Mike Luckovich

By buff

December 19, 2005 07:27 PM | Link to this

To Mikey:

Why NO ‘TOONS ridiculing the Socialist Democratic Party. Bush is fair game, but, sheesh…………….

You have Pelosi, Dean, Kerry, Reid, Schumer, Levin, Landrieux, and you cannot draw one ‘toon of them?

To the bloggers:

Doggone, Lameovich has created another stupid cartoon. Why can’t he be creative? His lack of sarcasm, irony, and wit are appalling. But, he does work for the worst big city snoozepaper in the Southeast

By I Wish I Was Andy

December 19, 2005 07:29 PM | Link to this

Yeah, that’s not too bizarre..

Merry Christmas!

By RW-(the original)

December 19, 2005 07:30 PM | Link to this

I guess the hat covers up The Atlanta Journal—

Why wouldn’t he trample on this “news”paper? Cats and birds use it all the time

By puzzled

December 19, 2005 07:34 PM | Link to this

What I don’t get is why can’t they comply with the requirements set forth in the FISA Act? It already provides for a way to legitimately get warrants for this type of surveillance. It even allows for the surveillance to begin immediately and then a warrant can be obtained within 72 hours AFTERWARDS. So, the “move quick” argument doesn’t seem to hold water if they can start a wiretap and then get a warrant approved after the fact. A warrant application has never been denied by the FISA court, so why are they ignoring the law? What’s the point?

By getalife

December 19, 2005 07:34 PM | Link to this

Dubya, wipe your feet before you walk all over the Constitution, look at the mess you made.

By puzzled

December 19, 2005 07:36 PM | Link to this

Or I should have said that only a handful of warrant applications have been denied by the FISA court.

By getalife

December 19, 2005 07:39 PM | Link to this

puzzled, He needs to move fast like his response to Katrina.

By puzzled

December 19, 2005 07:39 PM | Link to this

5 out of over 19,000 applications to the FISA court have been turned down.

By Spike

December 19, 2005 07:39 PM | Link to this

Another good one, Mike.

The man simply needs to be legally executed. He’s no better - perhaps worse - than Tookie.

By RW-(the original)

December 19, 2005 07:50 PM | Link to this

Andy,

Tou’re good at finding old ml cartoons, can you find the one that deals with Clinton and Echelon?

By RW-(the original)

December 19, 2005 07:52 PM | Link to this

Wow that looked like a “Y” when I typed it. getalife needs to stop linking alcohol sites.

By Mike's Mom*

December 19, 2005 07:53 PM | Link to this

Another great one, Mike! Thanks for entertaining and enlightening us.

• Formerly “Marion of Texas”

By I Wish I Was Andy

December 19, 2005 08:01 PM | Link to this

I may know which nickname cartoon boy goes by in here-

By Pacos Bill

December 19, 2005 12:33 PM | Link to this

Andy: Did King George give you permission to speak on the blog today?

By I Wish I Was Andy

December 19, 2005 12:35 PM | Link to this

Pacos Bill: Come back?

Merry Christmas!

By Pacos Bill

December 19, 2005 12:40 PM | Link to this

Andy: Republican? upchuck, upchuck Pinko? yes, yes, yes

Merry Christmas!

By Scooter

December 19, 2005 08:06 PM | Link to this

This would have been more funny to the left if ML had Bush planting an RNC or a symbolically Christian flag.

By Ricky

December 19, 2005 08:10 PM | Link to this

Lets discount some Dem talking points tonight. First, Bush is using the intercepts against people calling known or suspect terrorist overseas, not people calling their sister in Oklahoma. Second, the theory that it was all poor people killed by Katrina. UCLA has just completed a study showing that about 50% of the dead(232) were either upper middle class or wealthy. Third, the American people think we are losing in Iraq. In a new ABC/Washington Post poll, 65% of Americans think Iraq is moving toward Democracy. 47% of people approve of the job the President is doing. Looks like all that talk about the President being a lame duck and staying the 30% for an approval rating was overblown. By the way, when Valerie Plame was “outed” Dems were outraged about the leak. Where has the igdination been over the leak of the prisons and now of this highly classified program? I guess they only get mad when it benefits them politically. Again the Dems do everything based on polls and political expediency, not on principle.

By RW-(the original)

December 19, 2005 08:13 PM | Link to this

Mike’s Mom*,

I didn’t know you read the blog. Good catch!

*Marion of Texas

By puzzled

December 19, 2005 08:15 PM | Link to this

Ricky, but why are they ignoring FISA? It’s the law, so why don’t they follow it? It seems so easy to get a warrant under the Act, even retroactively after a wiretap has already been started.

By Ricky

December 19, 2005 08:18 PM | Link to this

puzzled, we don’t even know if what they did is against the law.

By puzzled

December 19, 2005 08:24 PM | Link to this

the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance, as defined in section 101 of such Act, and the interception of domestic wire, oral, and electronic communications may be conducted.

Seems like if you’re not following THIS law, if you’re engaging in domestic wiretapping, you’re doing something against the law.

By I Wish I Was Andy

December 19, 2005 08:32 PM | Link to this

Remember, point the arrow down.

Bush’s Approval Ratings Climb, Iraqi Elections, Economic Gains Lift President From Career Lows, Analysis By GARY LANGER, ABC News

Merry Christmas!

By Ricky

December 19, 2005 08:34 PM | Link to this

puzzled, it it is against the law, fine we will deal with that. are you mad that someone leaked this highly classified information to the press?

By Midori

December 19, 2005 08:34 PM | Link to this

Puzzled, you must excuse Ricky.

No matter how bizarre, or how illegal, or how stupid Bush’s actions, Ricky leaps in with a lame excuse.

I often wonder if he has a big “W” painted on his chest.

By Ricky

December 19, 2005 08:36 PM | Link to this

Midori, again you are posting falsehoods. I have critized Bush many times on these very blogs. Even been made fun of by your buddy Andy. If it is illegal then we should do something about it. My point is that the Dems don’t seem to care this time about the illegal leak of highly classified materials. At what point do you put the interests of the country ahead of civil liberites. If you say never, are you prepared to deal with the consequences of that?

By A reeves

December 19, 2005 08:38 PM | Link to this

When was the last time your liberal piece if bile ran an editorial that remembered the 3000+ people that died from nasty muslim terrorists. I saw an oxymoroic bumper sticker the other day, it read I am democratic and I am a patriotic. You nasty liberals couldn’t win an election if you ran in Cuba.

By A reeves

December 19, 2005 08:38 PM | Link to this

When was the last time your liberal piece if bile ran an editorial that remembered the 3000+ people that died from nasty muslim terrorists. I saw an oxymoric bumper sticker the other day, it read I am democratic and I am a patriotic. You nasty liberals couldn’t win an election if you ran in Cuba.

By Midori

December 19, 2005 08:39 PM | Link to this

Yo, Andy: If this is “soaring”, I’m Mexican:

Iraq speeches, election don’t help Bush New poll: A majority doesn’t approve of his handling of Iraq

Monday, December 19, 2005; Posted: 5:22 p.m. EST (22:22 GMT)

CNN — President Bush’s approval ratings do not appear to have changed significantly, despite a number of recent speeches he’s given to shore up public support for the war in Iraq and its historic elections on Thursday.

A CNN/USA Today Gallup poll conducted over the weekend found his approval rating stood at 41 percent, while more than half, or 56 percent, disapprove of how the president is handling his job. A majority, or 52 percent, say it was a mistake to send troops to Iraq, and 61 percent say they disapprove of how he is handling Iraq specifically. The margin of error was plus or minus 3 percentage points.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/19/bush.poll/index….

By puzzled

December 19, 2005 08:43 PM | Link to this

I never said I was mad. You seem pretty defensive for no good reason.

I don’t believe it’s a bad thing that this information came out in the news if we’re talking about illegal activity under the law. Breaking the law is never a good thing. A free press is a good thing. If someone in the administration broke the law by leaking it, then we have two issues: potentially breaking the law with these wiretaps and potentially breaking the law with the leak. I’m not sure which is worse. How do you choose between two potential crimes? But it’s on the leaker, not the newsmedia for publishing a story.

By getalife

December 19, 2005 08:50 PM | Link to this

puzzled, He did not break the law because he is King and if the king said he did not break the law, he did not break the law. All hail, King Bush.

By I Wish I Was Andy

December 19, 2005 08:51 PM | Link to this

YO, Adrianne/Midori: Haven’t learned to speak pinko, yet? When CNN says “President Bush’s approval ratings do not appear to have changed significantly that means it changed quite a bit.

Merry Chistmas!

By RW-(the original)

December 19, 2005 08:54 PM | Link to this

puzzled,

Jonathon Turley from George Washington University and Paul Rothstein of Georgetown were just debating the legality of this with respect to FISA and couldn’t come to an agreement whether anything illegal was done.

Considering Jay Rockefeller (D-WVA) has known about this all along it certainly would have come out before the last election if there was really anything to it.

Interesting that you would assume that the leaker would have to be someone in the administration.

By puzzled

December 19, 2005 09:00 PM | Link to this

RW, Interesting that you seem to be totally sidestepping the issue.

Anways, I’m out. Maybe tomorrow there will be more discussion on this topic.

By RW-(the original)

December 19, 2005 09:04 PM | Link to this

Andy,

Could you translate puzzled’s comment? Is “sidestepping the issue” pinko for we don’t have to show evidence of a crime, but you better say guilty?

By I Wish I Was Andy

December 19, 2005 09:09 PM | Link to this

RW: Looks like puzzled “sidestepped” out of the room.

The “issue” is Bush lied! You must admit it or your a fraidy cat. Or something like that.

Merry Christmas!

By RW-(the original)

December 19, 2005 09:12 PM | Link to this

Andy,

Well I can say that, Bush lied when he said Islam is a religion of peace.

Do I get some sort of honorary moonbat status now?

By Midori

December 19, 2005 09:15 PM | Link to this

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10536559/site/newsweek /

No wonder Bush was so desperate that The New York Times not publish its story on the National Security Agency eavesdropping on American citizens without a warrant, in what lawyers outside the administration say is a clear violation of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. I learned this week that on December 6, Bush summoned Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger and executive editor Bill Keller to the Oval Office in a futile attempt to talk them out of running the story. The Times will not comment on the meeting, but one can only imagine the president’s desperation.

The problem was not that the disclosures would compromise national security, as Bush claimed at his press conference. His comparison to the damaging pre-9/11 revelation of Osama bin Laden’s use of a satellite phone, which caused bin Laden to change tactics, is fallacious; any Americans with ties to Muslim extremists—in fact, all American Muslims, period—have long since suspected that the U.S. government might be listening in to their conversations. Bush claimed that “the fact that we are discussing this program is helping the enemy.� But there is simply no evidence, or even reasonable presumption, that this is so. And rather than the leaking being a “shameful act,� it was the work of a patriot inside the government who was trying to stop a presidential power grab.

No, Bush was desperate to keep the Times from running this important story—which the paper had already inexplicably held for a year—because he knew that it would reveal him as a law-breaker. He insists he had “legal authority derived from the Constitution and congressional resolution authorizing force.� But the Constitution explicitly requires the president to obey the law. And the post 9/11 congressional resolution authorizing “all necessary force� in fighting terrorism was made in clear reference to military intervention. It did not scrap the Constitution and allow the president to do whatever he pleased in any area in the name of fighting terrorism.

By Midori

December 19, 2005 09:17 PM | Link to this

President Bush’s assertion that his powers as commander in chief allowed him to authorize wiretaps on Americans despite a 1978 wiretapping law has little support in past Supreme Court rulings.

…….

The court laid out the limits of presidential power during wartime in a 1952 case stemming from former President Harry Truman’s decision to seize a steel mill in order to avert a strike at the plant.

Fearing that a shortage of steel would hamper the Korean War effort, Truman decided to stop the strike. Although Congress had empowered him to keep the mill running by imposing a ”cooling off” period in labor negotiations, Truman chose to take more drastic action. Truman declared that the government would take control of the mill to ensure a steady supply of steel. But the court rejected Truman’s claim that his powers as commander in chief allowed him to go beyond the will of Congress.

”When the President takes measures incompatible with the expressed or implied will of Congress, his power is at its lowest ebb,” wrote Justice Robert Jackson in a much-cited concurring opinion.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2…

By Midori

December 19, 2005 09:24 PM | Link to this

Senator Rockefeller on Spying

Letter: The record needs to be set clear that the Administration never afforded members briefed on the program an opportunity to either approve or disapprove the NSA program. The limited members who were told of the program were prohibited by the Administration from sharing any information about it with our colleagues, including other members of the Intelligence Committees….read on

His handwritten letter is there from July 17, 2003.

He took the time to say he was keeping it stored in a secure space. Why did he write that? Did he think he would be sleeping with the fishes?

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/12/19.html#a6387

By I Wish I Was Andy

December 19, 2005 09:24 PM | Link to this

From Midori’s Fever Swamp Manifesto:

No, Bush was desperate to keep the Times from running this important story—which the paper had already inexplicably held for a year—because he knew that it would reveal him as a law-breaker.

Karl Rove did it!

Merry Christmas!

By RW-(the original)

December 19, 2005 09:33 PM | Link to this

This could be one of the funniest lines ever written, as usual (hat tip to Midori):

The limited members who were told of the program were prohibited by the Administration from sharing…

By Geezus

December 19, 2005 09:38 PM | Link to this

I just don’t see why ml drew Kaptain Krunch walking all over the Constitution!

By Geezus

December 19, 2005 09:39 PM | Link to this

D@MN YOU KELLOGG’S!!!

By Midori

December 19, 2005 09:43 PM | Link to this

WASHINGTON - President Bush is making selective use of an opinion poll when he tells people that Iraqis are increasingly upbeat.

The same poll that indicated a majority of Iraqis believe their lives are going well also found a majority expressing opposition to the presence of U.S. forces, and less than half saying Iraq is better off now than before the war.

Bush frequently talks in general terms about millions of Iraqis “looking forward to a future with hope and optimism,” as he put it in a news conference Monday. The previous evening, he was more specific in his televised address when he declared, “Seven in 10 Iraqis say their lives are going well — and nearly two-thirds expect things to improve even more in the year ahead.”

He was referring to an ABC News poll conducted with Time magazine and other media partners before the Iraqi general elections last week. Bush is dismissive of polls that reflect on his own performance, claiming not to pay attention to them.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051219/apongoprwh/bush…

By getalife

December 19, 2005 09:44 PM | Link to this

This is a no brainer (easy for me to say):Mr. Bush said he had determined early on that he was on sound footing. “Do I have the legal authority to do this?” he asked rhetorically. “And the answer is, absolutely.” Why would Bush lie, he has always told the truth.

By Midori

December 19, 2005 09:57 PM | Link to this

American Research Group: George W. Bush’s Poll Numbers Fail to Rebound

http://americanresearchgroup.com /

Among Americans registered to vote, 41% approve of the way Bush is handling his job as president and 56% disapprove. When it comes to the way Bush is handling the economy, 37% of registered voters approve of the way Bush is handling the economy and 59% disapprove.

By Juice

December 19, 2005 10:18 PM | Link to this

I can only imagine the politicking at the Hill about this. If one thing can transcend the partisan politics, it’s the balance of power issues between the branches. The legislative branch has always guarded its power zealously and will be especially wary of almost unlimited way this power can be expanded. ie. we’re at war so anything goes.

By Midori

December 19, 2005 10:20 PM | Link to this

Executive Order 12333 - Restrictions Imposed on All Intelligence Collection Activities

There are certain restrictions imposed by E.O. 12333 upon all intelligence collection activities engaged in by the Executive Branch agencies. Intelligence collection must be conducted in a manner “consistent with the Constitution and applicable law and respectful of the principles upon which the United States was founded.” (Sec. 2.1). These include the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures. Intelligence collection must not be undertaken to acquire information concerning the domestic activities of U.S. persons. (Sec. 2.3(b)). The least intrusive collection techniques feasible must be used in the United States or against U.S. persons located abroad. (Sec. 2.4). Finally, agencies in the Intelligence Community are prohibited from having other parties engage in activities forbidden by the Executive Order on their behalf. (Sec. 2.12) This means that NSA can not ask another country to illegally spy on U.S. persons on our behalf, and we do not.

http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa /

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2000_hr/hayden.html

By WTH!

December 19, 2005 10:26 PM | Link to this

Midori: I recall the OBL cell phone incident. I watched a female reporter on FOX News divulge the information on aire. The minute it came out of her mouth, I knew she had screwed up. There was alot of hoopla over it. They very likely would have had him, but too often the media puts the safety of our citizens beneath their desire to be first to report.

By Midori

December 19, 2005 10:30 PM | Link to this

Fox News = the scourge of civilization.

By Objective Observer

December 19, 2005 10:31 PM | Link to this

Kinda like the NY Times!!! Except they held onto the information for their convenience.

By Midori

December 19, 2005 10:38 PM | Link to this

Make it up opposed to holding on to it.

Lying thru your teeth about something, or holding on to it.

I can’t defend either, however, I find the former more despicable.

By Objective Observer

December 19, 2005 10:39 PM | Link to this

The problem is the latter may have us bending over and kissing our a**es goodbye!

By Semper Fi

December 19, 2005 10:43 PM | Link to this

New poll just conducted of terroist as to who is their most supporting news media.

Al Jazeera - 44 percent NY Times - 36 percent CNN - 8 percent FOX - 0 percent

Media analyst believe that if the poll were conducted today, after the NY times aided the terroist with the wiretapping info, they may have beat out Al Jazeera. CNN remains a dismal 3rd rating by terroist.

By AntiRadical

December 19, 2005 10:43 PM | Link to this

It’s interesting that today Morales (cocaine farmer, socialist) was elected President of Bolivia. He has sworn to abandon Bolivian/deny American control of coca farming after taking office and is highly anti-American. Chavez in Venezuela, Brazil, Argentia, and Paraguay are all leftist governments critical/obstructive of U.S. interests. A Socialist block of nations is being created directly under the nose of George W. Bush and, like Don Quixote, he’s off charging at windmills in Iraq. The cartoon captures the memorable arrogance/befuddlement of Don Quixote quite nicely. This is a leader worthy of our support and trust????

By Objective Observer

December 19, 2005 10:45 PM | Link to this

Bottom line Midori, the news media has no business conducting this war through public opinion. They are untrustworthy and dangerous. Let the military handle it, it’s their butts on the line protecting our butts here at home.

By lewis

December 19, 2005 10:49 PM | Link to this

Why are Democrats socialist’s when Republicans budgets borrowed 2 trillion dollars. Do some of you even know what your talking about?…jeez, we might need a war on ignorance.

By Semper Fi

December 19, 2005 11:01 PM | Link to this

Ricky, your points/facts can only come from a thinking person. Hopefully they will resonate with some on this blog that are not played like banjos by the media.

Getalife, You’ve been reasonable on many of your posts, but noticed you’ve jumped on the bandwagon of damn the facts, let’s get Bush. I am hoping it is just the meds.

By RW-(the original)

December 19, 2005 11:04 PM | Link to this

The up to the minute blog translated into the Kings English

and that was BigDaddy’s fault.

By Objective Observer

December 19, 2005 11:05 PM | Link to this

Anti Radical: Looks like a good reason to re-implement the draft! Bush can’t be held responsible for raving lunatics around the globe. But you are right, I saw that today, and it caused me great concerns on many levels, the least not being funding for terrorist activities.

There are countries where citizens need to rise up against their leaders. Unfortunately, our citizens are doing so in dangerous times. Regrets are difficult things to live with and die with.

By Objective Observer

December 19, 2005 11:08 PM | Link to this

R.W.: Are you correcting my english?

By RW-(the original)

December 19, 2005 11:10 PM | Link to this

Objective Observer,

Did I mention that was BigDaddy’s fault?

By Objective Observer

December 19, 2005 11:13 PM | Link to this

Everything is Big Daddy’s fault, just like everything is Bush’s fault. I saw your translation today. Big Daddy was probably fantasizing about a tall, svelt, blue-eyed, blonde. He is trying to find your true identity.

By Objective Observer

December 19, 2005 11:17 PM | Link to this

R.W.: BTW, loved your take on ml’s cartoon (7:30 post). True and sad!

By RW-(the original)

December 19, 2005 11:18 PM | Link to this

Objective Observer,

You’re right I shouldn’t pick on BigDaddy (even if in his case it’s true), he said he had been to quite the movie marathon today.

You should see your response to antiradical translated into “jive”.

By Objective Observer

December 19, 2005 11:29 PM | Link to this

R.W.: Hold on, you just threw me back into my “slow” mode. I am not as technologically savvy as the rest of you. It may be morning before I can accomplish this task. Back in the morning, maybe speaking a new language. “Jive” you say?

By sasserw

December 19, 2005 11:29 PM | Link to this

Bet you same ones weren’t mad when you found out Hillary had FBI files of certain congressional members. Or that the record of Vince Forestor or the records to Chappaquidic (remember teddy) or that the previous administratin did NOTHING when we were attacked.

Also, why do we still have troops in Korea and Germany? Weren’t those wars over YEARS ago! why aren’t the same panzies calling for them to be brought home…what about Kosovo, etc. WHY

By RW-(the original)

December 19, 2005 11:34 PM | Link to this

Objective Observer,

Your response to anti radical in jive:

Anti Radical, dig dis: Looks likes some baaaad reason t’re-implement da damn draft! Right on! Bush kin’t be held responsible fo’ ravin’ lunatics around da damn globe. But ya’ is right, ah’ saw dat today, and it caused me great concerns on many levels, de least not bein’ fundin’ fo’ terro’ist activities.

Dere is countries where citizens need t’rise down against deir leaders. Unfo’tunately, our citizens is hangin’ so’s in dangerous times. Regrets is difficult doodads t’live wid and kick d’ cud wid.

By Objective Observer

December 19, 2005 11:35 PM | Link to this

Sasserw: You have to ask a liberal those questions. They’ll probably be back tomorrow, they had a rough day today.

By Objective Observer

December 19, 2005 11:39 PM | Link to this

R.W.: WHAT???? I’m going to give it a try. Off for the night, busy day tomorrow. Have to prepare a statement for zoning opposition in my neck of the woods. Wish me luck, I’ve been successful so far.

By Semper Fi

December 19, 2005 11:40 PM | Link to this

ABC Polls have Bush at 47 percent approval

Overall, 47 percent of Americans in this ABC News/Washington Post poll now approve of George W. Bush’s work in office; 52 percent disapprove. While hardly robust, that is up from a career low 39-60 percent in early November to its best in nearly six months.

Merry Christmans

By Huh!

December 19, 2005 11:40 PM | Link to this

sasserw, you goosestepping low life worm. When do you start burning the books you unAmerican piece of trash? If you think these people are just going to stop with “terror suspects”, Jews, and blacks you have completely lost your mind. You weak piece of slime, Thomas Jefferson would spit in your face, you animal.

By RW-(the original)

December 19, 2005 11:41 PM | Link to this

Objective Observer,

Good Night and Good Luck!

Somebody should use that for a movie title.

By RW-(the original)

December 19, 2005 11:43 PM | Link to this

Semper Fi,

Here’s a great article that goes over these various poll flucuations

By Semper Fi

December 19, 2005 11:54 PM | Link to this

RW, Thanks for the link.

The Dems are always late to the party and always go home alone.

By RW-(the original)

December 19, 2005 11:58 PM | Link to this

Semper Fi,

Is it any wonder?

By Semper Fi

December 20, 2005 12:01 AM | Link to this

OH Gosh, I was headed to bed, now I am going to have nightmares. Each one looks about a biscut shy of 400 lbs.

By candide

December 20, 2005 01:03 AM | Link to this

There may be legitimate reasons for domestic eavesdropping, but with Bush’s record of deceit and incompetence there is no reason to believe he acted solely for American defense. He acted in his own dubious interest.

Throw the bum out.

By Spike

December 20, 2005 01:17 AM | Link to this

Put alcoholic Bush in a 4-wheel cage, take him from city to city. That’s what ol’ Dolph feared the Russians would do to him - thus did he commit harikari! Maybe little Bush will absorb the hint. Let us pray!

By Ricky

December 20, 2005 07:22 AM | Link to this

Wow spike, what an intelligent post. That really adds to the conversation.

By I Wish I Was Andy

December 20, 2005 07:33 AM | Link to this

The side of this war that the pinkos have come down on, again- surveillance of international communications “of people with known links to al Qaeda.”

Speaking of violation of federal law, when are we going to start enforcing the treason statutes, I can think of several who need to appear in the docket.

Merry Christmas!

By I Wish I Was Andy

December 20, 2005 07:37 AM | Link to this

“We know that a two-minute phone conversation between somebody linked to al Qaeda here and an operative overseas could lead directly to the loss of thousands of lives,”

Is this what the pinkos want to happen?

Merry Christmas!

By Scooter

December 20, 2005 07:43 AM | Link to this

Everyone, I do not have the time to research this so could someone help me out with a link. This eavesdropping, does it have to be on international calls? More importantly, can evidence obtained from such a wire tap be used against me in a court of law to prosecute a offense lesser than treason or terrorism? Please if someone can get me a link, to a reputable news source, I would like to see past the hypersensitive folk out there, thanks.

By Mrs. Godzilla

December 20, 2005 07:53 AM | Link to this

Impeach the bum.

By I Wish I Was Andy

December 20, 2005 07:54 AM | Link to this

The New York Times reported Friday that the NSA was given authority to monitor the international telephone calls and international e-mail messages of suspected terrorist agents within the United States.

Isn’t it wonderful that we have to fight a highly motivated, determined enemy, the killers of Al Qaeda, and the pinkos in the United States at the same time? That just because a group of immature, overwrought, hysterical middle aged losers can’t control the child within themselves, we have to divert resources away from the protection of our country to deal with their immoral outbursts. Anybody else think we need to set up a pinko internment camp until this war is over?

Everybody knows that, if we get hit again, the libs are not going to step and say “we were wrong.” They are going to say the same thing they always do, the only thought they are capable of forming anymore, “impeach Bush.” They could care less about defending America, they will throw this country in the trash if it gets them a couple of seats in the Senate back.

Are they not more dangerous then Al Qaeda?

Merry Christmas!

By Brian Curtis

December 20, 2005 07:58 AM | Link to this

Governments always want more police power, and intelligence agencies always want to circumvent that pesky ol’ Constitution to do their jobs more “efficiently.”

It’s for our own safety, you see. Feel better now?

By I Wish I Was Andy

December 20, 2005 08:02 AM | Link to this

Pinos always want circumvent the truth to get their lies out more efficently, Brian.

The New York Times reported Friday that the NSA was given authority to monitor the international telephone calls and international e-mail messages of suspected terrorist agents within the United States.

Your little molestation ring is not going to earn you a wire tap, clown.

Merry Christmas!

By Ricky

December 20, 2005 08:05 AM | Link to this

Brian Curtis, at what point do we put the national security of our citizens ahead of civil liberties? If we don’t are you prepeared to deal with the consequences of that?

By Ira

December 20, 2005 08:06 AM | Link to this

The wiretapping is a clear violation of the law.

If this doesn’t qualify as a High Crime or Misdemeanor, nothing does.

Well done Mike. Keep ‘em coming.

By Ira

December 20, 2005 08:10 AM | Link to this

Ricky,

Excuse me for butting in here…

There is NEVER a point at which we put ANYTHING ahead of our civil liberties.

To quote James Madison:

If tyranny and oppression ever come to this land, it will be in guise of fighting a foreign enenmy.

By RW-(the original)

December 20, 2005 08:12 AM | Link to this

Scooter,

This link gives a clearer picture of the scenario

People familiar with the process say the problem is not so much with the court itself as with the process required to bring a case before the court. “It takes days, sometimes weeks, to get the application for FISA together,” says one source. “It’s not so much that the court doesn’t grant them quickly, it’s that it takes a long time to get to the court. Even after the Patriot Act, it’s still a very cumbersome process. It is not built for speed, it is not built to be efficient. It is built with an eye to keeping [investigators] in check.” And even though the attorney general has the authority in some cases to undertake surveillance immediately, and then seek an emergency warrant, that process is just as cumbersome as the normal way of doing things

This seems to be for prevention not prosecution. I would think trial lawyers would love this.

By I Wish I Was Andy

December 20, 2005 08:12 AM | Link to this

Looks like Al Qaeda worships poll numbers just as much as the pinkos do-

Perhaps the murder was committed by putting a bullet in our countryman’s head, rather than removing it, in deference to the recently disclosed injunction from an al Qaeda leader to one of his franchisees in Iraq that beheadings have proven counterproductive to the cause.

We wouldn’t want to listen in on their telephone conversation, that could lead the pigs to Ira’s pot growing operation.

Merry Christmas!

By I Wish I Was Andy

December 20, 2005 08:16 AM | Link to this

Abraham Lincoln, Freer of the Slaves: The Constitution is not a suicide pact (hat tip, El Rushbo.)

Merry Christmas!

By I Wish I Was Andy

December 20, 2005 08:24 AM | Link to this

Scooter: This is a good summary:http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20051219-091757-7648r.htm

Merry Christmas!

By RW-(the original)

December 20, 2005 08:25 AM | Link to this

[Hysterical or overly self important?{(http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5642776)

By Ricky

December 20, 2005 08:25 AM | Link to this

Ira, so the national security of the American citizens never outweighs your personal civil liberties? So you would rather stand by and not do everything we can to stop and enemy that has already killed 3,000 of our citizens here in America.

By RW-(the original)

December 20, 2005 08:28 AM | Link to this

Hysterical or overly self important?

Need coffee!

By I Wish I Was Andy

December 20, 2005 08:32 AM | Link to this

We must protect Ira’s pot farm even if it costs us our Country!

Or your life!

Merry Christmas!

By RW-(the original)

December 20, 2005 08:35 AM | Link to this

Andy,

IRA’s pot?

By Ira

December 20, 2005 08:37 AM | Link to this

Ricky,

To restrict liberty is to restrict freedom. Isn’t that diametricly opposed to what this country is all about?

If the Government can spy on you, just because the President wants to do so, what’s to stop them from going further? Don’t tell me “the law” as these actions make abundantly clear this adminisration has illustrated that they do not view the law as an impediment to doing whatever they deem necessary.

The are certainly entitled to whatever they deem necessary, within the law.

Working outside the law, subverting the rights of any citizen, and keeping it all “secret” is illegal.

All the president had to do was ask, within 72 hours, that the Court approve his actions. These protestations from the GOP that FISA is cumbersom and unweildy are questionable at best. If a law doesn’t work, change it. Don’t ignore it.

That’s illegal. That’s immoral. That’s impeachable.

By Pinko Liberal

December 20, 2005 08:37 AM | Link to this

Way to go Mike! Best depiction of Dubya yet.

By Ira

December 20, 2005 08:40 AM | Link to this

Andy and RW,

Thanks for the post’s.

This is a perfect illustration of your intellectual abilities. Thanks for the demonstration.

You are dismissed, chicken hawks.

By gttim

December 20, 2005 08:41 AM | Link to this

Man, the wingnuts and Bush lovers are out in force. I won’t read all the trash written but let’s look at the facts. Bush is the first president in history to admit to an impeachable offense. He broke the law while in office, and told people to perform illegal wiretaps. You say he needs to move fast? The law allows for them to be approved 72 hours after they are started. No excuse.

Now what about leaking sensitive information? Wow, I agree with you. Somebody needs to be punished! Whoever leaked the name and identity of a CIA undercover operative should be shot for treason. That person is inside the Bush Whitehouse.

Whoever leaked the information that people were breaking the law with illegal wiretaps should be given a medal. American and Patriots do not hide lawbreakers. We punish them. Sadly, the GOP controlled Senate and House will never pursue it. Everything is evidently okay of you are a Republican.

For the love of God you silly wingnuts, take some English classes. Real Americans know how to spell and use grammar properly. You need to learn the language if you want to live here. If you cannot learn it, move someplace else.

By I Wish I Was Andy

December 20, 2005 08:41 AM | Link to this

Scooter: This is even better-

The voices of outrage misread the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Title 50 of the U.S. Code, Chapter 36, Subchapter I, Section 1802, “Electronic surveillance authorization without court order,” reads: “[T]he President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year,” provided a series of conditions are met. Surveillance must be directed only at agents of foreign powers; there can be no likely surveillance of a “U.S. person” (more on this term below); and there must be strict congressional oversight in the intelligence committees. The critics (pinkos) ignore the Joint Authorization for Use of Military Force, enacted by Congress shortly after September 11, which can be viewed as a congressional declaration of war on the terrorists and a stamp of approval for the president’s wartime actions.

Merry Christmas!

By AntiRadical

December 20, 2005 08:43 AM | Link to this

Good quote from Madison, Ira. Here’s another: “A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both, and deserve neitherâ€?-Thomas Jefferson. Ricky: we should never trade liberty for security because we will never get that liberty back and a population that loves and fully supports its’ country is the most secure country that there is. If a citizenry becomes disaffected with its’ government, then the government not only has to fight its’ enemy but its’ own citizenry as well. Does that sound “secure” to you?

By Mara

December 20, 2005 08:46 AM | Link to this

Ricky, if our civil liberties are not protected, there isn’t much left of the “American way” now is there? Our civil liberties and Constitutional rights/protections are what makes America the country that it is. Would you trade freedom for safety?

By Mrs. Godzilla

December 20, 2005 08:49 AM | Link to this

To paraphrase, I wish somebody would fellate the president so we could impeach him.

By I Wish I Was Andy

December 20, 2005 08:49 AM | Link to this

The question begs to be asked. Are you-

Answers, please.

Merry Christmas!

By Ira

December 20, 2005 08:50 AM | Link to this

Andy,

I want to ignore you but your posts make this just too much fun.

Let’s take a look at your cite from Reverend Moon’s Washington Times, shall we?

I’ll address just two of the points from that - I’m gusssing you think this bolsters your argument.

First, “…for periods of up to one year…” This has been going on for well over a year. Do you understand the concept of time?

Second, “…there must be strict congressional oversight in the intelligence committees.” There was no oversight by any committee. President Bush acknowledged this as has those members of Congress that were “informed.”

So, your example via Rev. Moon actually proves that the President acted illegaly and that the Rev.’s lawyers aren’t very good.

Wanna try again?

By AntiRadical

December 20, 2005 08:51 AM | Link to this

Andy: 1=No. 2=No. Any more questions?

By RW-(the original)

December 20, 2005 08:52 AM | Link to this

Scooter,

Here’s more.

The allegation of Presidential law-breaking rests solely on the fact that Mr. Bush authorized wiretaps without first getting the approval of the court established under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. But no Administration then or since has ever conceded that that Act trumped a President’s power to make exceptions to FISA if national security required it. FISA established a process by which certain wiretaps in the context of the Cold War could be approved, not a limit on what wiretaps could ever be allowed. The courts have been explicit on this point, most recently in In Re: Sealed Case, the 2002 opinion by the special panel of appellate judges established to hear FISA appeals. In its per curiam opinion, the court noted that in a previous FISA case (U.S. v. Truong), a federal “court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue [our emphasis], held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information.” And further that “we take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power.”

Full Article

By Objective Observer

December 20, 2005 08:54 AM | Link to this

Ira: A cumbersome and overloaded legal system can result in this or this. Take your pick! The latter being one that clearly effects the individual, the other jeopardizes all of us.

By I Wish I Was Andy

December 20, 2005 08:56 AM | Link to this

Ira: So what state do you represent in Congress? I can easily guess your party affiliation, your with the anti Americans. If you’re not a Senator, than how would you know what top secret deliberations have been undertaken? Are you a clairvoyant pinko?

Anti Radical- The third answer, I forgot to include: Are you a mental case? You have to answer yes to one of the above.

Merry Christmas!

By getalife

December 20, 2005 08:57 AM | Link to this

Complainers get more than phone taps.

By Objective Observer

December 20, 2005 08:57 AM | Link to this

Ira: Sorry, let’s try the second link again. Or this

By AntiRadical

December 20, 2005 08:58 AM | Link to this

Andy nobody HAS to answer yes to anything that you say here. This is still America despite you.

By The Sad Truth

December 20, 2005 08:59 AM | Link to this

Sadly, this will not be the straw that breaks the camel’s back and gets this jerk impeached. Come to think of it, that would make Chaney president and he’d move from listening in to Americans’ phone conversations to torturing the truth out of us. What a morally bankrupt nation we are becoming. Happy holidays.

By I Wish I Was Andy

December 20, 2005 08:59 AM | Link to this

Some more evidence of liberal kook conspiracy theories: The Religious Cult Washington Times Cabal!:

President Bush presents a clear and present danger to the rule of law. He cannot be trusted to conduct the war against global terrorism with a decent respect for civil liberties and checks against executive abuses. Congress should swiftly enact a code that would require Mr. Bush to obtain legislative consent for every counterterrorism measure that would materially impair individual freedoms.

Some conspiracy theory. You pinkos know nothing about objectivity. The AJC would commit mass suicide before they gave column inches to an opposing view.

Merry Christmas!

By Semper Fi

December 20, 2005 09:01 AM | Link to this

Let’s see After 9/11 Americans came to grips with the fact that the President may have to blast passenger airlines out of the sky, 4 years later we’re getting out panties in a wad over listening to international call with known terrorist because the media and democrats say it might not be legal.

REMEMBER 9/11

By Ira

December 20, 2005 09:03 AM | Link to this

OO,

Second link just takes me to CaseLaw.com.

Care to share your point here?

Thanks.

By getalife

December 20, 2005 09:07 AM | Link to this

[Do you really believe the Bush administration can move quick enough to stop an attack?(http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/20/politics/20spy.html?hp&ex=1135141200&en=2482fe54dc426f4e&ei=5094&partner=homepage) Please read on the Katrina response.

By AntiRadical

December 20, 2005 09:08 AM | Link to this

Have to agree that this latest Presidential a*-viewing is probably the result of biased media coverage. Clinton did exactly the same stuff with the NSA when he was in office but that has not been widely reported. This is not a party issue; it is an issue of Presidential power. Do we want an Imperial Presidency? Remember Republicans- you will then have to tolerate the occasional Imperial CLINTON as well!!!

By I Wish I Was Andy

December 20, 2005 09:08 AM | Link to this

Alright, anti American: Allow me to expand the choices to include you-

Did I forget anything this time?

Merry Christmas!

By getalife

December 20, 2005 09:08 AM | Link to this

December 20, 2005 09:07 AM | Link to this

Do you really believe the Bush administration can move quick enough to stop an attack? Please read on the Katrina response.

By AntiRadical

December 20, 2005 09:11 AM | Link to this

Yes Andy, you forgot to engage your civility. Merry Cristmas to you too.

By Ira

December 20, 2005 09:12 AM | Link to this

Andy,

Just what this board has come to expect from you, thanks! You are continually exposed as a small minded kook with your inability to discuss points rationally.

Get exposed for a weak point; ignore, regroup, google search, attack again.

Pathetic.

Keep trying though, it’s all very amusing.

RW,

Took a look at the WSJ editorial you excerpted and took a look at thier cite, US v Truong and there is nothing in that decision by the Tenth Circuit that references the President’s ability to collect intellegence on foreign powers. It’s a drug case for goodness sakes.

You too, try again.

By Ricky

December 20, 2005 09:18 AM | Link to this

Again many of the so called facts that the left are posting are incorrect. Bush is not spying on people making calls within the United States. He was spying on people making calls overseas to known terrorist or terrorist organizations. While I agree that the tactic seems extreme, lets see if he did in fact break a law. Lets use this hypothetical, if we intercept a call to a known terrorist overseas do we want to wait 72 hours for the FISA court to decide if we can monitor the call. By the point the call is over. And the hypocrites are out on this leak. They say the person who leaked Plame(who many contend wasn’t a secret anymore) should be jailed. One person is already under indictment. However, when the leak about the prisons was exposed that was okay. When this HIGHLY sensitive program was leaked, hey no biggie. Its okay because it makes the Bush administration look bad. So run with it. What a joke.

By RW-(the original)

December 20, 2005 09:18 AM | Link to this

Ira,

In Re: Sealed Case, the 2002 opinion by the special panel of appellate judges established to hear FISA appeals. In its per curiam opinion, the court noted that in a previous FISA case (U.S. v. Truong),…

The precedent they are citing is from “sealed case” which references Truong.

By I Wish I Was Andy

December 20, 2005 09:20 AM | Link to this

Wars, after all, demand broad sacrifice; but the president has been reluctant to call upon an America coddled by affluenza to make any sacrifices. Indeed, a few weeks after the 9/11 attacks, the president suggested patriotic Americans return to their routines — starting with a trip to the nearest shopping mall.

War time sacrifices? You mean like giving up civil liberties? Is that Thomas Jefferson? George Washington? Nope, it’s Queen Pinko, Cynthia Tucker demanding sacrifices from Americans in war time.

Merry Christmas!

By Jesus

December 20, 2005 09:20 AM | Link to this

IMPEACH BUSH NOW!!!

By I Wish I Was Andy

December 20, 2005 09:24 AM | Link to this

Ira: You’re right, I could succumb to making weak insinuations totally devoid of any context, like you have.

Merry Christmas!

By Ira

December 20, 2005 09:30 AM | Link to this

Ricky,

FISA does not require the govenment to wait 72 hours before acting. They can act immediately and listen to the call.

The government must seek Judicial oversight within 72 hours of their actions.

Seems pretty easy. 3 days to come up with the documents required and present it all to a judge in secret.

Sheesh, you just don’t want to get it.

By Lil' Hottie

December 20, 2005 09:32 AM | Link to this

Ricky - Pay attention, he doesn’t have to wait 72 hours. He can immediately order the tap and has to notify the court WITHIN 72 hours.

By Ricky

December 20, 2005 09:35 AM | Link to this

Ira, let me ask you something. Are you mad that a secret intelligence operation was leaked to the press and made public? Does that bother you at all? Do you really think your personal civil liberties are going to be violated?

By underwhelm

December 20, 2005 09:36 AM | Link to this

Can you get any more vapid or passive aggressive, ending every post with merry Christmas? How un-Christian.

I, for one, welcome our constitution ignoring overlords. Activist executives with creative readings of a living document like the constitution don’t subvert our country, they radically reform it to maximize profit, just like the authors intended. It says so in the bible.

By Semper Fi

December 20, 2005 09:38 AM | Link to this

Ricky, no they don’t care where the leak came from, that issue is not where the media has lead them, this time. Little sheep…. Defenseless democrats..

By buff

December 20, 2005 09:39 AM | Link to this

If the Socialist-DemocRATS do get control of the House in ‘06, which is possible, I hope they bring articles of impeachment against the Prez

That is all it would take to destroy that leftist cabal as even the leftist media would be obligated to expose their anti-American views. We cannot tape OBL talking to Midori/Candide/heavenly/Malachi in he/she/its trailer park without a warrant?

This is the party that thinks that terorists should be accorded the Geneva Convention. Expose them for what they are

By getalife

December 20, 2005 09:40 AM | Link to this

What you will find out in the future is the leak was a former NSA official who came forward due to the abuse of this power. Just a guess but it makes sense.

By I Wish I Was Andy

December 20, 2005 09:41 AM | Link to this

underwhelm: Come back?

Merry Christmas!

By Ira

December 20, 2005 09:44 AM | Link to this

RW,

Found and read “Sealed Case”.

Don’t like it but the WSJ quote is accurate.

By AntiRadical

December 20, 2005 09:44 AM | Link to this

Semper Fi: Big difference between a leak made to attack/silence political opponents (Valerie Plame) and a leak made by a whistleblower to call attention to government misconduct. This is where your argument breaks down.

By Ricky

December 20, 2005 09:44 AM | Link to this

getalife, why aren’t people up in arms about the leak. There is a good arguement here whether or not this was legal with good lawyers on both sides making their cases. It it turns out to be legal, should that person be indicted for leaking classified material?

By RW-(the original)

December 20, 2005 09:46 AM | Link to this

AntiRadical,

Nice of you to admit that an employee of the CIA was an active political opponent of the Commander in Chief.

By I Wish I Was Andy

December 20, 2005 09:51 AM | Link to this

Scooter: The Wall Street Journal weighs in:

The courts have been explicit on this point, most recently in In Re: Sealed Case, the 2002 opinion by the special panel of appellate judges established to hear FISA appeals. In its per curiam opinion, the court noted that in a previous FISA case (U.S. v. Truong), a federal “court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information.” And further that “we take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power.”

Any questions? (Asked of the pinkos, not Scooter.)

Merry Christmas!

By AntiRadical

December 20, 2005 09:51 AM | Link to this

RW: What I suspect/admit is that someone on the Commander in Chief’s staff perceived that Valerie Plame was an enemy and acted to punish her and her husband by outing her CIA identity.

By Ricky

December 20, 2005 09:51 AM | Link to this

AntiRadical, how do you know it was a whistleblower? It could just as easily been someone that wanted to make the administration look bad. Got to love the logic of the Bush haters.

By Ira

December 20, 2005 09:54 AM | Link to this

Ricky and Semper Fi,

Making illegal government activities public does not make me mad. Never has and never will. We are a country founded on liberty and repsect for the law. Without either, we are no longer the USA.

Are either of you outraged that Valarie Plame was identified and rendered useless as an operative?

By getalife

December 20, 2005 09:56 AM | Link to this

Ricky, Reid said the other day that the leaker should be prosecuted. The Times said they sat on this story because the administration asked them to. It came out while they were voting to extend the Patriot Act. I think this power was abused, like listenning in on Americans not tied to a terriost group like the FBI watching peace activist groups.

By Ira

December 20, 2005 09:57 AM | Link to this

Andy,

Good One!! You read the blog!!

Did you thank RW for finding you something to post?

Try again.

By Ricky

December 20, 2005 09:57 AM | Link to this

Ira, I firmly believe that if someone is proven to have leaked Plame then they should go to jail. However, there have been several people that have said her status was public knowlegde in the DC circles. That is another arguement though. You are assuming that this is illegal. There have been good lawyers arguing both sides of this. We will see if it was illegal. If it is not would you want the leaker prosecuted?

By Ricky

December 20, 2005 09:58 AM | Link to this

getalife, who was listening in on Americans not tied to terrorist groups?

By AntiRadical

December 20, 2005 09:58 AM | Link to this

Ricky: The President is a public figure and must take his licks thereby in the press (no expectation of privacy). Valerie Plame was an undercover agent not a public figure until Scooter Libby made her so.

By Semper Fi

December 20, 2005 09:59 AM | Link to this

AntiRadical, sounds like you have already heard enough evidence to conclude it was illeagal. I’ll wait for the facts. I’m real sure consitutional lawyer types within the DOJ reviewed everything ahead of time, and are sure it was legal.

Meanwhile, how about those successful IRAQ elections? You know. The ones the media don’t want us talking about and timed their article accordingly, a year later.

I do think whomever leaked the info, should be brought up on treason and don’t care whom it is.

By Ira

December 20, 2005 09:59 AM | Link to this

Ricky,

Your question from above: We will see if it was illegal. If it is not would you want the leaker prosecuted?

My answer: No.

By Ricky

December 20, 2005 10:00 AM | Link to this

AntiRadical, so its okay to leak information if it hurts the president because he is a public figure? Is that really your arguement? Do you discount the people that have said Plames status was public knowledge in DC?

By underwhelm

December 20, 2005 10:00 AM | Link to this

I haven’t read such lousy argumentation since middle school. I’ve never understood how the conservative rank-and-file could be so proud of ignorance.

The US executive is not above the law. He’s a civilian, and this one’s a criminal. It’s not a shameful act to bring a criminal to justice, it’s patriotic. And someone who took an oath to uphold the constitution, a federal employee for example, might find a way to do it.

Let Bush try and defend his domestic spying program to the people. It’s a democracy, and we should be able to make our leadership decisions with all the relevant information.

By Voice of Reason

December 20, 2005 10:01 AM | Link to this

Some of you who are defending the Prez and his illegal activities make me laugh considering you once took the oath “to support and defend the Constitution against ALL enemies, foreign and domestic” … very interesting!

By One of you

December 20, 2005 10:03 AM | Link to this

Some jerk wished me “happy holidays” and as a Christian the only right thing for me to do was to pray to Jesus for her to be condemned to Hell fire for eternity!

By getalife

December 20, 2005 10:03 AM | Link to this

Ricky, That is a good question, to know you would have to see the records of the wiretaps ( if not destroyed yet) to see what Americans have been targeted.

By Ira

December 20, 2005 10:03 AM | Link to this

Ricky,

The DOD is spying on the Quakers of all people! The Quakers!! The Society of Friends!!

If this wasn’t all so damn scary, I’d laugh.

By Ricky

December 20, 2005 10:03 AM | Link to this

underwhelm, you are automatically assuming that this was illegal. It has been proven to be illegal yet. I know most of you on left like to think Bush is a criminal and that is fine. That is your right. I also love how you assume that the conservatives are ignorant. That is the typical left elitist attitude. That has worked real well getting dems elected hasn’t it? One president since 1980. That should tell you something about what the average American thinks of the Democratic party.

By Ricky

December 20, 2005 10:06 AM | Link to this

Ira, show me proof the DOD is spying on the Quakers. getalife, the President has said they are only targeting people that are making overseas calls to known terrorist. I think that pretty much excludes most Americans. Except maybe Mother Sheehan and Michael Moore.

By Voice of Reason

December 20, 2005 10:06 AM | Link to this

Semper Fi, don’t get too excited about your elections. We’ll see how well they go when WE are there to smooth the waters.

By AntiRadical

December 20, 2005 10:09 AM | Link to this

Ricky: How do we safegaurd against abuses of power ala Richard Nixon if leaks are not made? Without Watergate, the Whithouse plumbers would still be in business. Don’t blame whistleblowers if the administration is too inept to keep its’ own secrets. Yes, public figures should have no expectations of privacy.

By I Wish I Was Andy

December 20, 2005 10:11 AM | Link to this

By Voice of Reason

December 20, 2005 10:01 AM | Link to this

Some of you who are defending the Prez and his illegal activities make me laugh considering you once took the oath “to support and defend the Constitution against ALL enemies, foreign and domestic� … very interesting!

In its per curiam opinion, the court noted that in a previous FISA case (U.S. v. Truong), a federal “court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue [our emphasis], held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information.”

Unless of course it slans our argument, then we look the other way…

Merry Christmas!

By getalife

December 20, 2005 10:12 AM | Link to this

Ricky, You forgot the Democrates. The possibility to abuse this power is why I think it is wrong.

By kimberly

December 20, 2005 10:13 AM | Link to this

I just looked at this cartoon. Are those W’s footprints on the Constitution, or his little rat turds? Don’t know where I left my glasses…..

By underwhelm

December 20, 2005 10:13 AM | Link to this

I don’t need to assume conservatives are ignorant, they demonstrate it time and time again.

Bush’s justification for ignoring the constitution are “I took an oath of office” and “congressional oversight.” So if Bush wants to put his oath to defend the constitution up to justify his ignoring it, he’s going to have to suck it up when someone else who’s taken a similar oath disagrees with him. It’s a battle of the oaths, and frankly, I don’t think Bush has good odds arguing that he had to ignore the constitution to save it.

The United States is the constitution. What kind of shining example of democracy can we be when our leaders conduct secret activities against citizens to subvert our founding document?

By Ricky

December 20, 2005 10:16 AM | Link to this

AntiRadical, if this is illegal then it should be stopped and people should be investigated. However, if it is not then the leak of classified material is an abuse of power. And if it turns out to be legal, I can almost guarntee that there will be on outcry about the leak of classified information like there was on Plame. And don’t forget just a couple of weeks ago there was a leak about secret prison and nobody on the left is up in arms about that one. Just seems curious to me

By Semper Fi

December 20, 2005 10:17 AM | Link to this

VOR, I will agree with you, we do not know exactly how things will ultimately turn out in IRAQ. If the US only took action, with definite knowledge and confidence on how things would turn out, we would never take any action. Thing is, there is hope now.

Maybe, in 20-30 years, Iraq and Afghanistan replaces France and Germany as US allies. Who knows?

By Ira

December 20, 2005 10:18 AM | Link to this

Ricky,

Here you go

From the Drudge Report

One more

By I Wish I Was Andy

December 20, 2005 10:18 AM | Link to this

What kind of shining example of democracy can we be when our leaders conduct secret activities against citizens to subvert our founding document?

“Citizens” that make telephone calls to overseas Al Qaeda* locations.

*- Friends of the pinkos.

Merry Christmas!

By WTH!

December 20, 2005 10:19 AM | Link to this

Kimberlee: You may want to check with a proctologist. He may find your glasses up your a* where your head spends most of it’s time.

By underwhelm

December 20, 2005 10:20 AM | Link to this

Andy, read the law that decision was based on. You’ll see that it authorizes warrantless spying as pertains to foreign governments, but not to terrorist activities.

The president is not authorized by the constitution to break laws. He is compelled to enforce existing laws, so breaking them would be inconsistent with that mandate.

By Voice of Reason

December 20, 2005 10:21 AM | Link to this

Andy - nice try! (U.S. v. Truong)Precedent is good when deciding cases, but I’m sure the circumstances in that case are a lot different than what your loving Prez is up to. And as smart as you think you are, you should know that precedent only plays when the circumstances in the case are VERY similar. But I guess drug lord and war lord work for you. Afterall, we know you love the lord.

By Ricky

December 20, 2005 10:21 AM | Link to this

Ira, i agree that is pretty stupid. I love how you guys rage against the Drudge Report if a conservative tries to use it as a source, but when it suits your needs its okay

By Midori

December 20, 2005 10:23 AM | Link to this

you know what’s REALLY disgusting?

All you republicans defend Bush over America.

Signed,

“a liberal ‘elite’”

P.S. — What helped your people get elected is Diebold, pure and simple.

Thankfully, the country is catching on.

By Midori

December 20, 2005 10:26 AM | Link to this

Ricky — that’s not the “Drudge Report”.

sheesh

By Voice of Reason

December 20, 2005 10:28 AM | Link to this

Semper Fi - And I agree that you never know the outcome, but Bush didn’t do his homework on a lot of things. He didn’t estimate loss of life, he didn’t estimate exit strategy, and he didn’t estimate the amount of force necessary to do what he needed to do. And that’s only a few things. At best, it was a half-a-ssed attempt, and he has to do twice the work.

By Ricky

December 20, 2005 10:29 AM | Link to this

Midori, first of all I can’t beleive some Dems are still claiming the election was stolen. Thats always good for a laugh. Secondly, the link I was given was to the Drudge Report. And like I posted that is pretty stupid to spy on the freaking Quakers.

By underwhelm

December 20, 2005 10:30 AM | Link to this

“Citizens� that make telephone calls to overseas Al Qaeda locations.

Prove it! Oh that’s right, you can’t because all the evidence is secret! I guess we should just trust the government’s infallable intelligence gathering, eh?

By Ira

December 20, 2005 10:32 AM | Link to this

Ricky,

I used the Drudge Report comments section so you’d feel warm and fuzzy about seeing your fellow travelers discuss the issue.

Personally, I think it’s a rightwing nutcase site but that’s neither here nor there.

By I Wish I Was Andy

December 20, 2005 10:35 AM | Link to this

underwhelm: When someone dials 1-800-Osama they get wiretapped. Why are you pinkos so hard headed? America is better than you, get over it.

Merry Christmas!

By Semper Fi

December 20, 2005 10:38 AM | Link to this

VOR, even if what you are saying is true, please realize it is still Monday morning quarterbacking. After the war on IRAQ, it just seems we have a lot more citizens that make better, Generals, Secertary of Defense, President, etc. Now everyone is a better Constitutinal lawyer.

By Objective Observer

December 20, 2005 10:40 AM | Link to this

Ira: Glad to see you are still here engaging in “civil” discourse. It seems pointless to clarify my point at this point in the discussion. As convoluded as it was, it is out there in cyberspace somewhere.

I will attempt it again when the opportunity presents itself. My head is spinning from trying to make it concise in it’s content. Hope you will trust me to do so.

By underwhelm

December 20, 2005 10:40 AM | Link to this

So what’s wrong with getting a FISA warrant? If the evidence is so cut-and-dry?

Why do you hate the constitution?

By Ricky

December 20, 2005 10:41 AM | Link to this

Ira, I don’t buy into any of the radical websites on either side. They are all a waste of time. It is pretty hard this days to get information that doesn’t have a political slant to it one way or another.

By Ricky

December 20, 2005 10:47 AM | Link to this

underwhelm, I don’t hate the constitution. Maybe what Bush did was wrong, maybe it wasn’t. We shall see. What annoys me is that people just assume it is illegal. To me I understand that he is doing what he thinks is in the best interest of the country. Otherwise why would he be doing it. If it is wrong, then it is a big problem.

By Voice of Reason

December 20, 2005 10:49 AM | Link to this

Semper Fi - That may be true for some, but if you ask most people there and that have been there, the job could have been done faster if we didn’t have “re-do” everything. When we first got there we were running the clowns out of the cities and making progress. But because we didn’t have a bigger force, we couldn’t afford to leave enough people behind to make sure the cities STAYED secured. You ever play that pop-up weasel game. You hit em on the head and they keep poppin up. If we have the force level to leave a big enough force in the key cities, we could have run the insurgency into a corner faster and more efficiently. That doesn’t take a degree from the War college to figure out. It takes preparing for the worst.

By Ira

December 20, 2005 10:50 AM | Link to this

OO,

I look forward to what you have to say…

I’ll do my best to keep the snarkiness to a minimum.

Ricky,

Gotta disagree with you about finding information without a political slant. It’s out there and pretty easy to find as long as you, as you mentioned, avoid the opinion pieces of the nutjobs on both sides.

By Ira

December 20, 2005 10:53 AM | Link to this

Ricky,

Agree with you that the President is doing what he feels is in the best interests of the country.

That’s what scares the bejeezus out of me.

By Ira

December 20, 2005 10:55 AM | Link to this

Just out…

PA Judge rules ID cannot be taught in schools.

Score one for the good guys.

By Semper Fi

December 20, 2005 10:58 AM | Link to this

VOR, you’re still playing from a Monday morning view. I think the Generals were preparing for a much larger fight than was experienced. But you are right, if we had 400 thousands troops it would have been better, but we also would have had more targets there and possibly more dead. Who know??

And I do stay in touch. Just got an email this morning from a light bird friend of mine in IRAQ.

By getalife

December 20, 2005 11:01 AM | Link to this

Pat Robertson calls for assasination of the judge.

By me

December 20, 2005 11:01 AM | Link to this

George Orwell - 1984

By underwhelm

December 20, 2005 11:01 AM | Link to this

Maybe what Bush did was wrong, maybe it wasn’t. We shall see. What annoys me is that people just assume it is illegal. To me I understand that he is doing what he thinks is in the best interest of the country. Otherwise why would he be doing it. If it is wrong, then it is a big problem.

Well, that’s rational. Does that mean you’d support impeachment proceedings to determine if Bush, in fact, committed a crime? That’s the “congressional oversight” I presume Bush was talking about.

By buff

December 20, 2005 11:01 AM | Link to this

I wish Bloomberg had Reagan’s moxie and would fire all those striking transportation workers

By lurker

December 20, 2005 11:15 AM | Link to this

underwhelm: all I hear in response to your latest post is the sound of crickets chirpin.

By Voice of Reason

December 20, 2005 11:16 AM | Link to this

Semper Fi - Not necessarily true. We knew that Saddam’s army would throw their arms up and drop their weapons just like they did when we ran them out of Kuwait. He-ll, half of them didn’t even show up for the fight. I’m sure the generals knew that, and Colin Powell dam-n sure knew it. But his advice wasn’t really taken, now was it.

It wasn’t the army we were really worried about, and even the army general running the show from the beginning said he needed 100,000 more. Your sarcastic remark about 400,000 was taken with a grain of salt, because yeah it would have been nice. But 225-250,000 probably would have helped some of my friends be home for the holidays and kept another handful out of Arlington.

By Semper Fi

December 20, 2005 11:21 AM | Link to this

VOR, I wasn’t trying to be sarcastic, I just threw up a large number. I am just saying, who knew exactly, at the time? There are a lot of IF’s in our blogs, that’s all I am trying to say.

Merry Christmas

By Voice of Reason

December 20, 2005 11:26 AM | Link to this

Semper Fi - I can appreciate that. However, unlike the ifs in our blogs, the ifs when going to war should have been considered. But that’s another reason the president shouldn’t have hastily gone to war. We are not all that versed in nation building and bad things happen when we become an occupation force. Beirut is a good example of that. Having more than enough bodies on the ground would have definitely helped.

By getalife

December 20, 2005 11:37 AM | Link to this

underwhelm, To answer your question

By I Wish I Was Andy

December 20, 2005 11:37 AM | Link to this

Bottom line: No more terrorist attacks since 9/11 and free democracy blooming where the pinkos said it wouldn’t. Game, set, match. You lose, libs.

I trust the Man who brought it all to us.

Merry Christmas!

By Semper Fi

December 20, 2005 11:38 AM | Link to this

VOR, I don’t disagree, I just simply confess I don’t know today and surely would not have known at the time. Agree that occupation is not always good, but it has worked. Japan comes to mind as good and, as you say Beruit ,as bad. I wasn’t in the war meeting at the time and have to believe a wide range of things were discussed. Decisions were made, good, bad, right or wrong. Bush should take his share of all.

By Voice of Reason

December 20, 2005 11:39 AM | Link to this

Andy - After the FIRST attack on the World Trade Center, how long was it before the next attack on the U.S.?

And forced democracy is more like it!

By getalife

December 20, 2005 11:44 AM | Link to this

Or civil war

By Voice of Reason

December 20, 2005 11:47 AM | Link to this

Semper Fi - No one knows really, but the point is he should have considered ALL possibilities. The problem is, and I’m sure someone will correct me if I’m wrong, is Bush went to war using a 10-year-old Tricky D-ick Cheney devised.

I agree with your occupation assessment, but I don’t think we occupied Japan until after they surrendered. And that’s another difference, we are not warring with a country or government.

By I Wish I Was Andy

December 20, 2005 11:48 AM | Link to this

V.O.R: The terrorists threw us completely out of a country within a year of the FIRST! world trade center attack. Actually, they fired a few bullets at us and the sissy pinko libs bailed much like the current sissy libs are trying to do in Iraq today.

We forced the Iraqis to the polls? We forced their fingers into the purple ink? Those were forced smiles on their faces? Were you forced into the mental hospital? It’s all a big CONSPIRACY!, isn’t it?

Merry Christmas!

By lurker

December 20, 2005 11:49 AM | Link to this

underwhelm: chirp, chirp, chirp.

By Voice of Reason

December 20, 2005 11:52 AM | Link to this

Andy - Lay off the crack dude. We didn’t force them to the polls, we left them no option. I don’t remember their pleas to bring democracy to Iraq, I don’t remember the pleas to get rid of Saddam. We did it on our own accord and they have no choice but to run with the option we gave them. So yes, forced democracy.

You’re the one who needs to be in the looney bin. You should listen to yourself and if that doesn’t work, consider the amount of time you invest in showing the blog how retarded you are.

By Semper Fi

December 20, 2005 11:55 AM | Link to this

Here are some dates and facts on terroist attacks

. When did the threat to us start? Many will say September 11th, 2001. The answer as far as the United States is concerned is 1979, 22 years prior to September 2001, with the following attacks on us: Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979; Beirut, Lebanon Embassy 1983; Beirut, Lebanon Marine Barracks 1983; Lockerbie, Scotland Pan-Am flight to New York 1988; First New York World Trade Center attack 1993; Dhahran, Saudi Arabia Khobar Towers Military complex 1996; Nairobi, Kenya US Embassy 1998; Dar es Salaam, Tanzania US Embassy 1998; Aden, Yemen USS Cole 2000; New York World Trade Center 2001; Pentagon 2001. (Note that during the period from 1981 to 2001 there were 7,581 terrorist attacks worldwide). [3]

By I Wish I Was Andy

December 20, 2005 12:07 PM | Link to this

V.O.R.: I don’t remember the pleas to get rid of Saddam.- Maybe you should have gotten up into Saddam’s rape rooms, dude. Or doesn’t that kind of stuff worry a pinko like you, it’s someone else’s problem?

Defender of human rights my a-ss.

Merry Christmas!

By buff

December 20, 2005 12:15 PM | Link to this

VOR, Your reasoning is absurd, but, Michael Moore said the same thing, so…… Did you expect the Iraqis to speak out against SH? if so, they would be dead

By buff

December 20, 2005 12:18 PM | Link to this

Andy,

Why do you think that leftists are so eager to accept tyranny and appease tyrannists?

Is it that it fits inside their ideological paradigm? Are they just weak-willed? Is it lack of intelligence? Lack of spirit? Or, do they just hate freedom?

I have been to too many conferences and seen to many presentations not to believe that leftists are the meanest things on God’s green Earth

By lurker

December 20, 2005 12:25 PM | Link to this

buff:WAAAAAAAAAWAAAAAAAAAAA

By I Wish I Was Andy

December 20, 2005 12:25 PM | Link to this

Let’s take a show of hands. How many of you surrender pinkos felt a sense of pride when the United States Army ran from Somalia like a dog with it’s tail between it’s legs? Did you have a little lib celebration that day?

Did it make you even more happy when Osama Bin Laden called the United States a “weak horse” because of that surrender?

Better yet, did you get chills of excitement when the revolutionary guard in Iran paraded our fellow countrymen as hostages, rubbing it in weak kneed Jimmy Carter’s face?

What’s the next surprise you wimp sissies have in store for us? Will you not rest before we are a country no more?

Merry Christmas!

By sickoftheneocons

December 20, 2005 12:29 PM | Link to this

Yes I’m sure the terrorists are so ALL POWERFUL that they will single-handedly destroy our country. Boy, a few thousand extremists being able to pull down the mightiest nation the world has ever known. Do you have so little faith in your country Andy. TRAITOR.

By getalife

December 20, 2005 12:33 PM | Link to this

Bushwill single-handedly destroy our country Just kidding NSA.

By I Wish I Was Andy

December 20, 2005 12:37 PM | Link to this

I didn’t realize I was the only one in the world who has heard the kooks in Iran ramble on about nukes and the end of the world. Real accurate threat assessment there, sick, it makes me want to put our national security firmly in the hands of you pinkos.

Merry Christmas!

By Objective Observer

December 20, 2005 12:40 PM | Link to this

VOR: I must be less than objective on this point. The practice of defending the defenseless is proudly proclaimed by the ideaology of the extreme left and the Democratic party. Do they reserve the right to determine who is defenseless, or are the defenseless conveniently defined after the fact by their supposed champions.

By sickoftheneocons

December 20, 2005 12:40 PM | Link to this

I believe our government is also listening to those kooks in Iran and have a very good threat assesment ongoing as we type here. Do you have so little faith in the intelligence and military establishment to think they haven’t planned for this contingency. Why do you doubt our country Andy. TRAITOR.

By I Wish I Was Andy

December 20, 2005 12:44 PM | Link to this

sick: I don’t trust our country because they let pinkos like you form 9/11 commissions instead of locking you up in an internment camp. We are lulling our way to disaster, and I firmly believe that’s what you libs want.

A traitor to what, clown, your treasonous acts against the U.S?

Merry Christmas!

By getalife

December 20, 2005 12:45 PM | Link to this

I have to agree with kimberly….

They do look like little turds.

King George has a bowel problem.

By sickoftheneocons

December 20, 2005 12:49 PM | Link to this

Please point out my treasonous acts Andy… I fully support and defend my government. As I just stated, I believe that our military and security personnel are more than up to the task of dealing with Iran. You seem to be the one with doubts. TRAITOR. Please return to your child prostitution endeavors until the thought police can come and collect you. TRAITOR.

By sickoftheneocons

December 20, 2005 12:50 PM | Link to this

This is fun…

By Objective Observer

December 20, 2005 12:50 PM | Link to this

Getalife: I have been complaining that my computer is suffering from constipation, which is why some of my posts are being lost in cyberspace. Maybe those little turds belong to my computer, and I can look forward to relief from the problem.

By buff

December 20, 2005 12:52 PM | Link to this

Sick,

How did your finals go?

By Objective Observer

December 20, 2005 12:53 PM | Link to this

Getalife: Don’t be surprised if a disgusting mess of all my lost posts show up on the screen at one time.

By I Wish I Was Andy

December 20, 2005 12:54 PM | Link to this

sick: Why do you have to copy my arguments? Are you enamored by my posts, do you really like the way they sound? Are the thinkers from MoveOn at lunch, you are forced to think on your own? Plagiarizer.

Merry Christmas!

By getalife

December 20, 2005 12:54 PM | Link to this

being lost in cyberspace That would be the NSA. Be careful, be very very careful.

By sickoftheneocons

December 20, 2005 12:54 PM | Link to this

Fairly well, Buff thanks for asking. How bout yours? What kind of effort are you grading?

By Ira

December 20, 2005 12:54 PM | Link to this

This is very cool…

We’re getting to watch Andy fall turn into the rapacious, malevolent, little man he’s been trying so hard to hide from the world.

Keep it up little man!

This is great!!

By rushncap

December 20, 2005 12:55 PM | Link to this

Andy, do you get paid to be on this board? Is there a time of day or night when you’re not on here?

By Voice of Reason

December 20, 2005 12:58 PM | Link to this

Everyone one of you freaks that comment about how we feel when OBL says something bad about the U.S. are nothing but a bunch of cowardly freaks. Who cares if OBL called us a weak horse. We toppled his Taliban before the pay period expired. You guys are like the little wimp in high school that hides behind his bodyguard singing yeah get him.

If you are so concerned about Saddam’s rape room, you seem fixated on it, where’s the outcry for the genocide in Darfur? You’re a cowardly bigot who refuses to admit guilt because you are hiding behind your freakish ideas of George Bush being your savior.

Buff, spare me. What about my reasoning is absurd? That we defeated Saddam’s army in 91 in less that 14 days, or the fact that everytime we take a stronghold in Iraq we give it back because we don’t have sufficient ground forces? Or maybe it’s that the same people you think were dying to have Western democracy are the same people telling us it’s time to leave. Or could it possibly be that as soon as we leave, they will have bloody civil war that takes them back to the Mesopotamia days! You my friend are an idiot. But that makes sense because you are Andy’s lapdog and cheerleader.

By I Wish I Was Andy

December 20, 2005 12:58 PM | Link to this

rushncap,

You and your pinko commie friends had better hope I stay on this board and don’t use my interneting skills to track you down and kick your rear!

Off with your heads!

Merry Christmas!

By I Wish I Was Andy

December 20, 2005 12:58 PM | Link to this

This is great! I’ve reduced Ira to a little mealy mouthed worm ankle biting from the sidelines of this debate. It was too easy, though. I expected more.

Merry Christmas!

By I Wish I Was Andy

December 20, 2005 01:01 PM | Link to this

Hey! Fake Andy!!

I know where you live dammit and I will come over there and crush you.

Merry Christmas!

By finch

December 20, 2005 01:02 PM | Link to this

Why does the Bush White House continue to defy the law, and the Constitution over wiretaps? Were the wiretaps necessary? Could be. Did Bush have to circumvent the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) because it was too cumbersome and would have delayed intercepts? Absolutely not.

*”Soon after Mr. Bush spoke, three senior Democrats influential on national security matters - Senators Carl Levin of Michigan, Jack Reed of Rhode Island and Russell Feingold of Wisconsin - assailed the president for bypassing the court that Congress set up a quarter-century ago to make sure intelligence agencies do not infringe on the privacy of Americans.

“He can go to the court retroactively,” Mr. Levin, the ranking Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, told reporters, referring to the 72-hour rule.”*

There’s a pattern here. Even when the law leaves a tiny opening, BushCorp prefers using sledgehammers. Civil liberties be damned!

By sickoftheneocons

December 20, 2005 01:03 PM | Link to this

Ira, I love throwing Andy’s arguments back at him. He then accuses me of plagiarizing (?). It’s fun. Sad thing is, his blustering and posturing seems to hide a deep-seated fear. He actually seems to think that terrorists are really going to destroy us just because some Arab somewhere said “We will kill this many millions of you as retribution blah blah blah” As I said, it’s both sad and funny.

By I'm Too Stupid To Be Andy, I have to fake it.

December 20, 2005 01:03 PM | Link to this

rushncap: I made more money this morning than you will all year. I have an intelligence level that allows me to concentrate on several things at once.

Why would it even concern you? Is your life that meaningless that you have to worry about what other people do?

Merry Christmas!

By buff

December 20, 2005 01:04 PM | Link to this

VOR,

I was referring to your assertion that the Iraqis had a “choice” in how to deal with SH

You said:

“i don’t remember their pleas to bring democracy to Iraq? I don’t’ remember the pleas to get rid of Saddam”

My point is that they had no real option to have a voice

By Objective Observer

December 20, 2005 01:06 PM | Link to this

Getalife: Administrations have been capable of, and probably have been listening, for as long as I can remember. The only thing that has changed is the way politics are conducted, and news media projects.

I’m still here, and so are you. I guess they aren’t finding us worthy of their time. I, for one, want to know they have the capability and are using it to keep us all safe. The implications can be addressed by a subsequent administration. That is the beauty of this country, no dictator has ever ruled the U.S., and no President can rule in excess of two consecutive terms at present. I do not anticipate that this will change. The people have a strong voice, it becomes even more powerful when heard in unison. Unfortunately that is not the case in these dangerous times.

By buff

December 20, 2005 01:06 PM | Link to this

Sick:

I had a great semester, nice students, but most at KSU are in that mold

By I Wish I Was Andy

December 20, 2005 01:06 PM | Link to this

sick: Don’t feel ashamed. Your not the first one to try to copy me. It’s typical of a pinko, try to obtain the glory without expending any efforts. It’s probably to late for you; an education is a terrible thing to waste.

Merry Christmas!

By finch

December 20, 2005 01:13 PM | Link to this

The Bush administration should not be flaunting the Bill of Rights, with warrantless wiretaps, the infiltration of vegetarian meetings and the like.

But it’s just using the tools previous administrations left behind

“(CBS) Everywhere in the world, every day, people’s phone calls, emails and faxes are monitored by Echelon, a secret government surveillance network. No, it’s not fiction straight out of George Orwell’s 1984. It’s reality, says former spy Mike Frost in an interview broadcast on 60 Minutes on Sunday, Feb. 27.”

That’s 2/27/2000.

Kinda scary, isn’t it?

By lurker

December 20, 2005 01:14 PM | Link to this

underwhelmed: can you hear it? chirp, chirp, chirp. still nothing.

Andy, nice overcompensating for the innumerable inadequacies you have on display here today by telling us how much money you made this morning (yeah right). Get a clue, buddy.

And if you hate the AJC so much then why you blast their site with a bazillion hits and posts per day, which happens to equal money to them? You’re probably worth five or ten print subscribers to them with all the page impressions you’re giving them. Moron…

By getalife

December 20, 2005 01:15 PM | Link to this

Objective Observer, I have nothing to hide and hope they are listening to the terrorists plans but I think the reason it has been exposed is due to the possibility of abuse with no oversight. If you look at the people who are really upset (like Reid from my home state of Nevada) they are probably hiding something. This blog shows how divided this country has become.

By I Wish I Was Andy

December 20, 2005 01:20 PM | Link to this

lurker: I’ve told this to many different pinkos, you seem like a new one so I’ll lay it out again. You morally depraved perverts are not going to set up your anti American shop in here, doing in the President and my country with glee and abandon. I’m here to screw that all up. It’s working, isn’t it?

Merry Christmas!

By Voice of Reason

December 20, 2005 01:21 PM | Link to this

Buff - Therefore, we forced to take on what WE thought was best for them. Forced democracy. If I have and pie and you don’t ask for it, and I shove in your hand and make you eat. I forced the pie on you. I guess that reasoning is too simple for the complex minds huh?

By Ricky

December 20, 2005 01:24 PM | Link to this

VoR, do you really think that don’t want democracy? Would 70% of them have voted if they didn’t want it?

By Midori

December 20, 2005 01:29 PM | Link to this

Andy just confirmed what I’ve always suspected — he’s on the RNC payroll.

I wish I could get paid for sitting on my a* all day posting on a blog defending an utter and complete failure of a leader and his administration.

Must be nice………

By Voice of Reason

December 20, 2005 01:29 PM | Link to this

Ricky - Part of the reason they are voting is because they are interested in building a new Iraqi government. And, to get us “the occupiers” out.

You guys are so caught up on the fact that they are actually voting. Whooppeee. The vote doesn’t really mean anything to the majority of them.

The Sunnis didn’t get their way, they are going to revolt, increasing the “insurgency.” The Shiites are going to fight back - civil war. The Kurds are going to sit up north and watch the other two make fools of themselves. You can’t really have democracy when the real ruler of that country and pretty much region is RELIGION.

Don’t be so narrow-minded. It’s happening already, you just don’t see it.

By lurker

December 20, 2005 01:32 PM | Link to this

Andy, no it’s not working. All you’re doing is showing everyone, even the Conservatives who seem to have no trouble engaging in civil debate, how much of a complete douchebag you are. Most everyone here is not “anti American.” Engaging in a discourse is actually purely American. You, on the other hand, seem to completely ignore posts by those who can and have (metaphorically speaking) stomped you into the ground, unwilling and unable to have a normal discussion.

Keep up the good work, though; you’re representing your cause like a champ.

So how much money did you make during lunch?

By RE

December 20, 2005 01:33 PM | Link to this

Lets see, the standard cadre of apologists are defending big government intrusion into civil rights, others use reason to point out the illigetimacy of the action, followed by calls to patriotism by the apologists. typical day on the blog. Typical small minded neocons looking for the government to right all the wrongs of the world.

By Objective Observer

December 20, 2005 01:34 PM | Link to this

Getalife: Never has a truer statement been made. That is if you are talking about all politicians. No matter how hard we try, or how loud we get, they will do what they must to prevail. I always question motives. When I can find none that are intended to harm, I can forgive a lot of things.

Go ahead, call me naive…I’ve been called worse. I must admit, stoicism in the face of adversity, is a quality I admire. Some will see it as arrogance, stubborness. If the motives are good, I see it as strength.

When will be leaving for Vegas?

By I Wish I Was Andy

December 20, 2005 01:35 PM | Link to this

Midori: If you are trying to get me to want to be a government dependent failure it’s not working. It will take alot more than that to get me feeling guilty.

Merry Christmas!

By Ricky

December 20, 2005 01:37 PM | Link to this

VofR, I see that you have already decided we have lost over there and can’t accomplish anything. 70% of Iraqis are happy with the way things are going according to an ABC poll. What most of you don’t get is that Iraq is a lot more secular than most of the rest of the region. There are parts of the country that are very religious, mostly the South. There are women that are lawyers and doctors. Most of the people in Baghdad wear western clothes. They drink alcohol and smoke cigarettes. My point in all this being that religion is not as important over there as people like to make it out to be. I think that Iraq will be a successful country in the future. There will definetly be some bumps along the way, but in the end they will succeed.

By Midori

December 20, 2005 01:40 PM | Link to this

Midori: If you are trying to get me to want to be a government dependent failure it’s not working. It will take alot more than that to get me feeling guilty.

Actually, Lurker is doing a superb job of kicking your a*, so I’ll just sit back and enjoy.

And you can bet “I” won’t feel the least bit guilty in my glee.

You’re hilarious the way you respond to him/her. I just hope what they pay you is comparable to the mental anguish and humiliation. :)

By Dr R

December 20, 2005 01:42 PM | Link to this

Forgive me for weighing in late, but I’ve been struggling with how I feel about Bush as Double-Naught spy. On the one hand, I join with those concerned about an erosion of civil liberties in the name of security. But then again, look at things from Bush’s perspective. After 9-11, his administration was blamed for not “connecting the dots” to foresee the attacks. If we get hit again, he will be the one criticized for not doing more to protect us. So he’s going to get blasted either way, for overreacting or underreacting. He must figure that if I’m going to get hit either way, I might as well do it without thousands of casualties.

By finch

December 20, 2005 01:43 PM | Link to this

Ricky says: “do you really think that don’t want democracy? Would 70% of them have voted if they didn’t want it?”

Well, yes and no:

“Early voting results announced by Iraqi electoral officials on Monday, with nearly two-thirds of the ballots counted, indicated that religious groups, particularly the main Shiite coalition, had taken a commanding lead. The secular coalition led by Ayad Allawi, the former prime minister, had won only meager support in crucial provinces where it had expected to do well, including Baghdad.”

I’m sure this is just what President Bush wants and the US. Another Islamic theocracy. Just like Iran.

Merry Christmas.

By I Wish I Was Andy

December 20, 2005 01:44 PM | Link to this

lurker: Could you please cut and paste this post where I was supposedly “stomped into the ground?” I wasn’t aware of this and would like to see what happened.

Since you are new to this blog, let me recap the basics of it for you. Most people come here to see me and the many other conservatives not cartoon boy. That fact has been discussed many times. This would be a vast intellictual wasteland if it wasn’t for us. Your post reinforces this concept. You should be thankful, not spiteful. Or maybe you like mutual nasturbation sessions, where you can get off at the government’s expense in privacy of your very own blog?

Either way, suckhole, feel free to ignore me if I present such a large problem to you. Or are you mesmorized by me, like all of the other pinkos are?

Merry Christmas!

By getalife

December 20, 2005 01:45 PM | Link to this

Objective Observer, Life is too short to be angry. I like to laugh and have a good time. My rehab should be done next month, then to Dallas to see my brother (I told him about this blog and he told me to getalife) then back home to sin city.

By Midori

December 20, 2005 01:45 PM | Link to this

“Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. 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. It’s important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.”

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/2004042 … http://atrios.blogspot.com /

By Ricky

December 20, 2005 01:46 PM | Link to this

Heres whats funny about the lefts arguement on the spying. If we were attacked again they would be up in arms saying Bush didn’t do enough. He is doing what he thinks is best to protect the country, which is one of the top priorities of a president. No matter what Bush does, it will never be good enough for the left. I guess they want another Bill Clinton who did nothing about terrorism for 8 years and his biggest claim as President was the economy(which no president actually influences) and balancing the budget(which he only did because the Republican congress made him).

By RE

December 20, 2005 01:47 PM | Link to this

please define Pinko

By lurker

December 20, 2005 01:47 PM | Link to this

Midori, as my name suggests, I have neither the time nor the motivation to engage in the discussion as frequently as others, which includes those from both sides having a lively debate and idiots like Andy who cause me to give sizable donations to worthy causes, so that others like him may be helped. But, I do enjoy checking in every few hours during the day and reading the day’s posts to see where the discourse is going.

By sickoftheneocons

December 20, 2005 01:48 PM | Link to this

Hang on Ricky, Iraq is more secular than most of the Arab world because that is the way that Saddam wanted it. It’s much easier to quash opposition that way. He didn’t want a system like they had in Iran where religious fundamentalists and they’re warring factions ruined the country. If he quelchs ALL religious thought and practice (as much as possible anyway) then he doesn’t have to worry about it.

By Dr R

December 20, 2005 01:51 PM | Link to this

Apparently the problem with getting into this blog later is that it has degenerated into a playground battle between middle-schoolers. If anyone would like to have a serious, grown-up discussion on security vs. civil liberties, I’m game. More to the point, are Bush’s acts justified if they save lives? That very well may be the case. If you have cogent thoughts on the subject, please offer them. If you’d rather wrestle and call each other names, I’ll wipe my feet and go elsewhere for intelligent discourse.

By Midori

December 20, 2005 01:51 PM | Link to this

Heres whats funny about the lefts arguement on the spying. If we were attacked again they would be up in arms saying Bush didn’t do enough. He is doing what he thinks is best to protect the country, which is one of the top priorities of a president. No matter what Bush does, it will never be good enough for the left. I guess they want another Bill Clinton who did nothing about terrorism for 8 years and his biggest claim as President was the economy(which no president actually influences) and balancing the budget(which he only did because the Republican congress made him).

sorry — I can’t have much, or any, faith in a man who got his a* kicked by a hurricane.

a hurricane which he knew five days out was going to be catastrophic and deadly.

the jerk actually went to a birthday party and to have a photo op playing a guitar while an important American city was destroyed by Katrina.

maybe in the future he should save his wiretapping for the National Weather Service.

By I Wish I Was Andy

December 20, 2005 01:51 PM | Link to this

All:

From our glorious leader George W. Bush:

“It’s a myth to think I don’t know what’s going on. It’s a myth to think that I’m not aware that there’s opinions that don’t agree with mine, because I’m fully aware of that.” —George W. Bush, Philadelphia, Pa., Dec. 12, 2005

“I mean, there was a serious international effort to say to Saddam Hussein, you’re a threat. And the 9/11 attacks extenuated that threat, as far as I-concerned.” —George W. Bush, Philadelphia, Dec. 12, 2005 “I think we are welcomed. But it was not a peaceful welcome.” —George W. Bush, defending Vice President Dick Cheney’s pre-war assertion that the United States would be welcomed in Iraq as liberators, NBC Nightly News interview, Dec. 12, 2005 “As a matter of fact, I know relations between our governments is good.” —George W. Bush, on U.S.-South Korean relations, Washington D.C., Nov. 8, 2005 “Wow! Brazil is big.” —George W. Bush, after being shown a map of Brazil by Brazilian president Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, Brasilia, Brazil, Nov. 6, 2005 “Bin Laden says his own role is to tell Muslims, quote, ‘what is good for them and what is not.’” —George W. Bush, Washington D.C., Oct. 6, 2005 “The best place for the facts to be done is by somebody who’s spending time investigating it.” —George W. Bush, on the probe into how CIA agent Valerie Plame’s identity was leaked, Washington D.C., July 18, 2005 “I was going to say he’s a piece of work, but that might not translate too well. Is that all right, if I call you a ‘piece of work’?” —George W. Bush to Jean-Claude Juncker, prime minister of Luxembourg, Washington, D.C., June 20, 2005

“The relations with, uhh — Europe are important relations, and they’ve, uhh — because, we do share values. And, they’re universal values, they’re not American values or, you know — European values, they’re universal values. And those values — uhh — being universal, ought to be applied everywhere.” —George W. Bush, at a press conference with European Union dignitaries, Washington, D.C., June 20, 2005

“You see, not only did the attacks help accelerate a recession, the attacks reminded us that we are at war.” —George W. Bush, on the Sept. 11 attacks, Washington, D.C., June 8, 2005

“And the second way to defeat the terrorists is to spread freedom. You see, the best way to defeat a society that is — doesn’t have hope, a society where people become so angry they’re willing to become suiciders, is to spread freedom, is to spread democracy.” —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., June 8, 2005

“It seemed like to me they based some of their decisions on the word of — and the allegations — by people who were held in detention, people who hate America, people that had been trained in some instances to disassemble — that means not tell the truth.” —George W. Bush, on an Amnesty International report on prisoner abuse at Guantanamo Bay, Washington, D.C., May 31, 2005

“See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda.” —George W. Bush, Greece, N.Y., May 24, 2005

Merry Christmas!

By Midori

December 20, 2005 01:54 PM | Link to this

Lurker — you’re all right with me!!!

I’d be proud to buy you a cup of coffee any day!!!

By I Wish I Was Andy

December 20, 2005 01:58 PM | Link to this

Midori: Or who ever you are. Why must you post in some one else’s name? This is exactly the way you header all of your posts-

By I Wish I Was Andy

December 20, 2005 01:51 PM | Link to this

All:

From our glorious leader George W. Bush:

And who else is well known for posting entire articles at once?

What’s the matter, hun, is your argument so weak that the only way you pinkos can beat me is by posting what you want me to say? This is sad, really sad.

By Carol

December 20, 2005 02:00 PM | Link to this

Feet planted firmly in tradition which has served this country well throughout history, cannot be rendered unstable. To think that you can shake Andy at his foundation is to battle against tradition. To resort to name calling renders you shaky in your own.

Maintain your argument. Andy is, has been and always will be, immovable as well as abrasive in his delivery. Don’t react from a standpoint of personal offense.

By Ira

December 20, 2005 02:00 PM | Link to this

Dr R,

Simply put, the ends do not justify the means.

We are a country of laws. No one is above them no matter how well intentioned their actions were.

In my mind it’s really that simple.

By buff

December 20, 2005 02:01 PM | Link to this

Lameovich just posted his predictions for the new year

By I Wish I Was Andy

December 20, 2005 02:04 PM | Link to this

Look at this: Judging from the grammatical skill level and length of the post, I figure it took “lurker” probably three to four days to put his contribution together and figure out how to submit it. And apparently, he didn’t have time to work on a reply yet. I’ll be nicer to him next time.

Merry Christmas!

By lurker

December 20, 2005 02:07 PM | Link to this

Carol, why are you defending some who has used the words “suckhole” and “morally depraved perverts” to describe people on this blog within the last hour or so? Get a clue.

By Ira

December 20, 2005 02:11 PM | Link to this

lurker,

Carol is an apologist for the rightwing, Andy, RW and the rest.

She’s mildly fun to poke at but she’ll soon turn to blaming the ACLU for all of society’s ills.

Go ahead and prod her a little bit… it’ll be as fun as taunting Andy…

By lurker

December 20, 2005 02:13 PM | Link to this

Andy, you’re a troll who has nothing of value to contribute. Keep up the trolling, though, you’re doing a great job helping the AJC rake in tons of cash from your obsession with Luckovich. How much money did you make in the last 30 minutes?

By Dr R

December 20, 2005 02:16 PM | Link to this

Ira, I don’t disagree, but I’ve yet to be assured that laws were broken. There does seem to be some gray area here on just how far the executive branch can go to practice surveillance. If there were legal procedures that could have been followed without compromising the operations, then there is no justification for bypassing them. I have yet to hear this, though, from someone with an understanding of the law, only those with political points to make on either side.

By RE

December 20, 2005 02:18 PM | Link to this

Dr R

It is a fair question to ask if the ends justify the means if these wiretaps help save lives. However the premise itself is faluty. There was already a legal way to conduct these wiretaps using the FISA court, which it seems always errs on the side of caution when granting wiretaps. Very few requests were denied, and could be used retroactively if time was a factor. Considering this, the administration’s actions were blatenly outside the law, there was a legal way to do this, it would have remained secret, and no time would have been lost by following the system already in place. I find it hard to justify going outside the already lienient process in place to conduct these wiretaps with no oversight at all.

By Midori Wishes She Was Andy

December 20, 2005 02:21 PM | Link to this

lurker: Your nickname is no better than “pervert.” Are you claiming the sole right to decide what is acceptable for America’s ears? Oh, I forgot, you are a pinko, that’s what pinkos do, judge others. Silly me.

Why can’t you forget about me? Is that all you have to offer here, Andy this, Andy that? Where are your ideas, college boy? You spoke up for the pinkos, let’s not disappoint everybody.

Merry Christmas!

By Dr R

December 20, 2005 02:25 PM | Link to this

At no time do I feel the ends does justify the means. If that truly were the case — say the administration had evidence that a major attack was thwarted through the NSA program — then the burden of proof should be on the White House.

But let’s say for a minute that this was a legal end run and that the president overstepped his Constitutional authority. What should be done? John Lewis says impeachment. But do you punish a public servant so severely who goes too far with the best of intentions? Again, there’s no excuse for breaking the law, but when the sentence is handed out, doing so to save lives rather than line your own pockets should be factored in. Put aside your feelings for Bush long enough and ask yourself: Is he trying to do the right thing, however flawed his tactics may be? ‘Cuz Heaven knows, he’s not getting anything out of his NSA decision but grief at this point.

By Voice of Reason

December 20, 2005 02:25 PM | Link to this

Ricky - See you are confused. I know about Iraq, I know that we are going to win any battles that fight over there. I have no doubt that we will kick butt until we leave, but I just think it’s all for naught. I never said we were losing anything, I say we are fighting a lost cause. Big difference, maybe the three of you can put your heads together and maybe you’ll actually grasp something.

Don’t put words in my mouth because you can’t understand what I’m saying. Ask a question and I’ll help clear things up for you.

By Carol

December 20, 2005 02:27 PM | Link to this

Lurker & Ira: This will be my last post for some time. I already received my prodding for fun the other night by all of you because of my religious beliefs. Not much fun for me, glad you had a good time at my expense. I’m a little more sensitive than Andy. But I’m glad he is strong enough to withstand the abuse.

Andy and I share the same commitment to tradition. I feel no need to apologize for that. You two have a nice day!!

By Ira

December 20, 2005 02:32 PM | Link to this

Dr R,

FISA allows wiretaps and has the 72 hour window for retroactive judicial approval etc… blah blah blah…

What galls me and makes me believe something illegal is going on here is the Administrations inablity to cite the legal basis for their actions. They say that the Justice Dept. and Admin. attorneys reviewed the position and assured them that what they were doing was legal and within the law. If that were truly the case, once this story broke they should have been able to cite chapter and verse the statutes, legal rulings, etc that provide the Executive branch this power.

Instead we get vague references to the Constitution and the Use of Force resolution from Congress.

They got caught with their hands in the cookie jar, said they were allowed to steal the cookies, said they could prove it and then asked you to trust them.

Right is right and wrong is wrong.

By lurker

December 20, 2005 02:34 PM | Link to this

Andy, I never claimed the sole right to decide anything for America. I didn’t speak up for “pinkos.” I spoke up for those trying to engage in a civil discussion, something that you are clearly incapable of. Good job (trolling,)[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll] though. I almost feel bad that the AJC along with its editorial page editor is cashing in on the backs of destitute and obsessed losers like you. I’m going to send in another donation, this time on your behalf when I get home.

I applaud John Jones, there’s an idea.

By RE

December 20, 2005 02:35 PM | Link to this

Dr R

How much benefit of the doubt can you give? If there is a legal way to do things and an illegal way, both of which provide the same results, if you choose the illegal way you must be held accountable no matter how good your intentions were to begin with. So far as impeachment goes, I do not see that happening, no matter how egregious the crime, this president will not be impeached by the house or senate unless there is a major shift in the balance of power. This may be the worst part of the situation, we have a system where there is no longer any checks and balances due to party loyalty.

By Ira

December 20, 2005 02:37 PM | Link to this

Carol,

So you’re leaving?

Please know that the ACLU works to defend your right to be wrong and that there is no war on Christmas.

Finally, remember, if the snake bites you, you’re not one of the chosen ones.

By lurker

December 20, 2005 02:37 PM | Link to this

Carol, I don’t think I was prodding you for fun. I apologize if I was. But you have a nice day, too!

By Midori Wishes She Was Andy

December 20, 2005 02:38 PM | Link to this

Carol: If you actually knew the people that made fun of you, you would be too disgusted to be offended by their immaturity. They are shifty, depraved, no account, hateful little maggots and their comments should be taken as such. They can’t fathom what someone’s Faith means to them because they are no good in them. They love evil, they will always come down on it’s side. Fighting them is fighting for good.

Merry Christmas!

By Scooter

December 20, 2005 02:39 PM | Link to this

RE, you say there were avenues to pursue retroactive wire tap approval. Again, I’m not to up to speed on this, but I have noticed unabashed tendencies of the media to cast a shadow on this presidency. From their lies of “mission accomplished”, “imminent threat”, to the refusal to accept that the UN is worthless if their resolutions don’t have any meaning. So, if there was a retroactive way of doing this and it was combersome, how do we know that it isn’t in the pipe line to be retro actively approved? Sorry, this media cannot be trusted.

By Daniel

December 20, 2005 02:40 PM | Link to this

Here is the formula for understanding this government and these troubled times: 1) Look for the lie. 2) Deal with the fear. 3)Recognize the deception. Many contributors here are loyalists. They are in disarray. They can’t live with the thought that THEIR government is lying. So, they attack. They name-call. They threat. Accept this and move on. They will try to scare us. They will lie to us. They will try to deceive us. You can see this. Keep cool. Persue the truth.

By Andy secretly lust for Midori

December 20, 2005 02:40 PM | Link to this

ooooooooooooo M, please love me.

A.

Merry Christmas!

By Midori Wishes She Was Andy

December 20, 2005 02:43 PM | Link to this

lurker: Why are you so worried about the financial condition of the AJC? If I keep up my posts and you keep up your donations, before long you will be broke. I don’t mind the AJC being in business, they provide me with a good laugh first thing every morning. I enjoy seeing hapless pinkos lashing out at everything that is better than they are. Plus, if I stay around long enough, maybe I might see one, just one, of their pinko predictions come true.

Thanks for your interest in me.

Merry Christmas!

By lurker

December 20, 2005 02:43 PM | Link to this

Carol, I hope you don’t share Andy’s tradition of mindless namecalling and total lack of rational thinking ability.

“They can’t fathom what someone’s Faith means to them because they are no good in them.” What?? You are totally losing it, man.

“They are shifty, depraved, no account, hateful little maggots and their comments should be taken as such.” Is this supposed to be a persuasive argument? If so, please point out the persuasive argument part.

“They love evil, they will always come down on it’s side.” This is getting comical, Andy. You’re totally insane.

Merry Christmas! (from a devout and independently thinking Christian)

By Ira

December 20, 2005 02:45 PM | Link to this

Scooter,

The retroactive Judicial oversite is to occur within 72 hours.

The wiretapping and spying has been going on for four years.

The President did not believe he had to obey FISA because of some other powers he and his administration is unable to justify.

I’m just curious about one other thing in your post. How did the media lie regarding the “Mission Accomplished” episode?

By I Wish I Was Andy

December 20, 2005 02:46 PM | Link to this

Pinko Logic: Midori constantly posts using my nickname so therefore I lust after Midori. Yep, that’s about right.

Merry Christmas!

By RE

December 20, 2005 02:48 PM | Link to this

Scooter

there is a 72 hour window to get approval of a wire tap AFTER you have begun one. Not 2 years. This could have been done legally, but it was not.

Taxes are cumbersome, getting my drivers license was cumbersome, renewing my tag is cumbersome, however it is the law. Because something is cumbersome does not mean you can go around it.

The media cannot be trusted, very broad statement. Which media? Fox news, the New York Times, Rush Limbough, Al Franken, CBS, Orielly. Journalism has become a capitilist system, a market place of ideas where networks pander to an audience, so I would agree with you in many instances that the media cannot be trusted, that does not mean that this administration is somehow trustworthy. Look at the track record of misstatements, half truths, and false assertions and tell me if you still trust this administration

By I Wish I Was Andy

December 20, 2005 02:49 PM | Link to this

lurker: Here, just insert your name up top. If you are reduced to cutting and pasting what I say, let’s save some time.

That is not an example of your ideas. Don’t you have any you can share with us? Are you waiting for the AJC to tell you what to think?

Merry Christmas!

By Carol

December 20, 2005 02:50 PM | Link to this

Lurker: There was no need for your apology, I’m sorry I included you in my address. I could not recollect if you were one of many who went on the attack the other night. Clearly, Ira was among them based on his response. You seem nice enough, but be careful who you associate with. Some say, “I like Mike”, well, in spite of his abrasive nature, “I like Andy”. There is a competition on the site which can get pretty nasty sometimes, but they knew that about Andy when they entered. They approach as one type of person and then turn into something quite different when they encounter his firm foundation.

By Voice of Reason

December 20, 2005 02:51 PM | Link to this

RE - You are not going to get an admission out of any of these clowns. They just spout off some other psychobabble and tell you that you don’t want freedom and if he didn’t tap the phones you and your family would be dead.

By finch

December 20, 2005 02:52 PM | Link to this

scooter, thats the BIG question. If there was a mechanism by which President Bush could immediately approve a wiretap, then ask a court for permission, all in compliance with the 1978 FISA act, why did he ignore it?:

“The 1978 law that regulates spying on Americans… does require a warrant to conduct that sort of surveillance. It also created a special court that is capable of responding within hours to warrant requests. If that is not fast enough, the attorney general may authorize wiretaps and then seek a warrant within 72 hours.

If President Bush broke the law by unilaterally ordering wiretaps, when he could have gotten them just as fast legally, then he’s guilty of stupidity. And that should be an impeachable offense.

By Midori

December 20, 2005 02:53 PM | Link to this

*By I Wish I Was Andy

December 20, 2005 02:46 PM | Link to this

Pinko Logic: Midori constantly posts using my nickname so therefore I lust after Midori. Yep, that’s about right.*

bwahahahahahaha — you are soooo FULL of yourself!!!

I can proudly say that I have never, ever ONCE posted under your nickname.

I leave such behavior to those of your level of “intelligence”.

By Dr R

December 20, 2005 02:54 PM | Link to this

Good arguments, all. Surely it’s hard to justify why retroactive warrants weren’t sought through FISA. Clearly the AG and WH Counsel thought the war powers covered such surveillance. In a case like this, all you can do is let the lawyers have it out, away from politics when possible.

I just keep coming back to the difficult choice Bush faces. There’s no doubt he’s obsessed with 9/11; I mean, no matter what he does, good or bad, he’ll be remembered as the 9/11 president. So he either can authorize surveillance of terrorists that may circumvent the law, or he can stick to the standard tactics as his father and Clinton did and hope another major attack doesn’t occur. Which could you live with: The fact that you broke the law for the best of intentions or the fact that you didn’t and thousands of innocent people died. Neither is a good choice, nor one I care to face. But we face a shadowy enemy who is able to take advantage of the fact that we live in a free, open society guided by the premise of civil liberties. There’s a reason they can hit us with airplanes but they can only hit Israel with single-point suicide bombers. We are victims of our own liberty against these animals.

By Ira

December 20, 2005 02:55 PM | Link to this

Carol,

Since you’re still here, please explain to us how you have been discriminated against as a Christian.

Who has forced you to abandon your faith?

How has the Government made it hard for you to practice your faith?

Why do you think your faith should have a favored status over all others?

By lurker

December 20, 2005 02:58 PM | Link to this

Carol, his “firm foundation” is calling people “shifty, depraved, no account, hateful little maggots” and questioning the Faith of people he’s never met, as if that is even relevant in the first place. He also accuses “them” of loving “evil,” and that “they will always come down on it’s side.” Gee, I don’t remember learning about how evil I was in Sunday school when I was little.

YOU need to question who YOU associate with, Carol.

Merry Christmas!

By Midori Wishes She Was Andy

December 20, 2005 02:59 PM | Link to this

Criminal pschyologists are trained to watch for voice inflections as they indicate a suspect not being truthful-

bwahahahahahaha — you are soooo FULL of yourself!!!

Thus, Midori is blatantly guilty of constantly posting using my name. She was caught and like a typical lib, their response is to throw a fit. Wonderful.

Merry Christmas!

By Midori Wishes She Was Andy

December 20, 2005 03:04 PM | Link to this

Gosh, look at lurker and his all consuming obsession. He can’t compete with me in the arena of ideas, so his response to defeat is to go around trying to convince everyone he is smarter than me- (hysterical woman’s voice) YOU need to question who YOU associate with, Carol. So much for letting your actions speak for themselves.

Merry Christmas!

By lurker

December 20, 2005 03:06 PM | Link to this

Andy, if the extent of your ideas is “they are shifty, depraved, no account, hateful little maggots and their comments should be taken as such,” then I’ve already beaten you in the arena of ideas. Game, set, match. See ya, troll.

By Ira

December 20, 2005 03:09 PM | Link to this

Dr R,

Bush is not limited to the two choices you outline. He could have done a number of things: nothing - not a real option, work within the confines of existing law - in this case he chose not to do this, approach Congress to re-work the law to authorize expanded powers - don’t know why this wasn’t tried, knowingly break the law and do what he thought best - shockingly the choice our President made.

We cannot stoop to the level of despot, tyrants, and dictators. We are better than that and we must remain - no matter how tough it is - better than that.

This is the United States of America. We are the greatest country in the world because we stand for freedom. Our foundation of government is based on laws and our constitution.

Everytime we allow any person in a position of governmental power to work against what makes this country great, we allow them to cheapen the USA and ourselves.

How can you not be angry with this man and his co-horts? How come this doesn’t make your blood boil with rage? Why do you feel comfortable making excuses for him when his very actions tell you he has nothing but contempt for all of us?

By RE

December 20, 2005 03:12 PM | Link to this

Dr R

I understand your reasoning, but a president using the “next attack” as the foundation for all decisions would justify any action.

Every once in a while I go back a read the constitution. To read the whole thing takes about 10 minutes, but I am betting many never have. What is amazing to me is that a 220 year old document is so easy to understand today. The people who crafted the constitution made it for the people, and wrote it so that the average citizen could understand the rights they are entitled to.

4th Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized

This seems clear to me, these are my rights. call me a strict constructionist

By Midori Wishes She Was Andy

December 20, 2005 03:17 PM | Link to this

Oh, No!: When pinkos turn into stalkers they always start off by imitating me-

By I Wish I Was Andy

December 20, 2005 11:37 AM | Link to this

Bottom line: No more terrorist attacks since 9/11 and free democracy blooming where the pinkos said it wouldn’t. Game, set, match. You lose, libs.

By lurker

December 20, 2005 03:06 PM | Link to this

Andy, if the extent of your ideas is “they are shifty, depraved, no account, hateful little maggots and their comments should be taken as such,� then I’ve already beaten you in the arena of ideas. Game, set, match. See ya, troll.

This freak has been hanging on every word I said in here today.

Merry Christmas!

By Scooter

December 20, 2005 03:19 PM | Link to this

RE, don’t listen to the voice of reason he is making a rash assumption.

No media is to be trusted without personal verification. I watch Brit Hume on Faux news, but check Media Matters for America on a daily basis and read transcripts when available.

I absolutely agree that laws must be followed, but I am not sure exactly what powers the executive branch is granted during times of war. If information gathered through one of these wire taps cannot be used to infringe on my freedoms, so long as the information gathered is not related to terrorism. That is, if Bush eavesdrops on me because he suspects I am a terrorist, but finds out that I have relations with hookers; the evidence would be inadmissible in a court of law. If the information gathered can only be used to prosecute acts of treason or terror, then I don’t have a problem with it.

Before a single lib comes in here with B. Franklin’s quote pertaining to people giving up liberties for security and deserving neither, don’t say it unless you believe that to be true of financial security as well. We all know that libs want to dish out financial security for the power of dependence, it eases their conscience.

As far as half truths of the administration you will have to give me some samples. Because, I have seen more from the MSM than I have from Bush.

By I Wish I Was Andy

December 20, 2005 03:20 PM | Link to this

lurker,

Game, set, WHAT?

You are slime, a piece of dog poo that I’d scrape off my shoe if I cared even that much about you. I could take you to my church and introduce to my Lord but then you’d get scared and cry and embarass me in front of all my righteous fellow believers in the One True God and then I’d have to find a new church but that would be hard because there aren’t that many out there that practice the right kind of Christianity and by that I mean the kind where people like you go the the eternal flames and get poked in the eyes with sharp sticks for eternity and people like me get to hang out with Jesus and the Aspostles except of course Judas who you’re sort of like because you hate all that is good in the world and would turn your country over the atheist towel-headed sand beasts who would love nothing better than to drive more planes into our country and blow us all up and turn us into God-haters.

So there.

Merry Christmas!

By Dr R

December 20, 2005 03:24 PM | Link to this

Again, I don’t disagree in general that our freedoms cannot be compromised. And I do hold contempt for elected officials who violate the law. On those arguments, you have me; I’m spitting in the wind, and admit it. It’s not so much to defend Bush, who lost my support some time back for other reasons. I just think there is a little bit of gray area here, both in terms of the legality of what was done and its intent.

Let’s draw some parallels to show you why I’m torn. First, Nixon; his obstruction of justice served no noble purpose, merely to save his political hide by covering up his politically-motivated dirty tricks. Then Clinton, who lied under oath to save his own fanny; no, it didn’t justify removal from office, but there was no altruistic motive to his acts. In most cases, politicians who break the law do so to a) line their pockets, or b) save their political careers.

Then there’s Bush, who you say has nothing but contempt for us, yet commits what well may be political suicide to keep us from being blown up on a subway. I am among those not willing to sacrifice my liberty for the sake of security, but I find it hard to be too angry at a president, however misguided, who acted in what he thinks is my welfare and safety. If he overstepped his authority to protect us, it wasn’t out of a personal agenda. How could it be? He doesn’t benefit from this, and may in fact suffer the consequences of it.

By Condoleeza

December 20, 2005 03:25 PM | Link to this

Now now boys.

I will have none of this any more!

If you all don’t calm down, I’m going to bite you with my giant teefus and head-butt you with my bigazz forehead.

You have been warned.

By lurker

December 20, 2005 03:25 PM | Link to this

Andy, I’m speaking up against your senseless namecalling, trolling and actually, I’m hanging on every word from Ira, Dr. R and RE since they’re having a wonderfully interesting discussion that you’re evidently unable to engage in. Hmm, I guess it’s because you’re a weakminded troll who can never add anything constructive to a discussion.

Merry Christmas!

By RE

December 20, 2005 03:31 PM | Link to this

Scooter

it is not weather the information is admissable in court or not that is the question, it is the initial search and intrusion that needs to be justified. These are your rights. We have been giving away our rights because we have been attacked, but would you really want the next president to operate under the same justifications.

Who defines terrorism anyway. If actions are justified because they are fighting against terrorism then you better have a clear definition of what terrorism is. First thing that comes to mind is an middle eastern looking guy with a bomb and an AK 47. But how about eco terrorists, are the same measures to be used against people who’s worst action might be to cut the fuel line of a bulldozer? Abortion clinc bombings, we have not had those in a while but think about the fact that all members of a church would be implicated along with the person carrying out the action. Apparently even the Quakers come under suspicion because of thier opposition to war in general as happened in florida. so, what is justified?

By Dr R

December 20, 2005 03:33 PM | Link to this

Man, it’s hard to have an intelligent discussion while these children are in here lobbing spitballs at each other ….

Back to Bush. No doubt, he’s obsessed with 9/11. I think we’ll find out after the fact (like years after he’s out of office) that it has really screwed him up. But put yourself in his shoes: How would you like to have the lives of 200 million people on your head every day? It has screwed up better men than him before. It’s a lot easier to second-guess when we don’t face that kind of daily dilemma.

By Ira

December 20, 2005 03:39 PM | Link to this

Dr R,

Agreed on the Nixon and Clinton muck-ups. Both were boobs in their own rights.

We don’t know about Bush though. He asks us to trust him, he’s only acting in our best interests. Then why is he still resisting Judicial Oversight? Why not share his reasoning with a court that overwelming rules in favor of the government? Why not offer now, to make his case to the court? Why the arrogance and finger wagging?

You say that he did not/cannot benefit from his actions. How do you know? How do you know he didn’t direct the NSA to spy on other targets under other orders? How can you be so sure that once he got his foot in the door that allows unmitigated access to people’s private informaiton and communication, he didn’t go further? Sure, there’s the presumption that he wouldn’t do that because he’s President but come on, we had Nixon once. We know that the GOP is maintaining an enemies list, how do we know he hasn’t used that in some nefarious way?

Simply put, the President has been caught spying on people inside the USA without the legaly mandated Judicial oversight.

He says trust him he won’t abuse it.

I don’t believe him. I want my 4th Amendment back. I want my Judicial Oversight back. I want America to return to being A Shining City on a Hill

By RE

December 20, 2005 03:44 PM | Link to this

back to Bush,

If he really is screwed up because of 9/11, the constitution provides recourse for that as well, amendment 25

By Dr R

December 20, 2005 03:46 PM | Link to this

Ira, you bring up a good point: We don’t know. We don’t know who was spied on and whether they met the description of al-Qaida terrorists. The White House tells us this is the case, but it is not a good idea to be too trusting of those in charge, as we have found out too many times before. On that point we agree. Trouble is, when it comes to covert ops, telling all to the public also means telling all to those we’re combatting, and the end of any secret surveillance. What we need is a better way to legally sniff these killers out and catch them, but we come right back to the same arguments on civil liberties. Yet when push comes to shove, we need to side with the 4th Amendment and not our own fannies. We are a nation of laws, not men, and those laws need to stand long after we’re gone.

My friend, I knock over my king and concede you the match … (truth is, I knew this was a lost cause when I started, but it beats the other nonsense that passes for discussion in here).

By Scooter

December 20, 2005 03:47 PM | Link to this

Re, that was a very well thought out response and please know that I appreciate it. It seems to come down to your unwillingness to give up personal liberties and me not caring if someone listens in, so long as they can’t use it to infringe on my freedoms and liberties. As far as a definition goes, Oklahoma City and abortion clinic bombings fall well within what I and the intelligence community would call terrorism.

Ira, “Mission accomplished” you ask. The mission was to remove Saddam and his sons from power. That was the purpose of the 48 hour ultimatum. In that speech, under the “Mission Accomplished” banner, Bush stated that it was just the beginning and much hard work laid ahead. Some just decided they did not want to hear that part.

By Ira

December 20, 2005 03:52 PM | Link to this

Dr R,

This was fun… thanks we’ll do it again on some other topic…

To wrap this up with some sort of consensus:

I agree with you that this need not be shared with the public. As un-easy as it makes me, I’m okay with the secret FISA court and keeping it and the subjects of interest cloaked in shadows. I just want the Courts to be involved and to work to keep the Executive in check.

These are bad people we’re talking about spying on and we need to do it. We just can’t give up being America in the process.

Anyway, as I said above, thanks for the exercise.

By Dr R

December 20, 2005 03:56 PM | Link to this

Scooter, would you be as trusting of the people in power if they were of a party you do not support? As with everything in politics, this seems to determine where one comes down. It’s either, “I voted for Bush so I trust him to do the right thing,” or “Bush is scum and I don’t trust him to do anything right.” We need a consistent approach based on law, not politics, because the same issue will come up some day with a different guy in the Oval. For instance, would you be less worried if Hillary the C were listening to your cell phone banter? I, for one, am mortified at the thought.

By RE

December 20, 2005 03:56 PM | Link to this

Scooter,

I understand your willingness to sacrifice personal liberties for the sake of our country’s security, and in some respects I admire it. What I take issue with is that we would have to rely on trust of the government that they would not use any information except that pertaining to terrorism. would you feel the same when another president takes over the oval office. how much of a line is it to cross from supporting terrorism to governmental critisism? I have heard many times that people like John Murtha and Cindy Sheehan are giving aid and comfort to the enemy, would spying on them be justified?

By Brian Curtis

December 20, 2005 03:57 PM | Link to this

Ira, you’ve been doing good work here while I’ve been busy today. Congratulations! Hopeless fascist morons like Andy and RW will never get it, but there’s hope of reaching some of the sane conservatives.

Keep up the good work—and keep fighting for our freedoms like a REAL American. (Unlike certain Gee Dubyas I can name, who spit on it.)

By Ira

December 20, 2005 03:59 PM | Link to this

Dr R,

Don’t worry. I have faith in America and am sure they’ll never elect anyone with “cankles” again after the Taft debacle and all.

Dang it, the ACLU’s gonna want their card back now…

By Ugotme?

December 20, 2005 03:59 PM | Link to this

Ira: GOTCHA!!!!!!! It is so easy to set you guys up. Thanks to “It wasn’t Carol” you nimrod. Reduced by the written word. Don’t know who all posted in Andy’s name, but got you, too.

Lurker: I don’t associate with anybody here, just like to stir the pot “yum yum”. Hell, Andy probably hates me as much as the rest of you. I am the sick miscreant you all wish you weren’t.

By Midori Wishes She Was Andy

December 20, 2005 04:01 PM | Link to this

lurker: Just what I thought, you are a shallow man unable to come up with any serious ideas of your own. In fact, if it weren’t for me you would have nothing to contribute to this blog.

I blew this debate out of the water before you even got out of bed this morning. Bush has full authority and the backing of any sane American citizen to wiretap overseas phone conversations with known terrorists.” The argument in here today has centered on the kook hopes that Bush will be impeached and rather weak defense of that thought (Ricky does try.) What in the Lord’s name would make you think I’m going to waste valuable time wading off into the fever swamps of the pinko left?

Thanks for your continued interest in me.

Merry Christmas!

By Dr R

December 20, 2005 04:04 PM | Link to this

My gut reaction when I heard of the NSA case was same as you guys. I just wanted to digest it a bit, learn a little more, before I’m willing to go for the tar and feathers. I’m inching that way, though … Scooter, I got nothing to hide, either, and I want to catch the bad guys. But you know how government is: Give it an inch and next thing you know, the feds have a minicam in your shower to hear what kind of songs you belt out. The best possible relationship between a citizenry and its government is abject and total mistrust and severe constraint of power. They got more guns and money than we do, so it’s best we keep them under wraps as much as possible.

By RE

December 20, 2005 04:06 PM | Link to this

So Andy, would you consider yourself a strict constitutional constructionist?

By Ira

December 20, 2005 04:10 PM | Link to this

TO:

*By Ugotme?

December 20, 2005 03:59 PM | Link to this

Ira: GOTCHA!!!!!!! It is so easy to set you guys up. Thanks to “It wasn’t Carol� you nimrod. Reduced by the written word. Don’t know who all posted in Andy’s name, but got you, too.*

WTF? Is this you Andy? Take your meds, dude. Again, you’re making no sense.

By Midori Wishes She Was Andy

December 20, 2005 04:11 PM | Link to this

RE: A strict Constitutional interpretationalist. Our Founding Fathers got it pretty much right. Not perfect but close enough.

Merry Christmas!

By RE

December 20, 2005 04:14 PM | Link to this

so, you are not a strict constructionist?

and who interprets the constitution for us, because I can read it pretty well without help

By Midori Wishes She Was Andy

December 20, 2005 04:19 PM | Link to this

RE: Constructionists see it as “living document” that changes with every whim of society.

Merry Christmas!

By Ira

December 20, 2005 04:19 PM | Link to this

RE,

I’m sure Andy believes in the “Originalist” view on the Contstitution as defined by Shemp Hannity, Rush “Hillbilly Heroin” Limbaugh, and Bill “Loofah” O’Reilly.

Meaning we should all return to the good old days of the 18th Century.

By Midori Wishes She Was Andy

December 20, 2005 04:22 PM | Link to this

To:

By Jack

December 20, 2005 02:58 PM | Link to this

Mike - I know you are married with children but if you ever decide to Brokeback Mountain - I’m your man. Seriously - the Braves and the Heimlich and the constitution TP. I’m glad someone in this city has a sense of humor.

WTF? Is this you Ira? Take your meds, dude. Again, you’re making no sense.

By Dr R

December 20, 2005 04:23 PM | Link to this

Shemp?

By RE

December 20, 2005 04:24 PM | Link to this

So constructionist and originalist mean different things?

what is an interpretationalist?

By RW-(the original)

December 20, 2005 04:25 PM | Link to this

Brian Curtis,

After being out most of the day the first post I see when I get back is you calling me a “hopeless, fascist moron”. Ironically it’s in a post to “Ira” who before I left I thought was looking at the same issue I was and that even though we were coming at the issue from different ends neither of us is completely sure of why this is being done the way it is.

For example, I tend to share Ira’s position that if this is fully on the up and up why can’t they specifically point to the statute that says that. On the other hand, if this was as despicable as some, like Nancy Pelosi, say it wouldn’t have been kept quite this long.

It’s my understanding that the immediate wiretap with a 72 hour retroactive warrant provision only applies in certain cases. If true maybe these are for cases that didn’t fall under this provision. Maybe we are having to protect a reciprocal agreement with another country and any disclosure could jeopardize that agreement.

I’m perfectly willing to allow Congress to do their oversight duties and get to the bottom of this.

Ira,

Please feel free to correct this hopeless, fascist moron if I have mis-characterized our positions.

By Dr R

December 20, 2005 04:30 PM | Link to this

Yeah, what exactly is Congress going to learn from a full investigation that it doesn’t already know? Members admit that the White House informed them that the NSA wiretaps were ongoing. Are the Dems going to play the “Bush duped us again” hand over and over to avoid complicity? If indeed the White House went too far in this program, it was with the tacit approval of Congress. I see where Jay Rockefeller sent a strongly worded letter against the policy. Wow, that’s tellin’ ‘em! No wonder Democrats keep losing elections; they will roll over and play dead with very little prompting.

By Midori Wishes She Was Andy

December 20, 2005 04:31 PM | Link to this

RE: The Founding Fathers took “notes” when they were writing the Constitution, the “federalist papers,” for instance. If you reference these while reading the document as written, you can “interpret” the authors intentions.

Originalist is almost the same as what I’m talking about. Constructionist is like the pinkos (I tried, why should I be polite when Ira is ankle biting every thing I say?) on the Supreme Court consulting foreign law to help them with American decisions. It should really be called “perversion” not constructionist.

Merry Christmas!

By Scooter

December 20, 2005 04:33 PM | Link to this

RE and Dr. R, Trust me ya’ll I am equally, if not more, scared of the power of government than you two. I have been advocating the removal of the current tax code, which divides America and allows politicians to hide costs, burdens and favors in its largess.

To you twos question about how I would feel if it were in the hands of another politician of a different stripe; It depends on the circumstances. I was certainly against Clinton’s “Know Your Client� plan. But, we weren’t fighting terrorist then and if the courts would deem wrongfully gathered intelligence as inadmissible, then whatever, just get some terrorist.

By RE

December 20, 2005 04:35 PM | Link to this

but the federalist papers are not law, the constitution is. why should these papers be relied on instead of the actual document that was ratified?

By Dr R

December 20, 2005 04:35 PM | Link to this

Uh, slick, you got it backward. Constructionists don’t believe in bending the intent of the document to reflect changing societal mores. Those who seek to interpret want to go beyond what is written. Here is the definition from Wikipedia:

Strict constructionism is a philosophy of judicial interpretation and legal philosophy that limits judicial interpretation to the meanings of the actual words and phrases used in law, and not on other sources or inferences. Adherents look strictly at the text in question rather than relying either on legislative intent (as gleaned from contemporaneous commentaries or legislative debate) or on metaphysical ideas such as natural law. Two of the doctrine’s most forceful proponents have been Supreme Court of the United States Justice Hugo Black and Chief Justice William Rehnquist, and Chief Justice of Australia Owen Dixon.

By Dr R

December 20, 2005 04:39 PM | Link to this

Either government’s power should be limited or not. We can’t swing that back and forth depending on who has it. Better to limit it with laws, checks and balances, just in case we screw up and elect someone who wants to abuse it.

By Ira

December 20, 2005 04:41 PM | Link to this

RW & Dr R,

The Congressional Leadership was not consulted. They were informed and this was done under the cover of it be “Secret” and therefore not able to be discussed with anyone outside of those present.

The Congress did not give “tacit approval.”

The Dems were not in a position to bring this to public light nor were/are they in a position to demand hearings secret or otherwise.

This action was taken solely by the Executive Branch.

Lastly, Andy are you saying Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas are pinkos? They have repeatedly labled themselves “Strict Contructionists.”

Again and again you show yourself to be a mental midget. Please stop before you really hurt yourself.

By RE

December 20, 2005 04:41 PM | Link to this

thanks Dr R, I was pretty sure originalist and constructionist were synonomous

By Midori Wishes She Was Andy

December 20, 2005 04:45 PM | Link to this

RE: I said referenced, not relied on in regards to the federalist papers. Anyway, foreign law is not our law but they still rely on it.

Dr R: and not on other sources or inferences. I think that definition means foreign law, not the federalist papers.

The writers couldn’t include all of their thoughts an a given subject in the Constitution, it would have been 7000 pages long. That’s why they wrote these seperate papers for the judiciary to interpret.

Merry Christmas!

By RW-(the original)

December 20, 2005 04:46 PM | Link to this

Ira,

Please, when has Congress ever kept anything quite because the Executive told them too?

By GWB

December 20, 2005 04:48 PM | Link to this

also posted in the other blog entry:

“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. It’s important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.”

-George W. Bush, April 2004

So, is he a liar? Or did he just change his mind that decide that he no longer values the Constitution?

By RE

December 20, 2005 04:48 PM | Link to this

So, an easy question, is the constitution the law or not? It is an easy read, anyone with a moderate education can understand it. Is it the law, or is it open to interpretation?

By Midori Wishes She Was Andy

December 20, 2005 04:50 PM | Link to this

Ira: Everybody has a different opinion, see here, I’m trying to provide mine in the midst of all your immature comments. If I differ from someone else, it is why I explain myself.

Merry Christmas!

By Ira

December 20, 2005 04:53 PM | Link to this

RW,

It wasn’t the Executive that told them to keep it quiet, it was the “Secret” part.

You know, security clearences for Classified, Secret, Top Secret and all those classified things they have oversight on like the CIA, NSA, DIA, NRO, etc…

Congressmen regulary are privy to all kinds of information that they cannot discuss with anyone. Most, if not all, of them take if very seriously and play by the rules unlike some of the unelected officials in the West Wing.

(Sorry, had to take a shot there.)

By Ira

December 20, 2005 04:57 PM | Link to this

Andy,

You don’t explain yourself nor do you provide opinion.

You rail against anyone who doesn’t agree with you. You call names. You parrot GOP talking points.

You bring nothing to the table except a few laughs.

Keep on spewing, it’s fun to watch you get all riled up one minute and then return to your passive agressive self.

I hope Santa brings you a lump of coal.

By GWB

December 20, 2005 04:58 PM | Link to this

Andy, RW, etc.? any response to my statement from April 2004? How do I weasel my way out of this one?

By RW-(the original)

December 20, 2005 05:01 PM | Link to this

Ira,

Leaks come from everywhere in DC and I wouldn’t trust Jay Rockefeller as far as I could throw him, so that opens up the same hand/other hand speculation I brought up to Brian Curtis.

I certainly don’t share your overwhelming trust of Congress.

(Is this blog running like a 14K modem connection?)

By I Wish I Was Andy

December 20, 2005 05:01 PM | Link to this

Ira: Since you believe in Santa you are obviosly an atheist. Everyone knows he’s really the devil. Santa(n) does not come to my house, he’s not welcome there. You can’t be saved. You are going to the firey depths for eternity.

Merry Christmas!

By GWB

December 20, 2005 05:03 PM | Link to this

Andy, RW!!! Please help me! How can I possibly reconcile my statement from April 2004 with my current position on wiretapping??

By RE

December 20, 2005 05:03 PM | Link to this

So is there any consensus on if the constitution is valid law or not?

I have not heard anything back yet

By Ira

December 20, 2005 05:07 PM | Link to this

RW,

I don’t trust Congress all that much either but the story came from within the NSA.

I’m gone for the day folks…

By RW-(the original)

December 20, 2005 05:08 PM | Link to this

GWB,

Obviously the President was talking about fully domestic wiretaps in 2004. There’s no telling what you were doing.

By Midori Wishes She Was Andy

December 20, 2005 05:10 PM | Link to this

I wonder if the pinkos will buy into this?

[MEXICO CITY - The Mexican government, angered by a U.S. proposal to extend a wall along the border to keep out migrants, has struck back with radio ads urging Mexican workers to denounce rights violations in the United States.](http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/12/20/D8EK6GGO9.html

Merry Christmas!

By GWB

December 20, 2005 05:11 PM | Link to this

Actually, the words “domestic” and “fully” do not even appear in my statements that day. I was just talking about “wiretaps.” I know what I said.

By GWB

December 20, 2005 05:14 PM | Link to this

RW, are you implying that I can wiretap any American citizen on U.S. soil without as long as he/she is making a call overseas?

By GWB

December 20, 2005 05:15 PM | Link to this

RW, insert “without a warrant” in my last statement.

By RE

December 20, 2005 05:20 PM | Link to this

For anyone interested in some good reading, go to fallacyfiles.org It shows all types of false arguement and reasoning. If you ever read some of the stuff hear and know it is wrong but were not sure why, take a look at this site.

By RE

December 20, 2005 05:23 PM | Link to this

nice change of subject Andy

By Scooter

December 20, 2005 05:25 PM | Link to this

Ira, you asked me a question about how the media lied about the “mission Accomplished” banner. I was tardy with my response and don’t know if you swaw it, but here it is; The second paragraph.

Peace to the gods

By GWB

December 20, 2005 05:25 PM | Link to this

I’ll repost since no one is responding to my pleas for help:

“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. It’s important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.�

-George W. Bush, April 2004

So, am I a liar? Or did I just change my mind that decide that I no longer value the Constitution?

By RW-(the original)

December 20, 2005 05:30 PM | Link to this

GWB,

Did you have trouble counting to paragraph 29, paragraph 29…today?

That speech is about the Patriot Act. Should he have said this? “I’m talking about fully domestic taps here, not our top secret, classified program to track known Al Queda communications between foreign lands and the US. In that case we don’t always use a warrant, don’t tell anybody.”

By Semper Fi

December 20, 2005 05:32 PM | Link to this

Food for thought?

3 planes just crashed into 3 schools, a forth plane is off course and not responding, headed toward a stadium filled with 50K folks. Can the Prez shoot it down? Does he have to get judical approval? Does he shoot it down and then gets the approval? What if he shoots it down, goes for approval and is denied? What about the rights of the dead passengers? What would you do?

By RE

December 20, 2005 05:32 PM | Link to this

Statement: By I Wish I Was Andy

December 20, 2005 11:37 AM | Link to this

Bottom line: No more terrorist attacks since 9/11 and free democracy blooming where the pinkos said it wouldn’t. Game, set, match. You lose, libs.

the Fallacy: Alias: Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc Translation: “After this, therefore because of this” (Latin)

Type: Non Causa Pro Causa Forms Event C happened immediately prior to event E. Therefore, C caused E. Events of type C happen immediately prior to events of type E. Therefore, events of type C cause events of type E.

see this is fun

By GWB

December 20, 2005 05:36 PM | Link to this

RW, I’ll ask again, are you implying that I can wiretap any American citizen on U.S. soil without a warrant as long as he/she is making a call overseas? Also, tell me what about the warrants granted under FISA is NOT secret.

By GWB

December 20, 2005 05:38 PM | Link to this

Semper Fi, we’re talking about wiretaps and surveillance, guy, not shooting down planes. Your analogy is a bit flawed.

By RW-(the original)

December 20, 2005 05:44 PM | Link to this

GWB,

Go back and read the blog, lots of good points have been made on both sides. Nobody ever said any international communication could be tapped.

By RE

December 20, 2005 05:46 PM | Link to this

here we go Semper Fi, Statement: 3 planes just crashed into 3 schools, a forth plane is off course and not responding, headed toward a stadium filled with 50K folks. Can the Prez shoot it down? Does he have to get judical approval? Does he shoot it down and then gets the approval? What if he shoots it down, goes for approval and is denied? What about the rights of the dead passengers? What would you do?

Fallacy: Alias: False Analogy Faulty Analogy Questionable Analogy Type: Informal Fallacy Form: A is like B. B has property P. Therefore, A has property P. (Where the analogy between A and B is weak.)

Trying to rationalize wiretapping by using the above analogy is a pretty long stretch

By RW-(the original)

December 20, 2005 05:47 PM | Link to this

GWB,

Add emphasis to “any” in my last post and add “only those with known terrorist links.”

By Midori Wishes She Was Andy

December 20, 2005 05:50 PM | Link to this

RE: You really don’t have to apply pinko logic to my thoughts, just read them as they are. That’s all a part of being a Conservative. We just give you the facts without the liberal masturbation involved in it, much like you are trying to do.

Since September 11th, 2001 no more terrorist attacks. Bush doctrine successful.

Freedom and democracy in Iraq, unless you are a kook and consider American soldiers as occupiers?

Merry Christmas!

By GWB

December 20, 2005 05:51 PM | Link to this

RW, without independent judicial oversight the phrase “only those with known terrorist links” doesn’t really mean anything in terms of acting as a gatekeeper.

By RE

December 20, 2005 05:55 PM | Link to this

In regards to pinko Logic

Alias: Bad Company Fallacy The Company that You Keep Fallacy Type: Red Herring Example: “The al Qaeda Cheering Section “The most telling moment in last night’s [State of the Union] speech came after the president noted that ‘key provisions of the Patriot Act are set to expire next year.’ In response, notes the New York Times, ‘some critics in Congress applauded enthusiastically.’ If Osama bin Laden watched the speech, one imagines him applauding too.”

Also referring to me as a pinko: Translation: “With this, therefore because of this” (Latin) Type: Non Causa Pro Causa

Quote-Unquote:

“Near-perfect correlations exist between the death rate in Hyderabad, India, from 1911 to 1919, and variations in the membership of the International Association of Machinists during the same period. Nobody seriously believes that there is anything more than a coincidence in that odd and insignificant fact.” Source: David Hackett Fischer, Historians’ Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought (Harper & Row, 1970), pp. 168-169. Forms Events C and E both happened at the same time. Therefore, C caused E.

Logic has no political motivation

By Clinton

December 20, 2005 05:57 PM | Link to this

using Andy’s logic: 1992-2000 no terrorist attacks on US soil, Clinton presidency perfect 2000-2005 attack on 9/11/01 on US soil, killing thousands, Bush presidency sucky

By Midori Wishes She Was Andy

December 20, 2005 06:00 PM | Link to this

RE: Pardon Me?

Clinton: You might want to look at 1993 history in America, Clinton presidency sucky in more ways then one.

Merry Christmas!

By RW-(the original)

December 20, 2005 06:01 PM | Link to this

GWB,

I just read the other thread, Geezur would be proud of you.

You’re probably right, nothing to see here

(hat tip: Objective Observer)

By GWB

December 20, 2005 06:11 PM | Link to this

RW, typical wingut response (see RNC convention). Just keep scaring people with the imagery and mention of 9/11 which, as tragic and as harrowing as it is, isn’t pertinent to the instant discussion. I asked you how Bush can possibly reconcile his two inconsistent positions and you have come up with nothing. As is posted above, would you support impeachment proceedings to figure out if his activity is a violation of the law? No one being wiretapped can really sue, because there’s no warrant and it’s “supersecret” as you said.

By RE

December 20, 2005 06:13 PM | Link to this

Main Entry: cognitive dissonance Function: noun : psychological conflict resulting from incongruous beliefs and attitudes held simultaneously

By Midori Wishes She Was Andy

December 20, 2005 06:21 PM | Link to this

“The Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes,” Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee on July 14, 1994, “and that the President may, as has been done, delegate this authority to the Attorney General.”

Merry Christmas!

By RE

December 20, 2005 06:22 PM | Link to this

does that trump the constitution?

By rushncap

December 20, 2005 06:27 PM | Link to this

Yes, andy, we’re all very impressed with your “internetting skills”. Trying to be funny, or being your usual retarded self?

By Midori Wishes She Was Andy

December 20, 2005 06:38 PM | Link to this

rushncap: Usually a post will have some kind of basis for origin, i.e. a question asked about a previous post, etc. Your post appears as though you just wish to whisper sweet nothings in my ear, there is no substance to respond to. If you are looking for me to reciprocate your greetings, you are sorely mistaken; you are Big Daddy’s woman and I don’t mess around on friends.

Merry Christmas!

By RW-(the original)

December 20, 2005 06:39 PM | Link to this

GWB,

Here? as underwhelm?

Well, that’s rational. Does that mean you’d support impeachment proceedings to determine if Bush, in fact, committed a crime? That’s the “congressional oversight� I presume Bush was talking about.

Congress has various committees with oversight responsibilities in both houses, why would you start with impeachment?

By RE

December 20, 2005 06:39 PM | Link to this

I was wondering if you were still there..Is the constitution the primary law of this country or not?

By RE

December 20, 2005 06:48 PM | Link to this

no answer on that yet I guess?

By GWB

December 20, 2005 06:55 PM | Link to this

RW, no, I was citing underwhelm’s post, hence the usage of the verbiage “As posted above.” If we’re dealing with a potential crime dealing with the Constitutional rights of citizens committed by the President, possibly committed over 30 times, that seems like a high crime or misdemeanor that should be investigated via impeachment proceedings. Why are you scared of impeachment?

By RE

December 20, 2005 07:00 PM | Link to this

Anyone else a little worried no one will admit that the constitution is the primary law of the land?

By RW-(the original)

December 20, 2005 07:04 PM | Link to this

GWB,

I’ve already said I have questions about the whole thing. Make all the insinuations you like.

I don’t think the ranting of an uninformed blog spammer is really grounds for removing the President of the United States from office. Why don’t you try your Congressperson?

By Scooter

December 20, 2005 07:11 PM | Link to this

RE, I’m worried but not surprised. Some people believe the constitution is a breathing document. They need to interpret it to fit the changing times and governments every increasing power through dependency.

How are we all liking the New York MTA union’s pity party? Do you think they are conservatives the gimme sect of liberal or the educated liberal manager of the gimmes.

By Midori Wishes She Was Andy

December 20, 2005 07:27 PM | Link to this

Cartoon boy has a new shot at religion posted.

Merry Christmas!

By Mike's Mom

December 20, 2005 08:17 PM | Link to this

I regularly view Mike’s cartoons and sometimes post a comment, and from time to time read through the comments. It appears that most of the posters love Bush and trust him. I do not. I am from Texas and he was a lousy governor. But the governor of Texas has extremely limited powers, so he wasn’t able to do irreparable harm to our state. I cannot say the same for our nation. Not only does he have tremendous power, he also considers himself to be above the law. One of the most basic aspects of a democracy and of our legal system is that no one is above the law. Not even the president. But this is not how our current president believes or operates. This is frightening to me. And it should be to even the most ardent Bushie on this blog. What I would suggest to everyone who reads this: Whenever you are spouting your support of Bush, just close your eyes and envision that the president is not Bush but Clinton (or Gore or Kerry). Would you say the same thing about presidential prerogative or power? Just for grins, see if you can focus on the issue rather than on the personality. Bush has done more damage to our democracy than you seem to understand. Like I said, I don’t participate in this blog very often. My reasons are that I am usually busy working (the majority of my time) and because I find that too many of the posters engage in vitriolic attacks on one another. I prefer to avoid personal attacks and focus on the critical issues that we as a people are facing.

By Objective Observer

December 20, 2005 08:24 PM | Link to this

Thanks for the hat tip R.W. Have you been able to find the one that got away, never to be seen again. Is there some way that I can subliminally flash that image everyday about 150 times. As far as I’m concerned, that image is relative to all that has happened since. Everybody is doing a fine job tonight!! I’m too tired to play.

By RW-(the original)

December 20, 2005 08:31 PM | Link to this

Objective Observer,

I don’t think anybody’s playing over here anymore. ml started an ID v. evolution thread. What fun! not…

By Objective Observer

December 20, 2005 08:40 PM | Link to this

Mike’s Mom: Honestly…if my eyes were closed, and a different man held office, I would say the same thing. Surely, as a “mother” you can understand!! When the administration changes, we can iron out the kinks, but if the threat remains the same, my opinion will stay the same.

By RW-(the original)

December 20, 2005 08:48 PM | Link to this

Objective Observer,

As the day goes on this is sounding less and less like anything new

Somebody already referenced the fact that Jamie Gorelick defended the Clinton administration in 1994 and it was accepted that the Executive did have these powers.

Of course, the Washington Post ran that story on A-19 today.

By Objective Observer

December 20, 2005 08:59 PM | Link to this

R.W.: I could repeat it one more time, but I don’t think it would have any relevance to irrational hatred.

By Objective Observer

December 20, 2005 09:06 PM | Link to this

R.W.: BTW, what are you doing back over here? I came back to catch up without feeling compelled to play. Blogged earlier today, talked with Getalife and left. Had zoning stuff to attend to.

By RW-(the original)

December 20, 2005 09:11 PM | Link to this

Objective Observer,

I didn’t want you to be alone among the lurkers, I’ll go away now.

By Scooter

December 20, 2005 09:44 PM | Link to this

Mike’s Mom, I certainly agree that people should be able to transcend themselves to opposite polar scenarios. I bet you there are many conservative republicans in the world who could agree on some democratic environmental policies. But it is hard to find any lefties, I live in the center of a whole mess’em, that can say anything good about Bush, or Reagan. They are so blinded by hatred that they couldn’t even see the good in the Healthy Forest Initiative.

Granted, your son can criticize both sides, but he doesn’t seem to be capable of complimenting both sides.

By Scooter

December 20, 2005 09:48 PM | Link to this

Mikes mom, sorry but I forgot to let you know that we are not a democracy. We have three branches of government and are not parliamentarian.

By unfun

December 21, 2005 08:59 AM | Link to this

Maybe spending all our attention and money and resources on the global war on terrorism (chapter 1: iraq) is is good, maybe it’s bad — we’ll simply have to let history decide. The metric is not “there have been no terrorist attacks on our soil,” there are a long list of other issues that are equally relevant, and will remain so long after these blog comments are forgotten. The political divide it maintains, the debt it fosters on later generations, (illegal or not) erosion of civil liberties, lives lost, fallout of returning war wounded, questions of executive power,… but also expansion of US presence/might in the mideast, and generally the expansion of US global military power in the face of projected increasing global economic competition. ML has earned his right to speak to the nation on these issues, and, I applaud him not only because I agree with him, oh no; it’s that paired with the key fact that he has a tall, effective soapbox to preach from. it is due to this that he gets the last laugh at his detractors. little plagarized blog snippets don’t account for much here, especially if they’re all just retreads of freep or redstate. if you’re so into political editorial cartoons that you haunt a cartoonist’s blog, go draw some of your own to make your point, or link out others that have done it for you. it would make a lot more sense.

Happy appropriated winter pagan festival!