My state has made it harder to get over the counter drugs to process meth so the market has shifted to importing it from Mexico. We are having light posts, street signs, parking meters, water fountians and anything else that they can sell as scrap metal to supply their habit. Emergency rooms are filled with meth users that do not have insurance and homes are being broken into with some of the most violent crimes being committed by people who are on meth.

It is so like you and those on the left to make light of a very serious issue. It only goes to show your lack of knowledge of a serious subject. Do society a favor and turn in your voter registration card, that is if you are even registered to begin with.

Tim L #287

Don't forget to add the conservative victory in Canada. If Micheal Moore hadn't voiced his concerns to Canadians to not vote for the conservative party, they might not have won.

Canada has purged itself of it's radical left just for the very reasons you state.

Tim L.=LBH=Happy,

"Do society a favor and turn in your voter registration card"

Does somebody "hate our freedom and democracy" as much as the terrorists do?

Wipe that foam off your chin, it is unbecoming.

Gotta have more missles to defeat them terrorists, heh, heh, heh. there any money left kkkarl? aw screw it, got plenty, heh, heh, heh, Don't read THIS kkkarl, its them leftys again, heh, heh, heh.

The conservatives got 36% of the vote. They are a "minority government". I doubt you can blame it on Michael Moore. When the party in power is corrupt they get thrown out. We will se the same thing here in 2006.

There's a new post up. See y'all later over there, when I catch up here.

Corky #290

Corky, you are free to voice your silly ideas all you want but please don't punish society with your silly vote!

Don't you need to be out looking for a job!

Corky #292

Corky, I do not blame Michael Moore-even though his silly litttle plea didn't work. The reason the Libs lost is because the people of Canada were tired of the US bashing by the libs in power and yes they were corrupt-even though this didn't matter to Michael Moore who supports corruption when it's a liberal. The coservatives ran on mending relations with the Us and they won. Hoorrrrrah!!

I feel I came a little late to this party.

I wanted to answer and then ask a few questions about this post.

"(1)Do you understand that the only calls eavesdropped were ones originating from outside the United States, from known AlQaeda operatives, into the United States?

(2)Do you understand that President Bush informed both the Chairmen and Ranking Members of both the Senate and House Intelligence Committees of the wiretaps?"

1.)We know that over 500 different phone numbers per day were tagged, do you really think there were 500 phone calls from Al Qaida coming in to American citizen's homes each day? What kinds of things do you think Al Qaida is saying over the phone that will make this program effective? Is it in their nature to discuss technical details over the phone? Still? Anyhow 500 new calls per day seems a rather high number considering the whole of Al Qaida is supposed to be only a few thousand strong.

2.)I wonder how he informed them? Would it be like when he informed the House of the "true costs" of the prescription drug coverage? Or like when Colin Powell informed the UN about "mobil weapons labs?"

I informed my boss that I was going to lunch with a friend, but I didn't tell him that friend was his wife or what we would do after lunch.

That's the difference between informing someone and being honest with someone.

ha. I saw musharroff or whatever his name is, (the prez. of pakistan), on TV last night saying they had killed or captured over 700 al qaedas, and that there are only a few dozen left at large, so how they can be making 500 calls/day to their 'contacts' here in the US is beyond me! the whole al qaeda conundrum is bullshit. I posted a link to an article with a list of al qaeda's, and they had all been CIA agents at one time. bin laden was on that list as well as atta, yet everyone still persists in deluding theselves that bushco are paragons of virtue! ha. bend the hell over people because 'al qaeda' will strike again, bin laden will issue another 'confession', and this time it will probably be twisted into iran/syria being destroyed.

Capt.

In regard to the post about internet security, I have run Zone for close to 6 years, and it has yet to let an intruder in.

When you download "free" software, you are often downloading "beta" software. This is mostly untested.

There is no such thing as a free lunch in internet security.

Also, from what I have read, the newest version of Zone has several security flaws which are currently being exploited.

The larger issue however; is that millions of people think "free" firewalls are state of the art.

They aint. On the web as in anywhere else, No free lunches.

Also, loading a firewall is just the first step, one must then configure said firewall. Of the antihack utilities offered; Zone is still #1.

But the reality is, as fast as firewalls can be written, so can hack code.

If you run software that seems to be doing the job for you, don't replace it with the new much hyped kid on the block. Wait till the new kid gets a rep equal to that of your current software.

Last but far from least: NEVER DOWNLOAD ANYTHING NEW FROM MICROSOFT. MSN's major beta testers are inexperienced newbies. Aka, Meat.

Trust is earned over time, online this is even more true.

Your reference to that blowhard on Fox News, O'Reilly, is not worth the effort. O'Reilly is a narrow minded bigot, like most of Bush's people. Bush himself is a joke, a parody of a president. Someday someone will make a movie with Bush as a comic figure, a bumbling, inept moron, who is fed lines by a Porky the Pig advisor.