One excuse fits all

[46zilzal]

the rutabaga and his 9/11.

Report of NSA Spying Prompts Call for Probe

By Jennifer Loven / Associated Press

WASHINGTON - A key Republican committee chairman put the Bush administration on notice Friday that his panel would hold hearings into a report that the National Security Agency eavesdropped without warrants on people inside the United States.

Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said he would make oversight hearings by his panel next year "a very, very high priority."

"There is no doubt that this is inappropriate," said Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican and chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

[kenwoodallpromos]

Just win Baby! If you all put up Hillary in "08 and lose, I will be laughing hard!
History since FDR says it is the Demos' turn unless you blow it! Don't expect any impeachment with majority Rep.
To quote Bush "I got political capital and I'm going top spend it".
You all better nominate somebody who does not consider prostitution and gambling terrorism or you lose again!LOL!

[46zilzal]

I seriously doubt that Mrs. Clinton could win

[Tom]

This "secret" was known not only to many in cngress, but also the secret court that handles terroism type things. And it was only used something like 36 times ( about three dozen).

Under the old rules, if we intercepted a call from Afganistan and the callers asked someone in the US "What is the target and when will you hit it?"
we would oly be able to listen to the quesiton, not the reply.

THAT is the crime, here.
Everyone bitched that we were unprepared for 9-11. Now we are getting GOOD intelligence and you bitch about it.
We also get good info from "torure." Piss Ant #2, John n's definition of torture would outlaw marine basic training.

Whatever iitakes......whatever it takes.

[lsbets]

To all those who were outraged by the "outing" of the not quite undercover Mrs. Wilson - where is the outrage over the leak of this information and the leak of the CIA prisons overseas? Both are highly classified and have a lot more to do with national security than Mrs. Wilson.

[46zilzal]

an article there hits it on the head:"we now live in a time where dissent must be marginalized, ignored, punished and, most importantly, seen as something that gives aid and comfort to America's enemies."

can a new McCarthy be far benind??

[lsbets]

an article there hits it on the head:"we now live in a time where dissent must be marginalized, ignored, punished and, most importantly, seen as something that gives aid and comfort to America's enemies."

can a new McCarthy be far benind??

Don't worry, you don't live here.

Seriously - I'm assuming you are referring to the questions I asked about selective outrage regarding the leaking of classified information (If not, my apologies, but the rest of what I have to say still applies). Can you show me where I or anyone else who replied in this thread did any of the things that you say lead to McCartyism. Isn't that charge getting old? Isn't that just the narrow minded left's way of trying to shield themselves from justified criticism when they say and do ridiculous things? Why should the left be able to say and do whatever they want without being criticized? You like to proclaim your openmidnedness, but when folks make legitimate counterpoints to points that you make, you cry "McCarthyism". Its getting old. Why are the folks on the left so afraid of a battle of ideas that any time it seems there might be one they yell "McCarhyism" to try and end the debate before it begins?

[toetoe]

The key question to me: Were they American citizens? It seems aliens would not be immune from eavesdropping. :confused:

[Tom]

lsbets.....GREAT POINT!


This is showing the TRUE colors of the 4 Horsemen......political idiots who have no real credibility.

Sec......where is your outrage over this?

[46zilzal]

pointing out something is not outrage

[Tom]

No, but Sec was outraged that someone breeched national secruity by outing the CIA cleaning lady, so he should be outraged that other, more important national information was outed for liberal gain.

[JustRalph]

This so called "spying" uncovered a plot to blow up a shopping mall where my wife worked.............. needless to say........ I don't have a problem with it........you guys can bitch all you want.........about it..........but it saved some lives and that is what counts...........

[hcap]

http://ezraklein.typepad.com/blog/2005/12/fisa.html

"On the wiretapping, I want to be crystal clear on one issue: the issue here isn't the espionage, it's the secrecy. Of course law enforcement agencies will need to gather intelligence on domestic elements. They do it to drug dealers, mob bosses, militia men, and gang lords. It's neither new nor controversial. And of course these activities will be turned on potential terrorist groups, and even ratcheted up post-9/11. And of course timeliness is an issue and the President will need to authorize wiretaps before a judge can be summoned to rule on the case.

But you know what? We had procedures for that.

Everything Bush is doing is legal, but nothing in the way he's doing it is. When you need a wiretap, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act allows you to apply for one. When you need it yesterday, FISA allows you to place the tap immediately and retroactively clear it with a judge 72 hours later. The law strikes a balance between broad executive powers and substantive oversight -- the president has full authority to assault the evildoers, but cannot deploy the law on behalf of his own political interests. It's a check on totalitarianism. What Bush has done is unilaterally decide the oversight unnecessary. Given the shape and safeguards of FISA, there was no operational need to evade it. It was an exclusively ideological decision in service of unlimited executive powers, and it's chilling."



Where are the real conservatives now that we need them??

[hcap]

Time for the repugs to investigate. The latest on domestic spying should motivate those concerned about the RISE OF KING GEORGE



"In an interview last week, Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.), chairman of the House Government Reform Committee, said "it's a fair comment" that the GOP-controlled Congress has done insufficient oversight and "ought to be" doing more.

"Republican Congresses tend to overinvestigate Democratic administrations and underinvestigate their own," said Davis, who added that he has tried to pick up some of the slack with his committee. "I get concerned we lose our separation of powers when one party controls both branches."

Democrats on the committee said the panel issued 1,052 subpoenas to probe alleged misconduct by the Clinton administration and the Democratic Party between 1997 and 2002, at a cost of more than $35 million. By contrast, the committee under Davis has issued three subpoenas to the Bush administration, two to the Energy Department over nuclear waste disposal at Yucca Mountain, and one last week to the Defense Department over Katrina documents.

[ljb]

And to think that just a couple of weeks ago there were postings by at least two here complaining about printers having yellow dots for tracking purposes. This is what you folks voted for learn to live with it. I am tempted to say something against the current administration but will remain silent, don't know who may be watching here.
Hang on folks, the SSS is just beggining to show their power.

[lsbets]

As I pointed out before - selective outrage.

[JustRalph]

As I pointed out before - selective outrage.

yep, they seem to have that often. the printer companies putting an identifying watermark in docs is one thing,,,,,,,,,,but idiots with bombs in a shopping mall are much more dangerous. Comparing the two is assinine. Once again you guys use a fallacious example to bolster your half ass whining..............and the kind of wire tapping and message interception that occurred stopped a bomb plot and more. There is only one kind of person this action could hurt.........someone doing something illegal. They did this by the letter of the law. I want a government that uses every tool in the bag to catch these terrorists. I think every person that jumped out the world trade center.........would agree with me...........

[ljb]

The neocons will be pleased with you guys falling in line here. Give yourselves a pat on the back, you have followed their lead impressively. Outing a cia operative used to be treason, wiretapping without a warrant used to be a criminal offense. Nothing selective here. I am outraged about both breaches of the law here.
ps to just,
Nice play on the 9/11 card. Following the lying/spying lead correctly deserves another pat on the back. :D

[Tom]

All we heard before was Bush didn't connect the dots.

Well, now he is connecting them. Everytime the threat level was raised, the libs screamed "political ploy!"
Well, just maybe a lot of that info came from this tapping, and some of it from the thumb screws.

[ljb]

All we heard before was Bush didn't connect the dots.

Well, now he is connecting them. Everytime the threat level was raised, the libs screamed "political ploy!"
Well, just maybe a lot of that info came from this tapping, and some of it from the thumb screws.
And maybe santa claus will reward you with a pat on the back. Get in line Tom, you are late at following the lead here. :D

[lsbets]

Of course the outraged libs pretend that they know everything that went into the decision to very seldom use these wiretaps on known terrorist operatives, but I find it impossible that they have seen the memos written by the legal counsels which held that these actions were legal and constitutional. But hey, why let something little like stopping terrorist plots get in the way of something important like Bush bashing. After all, making Bush look bad is more important to some than keeping America safe.

Oh yeah, several days later, we've had one horseman acknowledge that an election happenned, but no acknowledgement from any of the four that it went pretty damned well.

[lsbets]

I also have to wonder if this story means that Karl Rove, evil political genius, is back. Get the left to yell and scream about violations of civil liberties and the coming police state before they know all the facts, and then once the whole story gets out that these actions were legal, directed at terrorist operatives, and were instrumental in stopping terrorist plots the public once again decides that the Democratic Party is not responsible enough to keep us safe and cannot be trusted with national security matters. Could this have been guided by the hand of Karl - who always seems to outsmart the left? :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Secretariat]

whew Hcap....I think that needs to be posted again. i was unaware of that.

"the panel issued 1,052 subpoenas to probe alleged misconduct by the Clinton administration and the Democratic Party between 1997 and 2002, at a cost of more than $35 million. By contrast, the committee under Davis has issued three subpoenas to the Bush administration, two to the Energy Department over nuclear waste disposal at Yucca Mountain, and one last week to the Defense Department over Katrina documents."

I was also surprised that the Republican Senate could not get the Patriot Act passed. Appears even some far right Repubs like Craig from Montana had strong reservations. They asked for a couple of months to iron out some of the problems, and the opposition asked "for" a three month extension of the current Patriot Act to address problems with it, but that there is no compromise if King George asks for it. So they'd rather see the Patriot Act dissolve so they can hope for a terrorist act so they can blame Democrats. It was alluded to on the Senate floor. All the opposition wanted was "some" provisions of the Patriot Act changed, but politics once more got in the way. Technically, even Frist voted against the Patriot Act. It's on the record NOW. Check the vote.

I have never been a big fan of the Patriot Act, but the use of it to politicize "fear" in the American public for partisan purposes in pretty appalling. We no longer have the divine right of kings thank God, and i applaud right wing Republican radical Senator Craig for at least having the guts to stand up to his President.

[hcap]

I would think that one of the four or five bushmen here would act like true conservatives and denounce misuse of power by the executive. As I posted there is no reason to circumvent FISA. Unless maybe bush in all his paranoia is convinced AL Quida has infiltratred the FISA court system and therefore FISA cannot be trusted. There are no "memos" that can justify end runs around checks and balances. As Linsdey Graham said we are a nation of "rule of law not outcomes". Or the ends do not justify the means

I seem to remember another war that took place other than the one in IRAQ. Back around 1776. King George and his oversea subjects who had eventually had enough.

[hcap]

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Orders 1979-2004
Since 1979 only 4 have been rejected in 2003
What was bush worried about?




YEAR APPLIED GRANTED REJECTED
1979 199 207 0
1980 319 322 0
1981 431 433 0
1982 473 475 0
1983 549 549 0
1984 635 635 0
1985 587 587 0
1986 573 573 0
1987 512 512 0
1988 534 534 0
1989 546 546 0
1990 595 595 0
1991 593 593 0
1992 484 484 0


1993 509 509 0
1994 576 576 0
1995 697 697 0
1996 839 839 0
19973 749 748 0
1998 796 796 0
1999 886 880 0
2000 1005 1012 0
2001 932 934 0
2002 1228 1228 0
2003 1727 1724 4
2004 1758 1754 0





http://www.epic.org/privacy/wiretap/stats/fisa_bar_graph.gif

[toetoe]

Well put, hcap. Curious that the 1776 reference puts me thinking about the cheating we admired --- that of the Yanks hiding behind trees and picking off the Brits, who obeyed the rules and marched in formation, out in the open.

[lsbets]

Do you know that scope and size of the program hcap? No you don't. Yet without any real knowledge of it you are quick to say there is no legal jsutification to say it was constitutional. I'm sorry, I wasn't on the distro list from the AGs office or the WH counsel office, so I am not aware of the basis by which they decided it was. I did not realize you are on that list and have been able to make your vast knowledge of national security legal matters available to the WH and did not concur with the opinion.

For once, just once, how about you guys wait to get the whole story and not just select snippets before you make your bold pronouncements. A seemingly rational and reasoned approach might help overcome that little credibility gap when it comes to national security. I seriously think the leaker of this info might have been Karl himself, because the left has played right into his hands.

[lsbets]

"Misuse of power by the executive" - hcap

It would appear, if that is the case, that it was done with the knowledge and either consent or lack of dissent of Congress, since senior members of Congress were briefed on this in both the planning and execution phases. And, in cases like these, senior members generally means at a minimum the chairman and ranking members of at least the Senate and usually the House Intelligence committees. So that would mean at least 4 members of Congress - 2 Reps and 2 Dems. The King George thing just doesn't fly when you look at the facts. Try again.

[hcap]

Ls,
About the Iraqi elections. I did say it was historic and gave credit to our guys...
I said this I for one Hope the Iraq election will actually lead to some good.
The Iraqi people deserve everything we promised them and more.
Although the bush regime have been losers on every reason to invade Iraq, maybe, just maybe they will pull off the last-to invade to remake a nation.

Having said that, I don't necessarily believe it will work as advertised. Remaking the Mid East the way bush has opted to do, resembles more a pipe dream than a viable makeover technique. The political dynamic of the region is more complex than the neocons have imagined. It is certainly historic, and our people on the ground have done admirably, but we are walking a tightrope between civil war and stability. Now as far as being privy to inside info-none needed. FISA was set up specifically to provide boundries and oversight to the misuse of power by would be "ends justifies the means" do-gooders.

Oh well might as well be honest, would be monarchs.

Sorry but power currupts, etc, etc. Bush broke the law.
The only legal point to be made is might makes right..I am president, I am therefore always right. Sort of like the geneva conventions are quaint had beens and a bit behind the times.

He himself said "If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." Joking no doubt when said. Ironicly prophetic today.

BTW, one of the cases cited by the bushies on the effectiveness and therefore the usefulness of avoiding FISA was stopping the attempt by some evil genius evil doers to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge with blow torches.

Hell they do that before repainting

[hcap]

It is not clear who was told what. In addition those who were told were not at liberty to share that info with others. And 4+members of congress does not constitute "congressional oversight. A congressional committee has that job. Meanwhile the FISA court system statutes have been the law of the land since '79

http://www.sltrib.com/utah/ci_3320978

"Former Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla., who chaired the Senate intelligence committee and is the only participant thus far to describe the meetings extensively and on the record, said in interviews Friday night and Saturday that he remembers ''no discussion about expanding [NSA eavesdropping] to include conversations of U.S. citizens or conversations that originated or ended in the United States'' - and no mention of the president's intent to bypass the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.
''I came out of the room with the full sense that we were dealing with a change in technology but not policy,'' Graham said, with new opportunities to intercept overseas calls that passed through U.S. switches. He believed eavesdropping would continue to be limited to ''calls that initiated outside the United States, had a destination outside the United States but that transferred through a U.S.-based communications system.''

[lsbets]

Hcap - I know exactly what you said about the elections, you acknowledged that they happenned. Yes you did say it was historic, but so was the sinking of the Titanic, so I don't neccesarily think historic means a good thing. And thank you for noticing the guys on the ground. I give you credit for being the only one on "that side" to even acknowledge the elections. I don't think you feel they went poorly or anything of the sort and I don't think you wanted them to go poorly, and I think given your feelings about Bush, acknowledging them is tough to do. That's why you're the only one of the four horsemen I respect. I think there are others who would rather ignore them than acknowledge any success that might cast a favorable light on Bush.

Back to the point of what you have been saying, and back to my question - how on earth can anyone, not just you, determine that someone broke the law when the only knowledge they have of this is from a newspaper article in the NY Times? You might believe that Bush broke the law, but you really have no idea whether he did or not, and as I pointed out, with the knowledge and presumable consent of the senior members of the Congressional intelligence committees.

[hcap]

Re: The Iraq War. I have been paying attention to the first hand accounts of soldiers on the ground and it has changed my thinking. I truly believe that some good can come of all this, no matter my overall distrust of how we got there. That does not mean I agree that we should have gone or we went the best route in the first place.

The NYT. Don't shoot the messenger. Be glad that this eventually came out. At this point it is more than one source. Arlen Spector, Lindsey Graham, other repubs have apparently having some doubts about rule of law. You know I think this story has common ground on both sides of the aisle. Civil liberties even in time of war-assuming I agree this is war and not simply misguided invasion-should not be slowly and secretly eroded. Secrecy is the rug that the bushies would like to sweep this under. Both sides have to be vigilent.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) requires that national security wiretaps be authorized by the FISA court. "A person is guilty of an offense," the law reads, "if he intentionally . . . engages in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute"

The law governing the National Security Agency was written after the Vietnam War because the government had made lists of people it considered national security threats and spied on them. Remember Nixon? Watergate? Enemy lists? All the same empty points about effective intelligence gathering were offered then, just as they are now, and the congress, the courts and the American people rejected them. Now we learn that they were spying on anti-war groups, Quakers and groups planning to demonstrate against military recruiters.

As I pointed out this particular end run around civil liberties is also unnecessary. The intelligence agency already had the capacity to read your mail and your e-mail and listen to your telephone conversations. All it had to do was obtain a warrant from a special court created for this purpose. The burden of proof for obtaining a warrant was relaxed a bit after 9/11, but even before the attacks the court hardly ever rejected requests. My previous post shows FISA rarely rejected ANY requests.

[lsbets]

Re: The Iraq War. I have been paying attention to the first hand accounts of soldiers on the ground and it has changed my thinking. I truly believe that some good can come of all this, no matter my overall distrust of how we got there. That does not mean I agree that we should have gone or we went the best route in the first place.


I'm almost speechless, but we all know I will never really be speechless. That's an honest position and one I can do nothing but respect.

Back to the NSA thing - I have been very consistant in not jumping to conclusions and waiting for the facts. I'll say we have very few facts right now in this case. I'm not going to make a judgement that any law was broken until I see something that makes it appear that way, and right now all I see is something that could have been handled better - ie, take the extra step of going to the FISA court, even if legal counsel deemed it unncessary, to insulate against criticism.

I saw where Harry Reid said two things about this today - there needs to be a Congressional Investigation and whoever leaked the stoty to the Times should be prosecuted. Maybe Harry thinks, like I do, that the leaker in this case was actually Karl?

[Indulto]

lsbets,

I was pre-occupied with monitoring the chaotic case of the misunderstood millionaire, which led to Wolverine War II followed by an invasion of “…ites” and other boarder patrol issues. It felt so “off-topic.”

My intention is not to diminish the significance of the high Iraqi voter turnout, which showed that, given broad agreement and support among Iraqis, our troops were able to effectively police the events over a wide area for a limited time period. The military personnel who served and are now serving in Iraq deserve all the credit here.

The critical question is, how acceptable will the results be to a sufficient number of Iraqis in order for troop withdrawal to actually take place? I’m not trying to irritate you, but the fact that an election was held is not always a precursor to functional government as evidenced by the Palestinian situation.

Just a thought – are we safer now that elections take place in Iran? Any more details available as to those Iraqi election ballots discovered in a tanker crossing the border from Iran?

[Tom]

??? to the libs who whinned on and on endlessly aobut Bush not connecting the dots, not having good inteligence:

Just the heck do we get good intellignece if we don't use physical and mental pressures and listen in on known or suspected terrorists? It is not like we can just put a lot of agent undercover, and the islamic menace knows no borders, so that is a dead end.

And once again, just saying "torture" is not enough. Define it. What specific acts were done, what specific acts do you object to? Ginen wh have captured a terrorist off of th e battlefield, committing or trying to committ acts of terro in Iraq, what possible care could anyone have about torturing him to ANY extreme?

Ralph makes a good point - a real plot was thwarted to bomb a mall. Compare that to any degree of torture and tell me the POS terrorist's right come first. Obviously, the guy we "mutilated" knew real facts, so his pain is irrelevant. His life not important. His death a cause of celebration.

Why do the libs constantly side with the terrorists over the American people?

[lsbets]

Indulto - I don't believe you were one of the four horsemen Ralph had referred to, so my comments about a lack of acknowledgement were not directed at you. And yes, the action in the other threads suddenly made Off Topic seem a bit boring and polite.

There are a couple of things you are missing regarding the elections. First, as in the constitutional election, our soldiers only provided backup security. The Iraqis were front and center providing security for the elections. I take that as a very good sign. I also take it as a very good sign that the Sunnis joined the process en masse this time. If I had a rooting interest, I would hope for the strongest showing among the secular candidates, or that no individual party gathers enough votes to form a government without having to develop a consensus among a broad range of parties thereby limiting undue influence from any one particular group. I thinl either one of those outcomes would make the government acceptable to a large majority of Iraqis.

I also don't think you can compare the elections in Iraq with the "electoral" process in Iran. A candidate in Iran has to be approved by the unelected radical clerics before he can run. So, there is no real choice for voters. They can either pick crazy or crazier. Its pretty apparent that this time they went for a third party - craziest.

[Indulto]

lsbets,

Excellent and entertaining explanation of the crazy-cubed electoral process in Iran. I agree with your assessment of which outcomes of the Iraqi election would be more desirable from our standpoint, but I suspect the results will reflect ethnic and religious interests, which doesn’t bode well for stability. I hope that either my suspicions prove unfounded or that ethnic cooperation miraculously replaces conflict.

Sorry that it may have appeared as if I consider myself worthy of inclusion with JR’s fab four, especially if that group is intended to include such persuasive progressives as hcap, sec, 46, and ljb. I admire their abilty to present their positions with minimal name-calling and ridicule. Am I mistaken or should hcap also be credited for a recent display of flexibility?

[lsbets]

The other thing that many people overlook when it comes to the Iraqi religious differences (Shiite vs. Sunni) is the Iraqi sense of nationalism, which in many cases outweighs the clash between religious sects. Anyone seen as being too close to Iran (a non-Arab nation) will not be accepted by a majority of Iraqis. So, while Iran may have a large amount of influence in many of the eatern Iraqi Shiite towns, I don't think the majority of Iraqi Shiites would thow their support behind someone who seems more intersted in being Iran East than in being Iraq, capital of the Arab world. While Iran holds themselves up as the penultimate Shiite Republic, Iraqis in Najaf and other major areas of the south see themselves as the true heart of the Shiite world, and tend to resent the assertions of their non Arab neighbors to the east. The Shiite/Sunni conflict is absolutely nuts, but many, many Iraqis dismiss those differences and place themselves as Iraqis first. I hope this is what wins out in the election. I would not be surprised at all to see a slightly right of center (of course that is a relative term here and not really comparable to our politics) party win this election rather than the religious hardliners many are predicting. It all depends on who the Sunnis and Kurds voted for. If a majority of Sunnis and Kurds go for a more nationalist Iraqi party rather than a Sunni specific or Kurd specific party, and one third of the Shiites do so, than the results of the election turn out pretty favorable.

One thing that struck me as we headed into the first election last January was the way in which the Iraqis I dealt with seemed to be embracing democracy. I sat in on a city council meeting in a small southern town about a week before the election, and the councilmen were discussing what to do about the prisoners in the jail. They all agreed that they had the right to vote, but the problem was they did not have enough police to get them to the polls. They seriously considered letting everyone out of jail for the day to go vote and making them promise to return.

[lsbets]

I admire their abilty to present their positions with minimal name-calling and ridicule. [/font][/font]

You're kidding, right?

[Secretariat]

Isbets,

Your one post on the type of government coming out of this is interesting, because most coverage has simply been about the vote itself, rather than the candidates running in Iraq, and their positions toward a future Iraq.

My own reading thus far regarding the city of Basra, is that the representatives there currently are pretty much mouth pieces for the clergy, and that woman basically are required to cover their faces, and that Basra is pretty much a theocratic ruled town with strong Iranian ties.

You state you're hoping for a right of center secular form of government in Iraq. What candidates would that be? We know little of Iraqi candidates except for Allawi, and Chalabi, and the hand picked representatives of Sistani.

Who would be your preferred candidates? Who will be the ones that create in Iraq a government that most aligns with the needs of the US, and which offers the greatest hope for a long term stabiltiy in Iraq? Maybe those two things are in juxtaposition.

But the euphoria of people voting doesn't mean stability, especially if those leaders selected may prove in opposition to the US.

I agree that the various positions of these people running have not even be covered in this country, but only the aspect that people are voting. Since who is in charage over there affects our own capability of getting out of the mess, it is surprising that journalists have done woefully little to explain the positions of Iraqis actually running for office.

So Isbets, who are the Iraqi politicians we should be rooting for this time?

[lsbets]

Sec - you're absolutely correct that the coverage of the people running in the election was horrible. And I will admit that I don't know much beyond what I picked up while I was there, which in many cases is just a sense of things. I don't get e-mails from my friends who are still there talking about the candidates running and their positions on the issues.

With that being said, here is my take on the three you mentioned:

Chalabi - I don't trust him, and I think a large number of Iraqis don't trust him because of his ties to Iran (non-Arab). He will have a string showing in the Shiite areas with an Iranian ethnic population like Al-Kut, but I doubt he will garner much support in the south. I don't htink he'll get any support in the Sunni areas.

Allawi - potentially the best choice for us, but I'll throw in, I'm not sure.

Sistani is a smart dude, and even though he is Iranian, he knows he can't be seen as being Iranian or he would lose his prestige. He has been very good at playing the political games since the invasion, even though he personally does not want to be involved in politics. Remember that when he wanted Al-Sadr taken out of the picture, he did not publicly advocate it, but travelled outside of the country for the first time in about 40 years so that he could not be present to stop the fighting like he did the first time Al-Sadr rose up. He's a smart player, and while he obviously is about as religiously conservative as they come, I don't think he has any interest in splitting Iraq along Shiite/Sunni lines.

So, if I had to rank, and I am ranking based on nor nearly enough information on the candidates - I would say Allawi, Sistani's guys, and Chalabi.

As far as the women covering themselves, that is a cultutral norm in most of the Arab world. Everywhere south of Baghdad you will see women covered, with a higher degree of covering in the rural areas vs. the cities. Basra is not nearly as bad with the covering as the small towns that dot the highway to Baghdad. When you get to Baghdad you see much less of it - either in no covering at all (maybe 25% of the time) or just much less covering. On many buses in Baghdad there is a picture of some singer with her face totally uncovered. At the time I was there she appeared to be pretty hot, but after not seeing my wife for so long, she could have been butt ugly. The only thing worse than beer goggles is deployment goggles.

In Kuwait you see women with no covering, women with some covering, and women completely covered with only a small eyeslit. I don't recall seeing any women covered as completely in Iraq as some of the women in Kuwait.

Dinner's ready, so I have to cut this post short.

[Tom]

Sec is just a neative person - never sees anything other than problems.

He is the perfect liberal. A defeatist to the bone.
Thank GOD he was not around during our revolution.

[Indulto]

lsbets,

I WAS engaging in a little tail-pulling, but I did mean what I said. It’s a tad easier to get at the heart of their content without having to filter out constant contempt as compared with that of the opposing “Gang of 4” including yourself, lefty, Tom, and JR.

One lesson learned from those other threads was that support for “mutual” respect is at least as important as respect for “mutuel” successes. Certain contributions notwithstanding, I have a sense that’s been reflected somewhat in this thread and I’m encouraged by it.

[PaceAdvantage]

Hey, I thought I coined the "Four Horsemen" phrase here....lol

Or maybe it's the cold medication frying my brain, making me THINK I deserve some credit.... :faint:

[JustRalph]

Hey, I thought I coined the "Four Horsemen" phrase here....lol

Or maybe it's the cold medication frying my brain, making me THINK I deserve some credit.... :faint:

You did.............I just stole it.............

[lsbets]

Sorry PA. Didn't mean to overlook your contribution. ;)

[Lefty]

We are at war. The Constitution gives Bush the power to do these things. FDR censored the press and interred Japanes citizens of this country.
Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus.
BUT, Clinton used the NSDA to spy for economic reasons. Don't remember the outrage from the press then
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/12/19/114807.shtml

[46zilzal]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - With a slip of the tongue, U.S. President George W. Bush briefly turned Osama bin Laden into Saddam Hussein on Monday.

Bush momentarily switched the names of his two greatest nemeses in a news conference at the White House where he was defending his decision to authorize eavesdropping on Americans suspected of links with al Qaeda and other organizations in the U.S. war on terrorism.

"In the late 1990s, our government was following Osama bin Laden because he was using a certain type of telephone and then the fact that we were following Osama bin Laden because he was using a certain type of telephone made it into the press as the result of a leak," Bush said.

"And guess what happened. Saddam ...Osama bin Laden changed his behavior. He began to change how he communicated. We're at war. And we must protect America's secrets."

[Lefty]

46, and you think a momentary slop of the tongue is worthy of comment? Some neutral guy you are...

[Tom]

Was there a point to your post 46, or just more examples of your neutrality?

[Indulto]

46,

Lefty is right (correct, as well as politically); you are left (remain, likewise) momentum-less in neutral -- momentarily mired in less-than-momentous commentary.;)

You’ve just got to stop holding back. Please refer to Tom’s post in the “Bush Speech” thread for an enlightening example of extremely effective and energetic enthusiasm.

[46zilzal]

NEVER neutral about the rutabaga NEVER

[toetoe]

Lefty,

The slop of the tongue was left to Clinton, wagging the "dog." :D

[Lefty]

46, no your total disrespect for the Pres. certainly not neutral. But of course, you really don't have a neutral bone in your head, do you?

[hcap]

From Kos..

When informed of the secret spying on American citizens without court order, Jay Rockefeller didn't instruct his staff to write a suitably outraged letter -- he couldn't because of security concerns. So he hand wrote the letter himself.

July 17, 2003

Dear Mr. Vice President,

I am writing to reiterate my concern regarding the sensitive intelligence issues we discussed today with the DCI, DIRNSA, and Chairman Roberts and our House Intelligence Committee counterparts.

Clearly the activities we discussed raise profound oversight issues. As you know, I am neither a technician or an attorney. Given the security restrictions associated with this information, and my inability to consult staff or counsel on my own, I feel unable to fully evaluate, much less endorse these activities.

As I reflected on the meeting today, and the future we face, John Poindexter's TIA project sprung to mind, exacerbating my concern regarding the direction the Administration is moving with regard to security, technology, and surveiliance.

Without more information and the ability to draw on any independent legal or techical expertise, I simply cannot satisfy lingering concerns raised by the briefing we received.

I am retaining a copy of this letter in a sealed envelope in the secure spaces of the Senate Intelligence Committee to ensure that I have a record of this communication.

I appreciate your consideration of my views.

Most respectfully,

Jay Rockefeller

[JustRalph]

From Kos..

When informed of the secret spying on American citizens without court order, Jay Rockefeller didn't instruct his staff to write a suitably outraged letter -- he couldn't because of security concerns. So he hand wrote the letter himself.

July 17, 2003

Dear Mr. Vice President,

I am writing to reiterate my concern regarding the sensitive intelligence issues we discussed today with the DCI, DIRNSA, and Chairman Roberts and our House Intelligence Committee counterparts.

Clearly the activities we discussed raise profound oversight issues. As you know, I am neither a technician or an attorney. Given the security restrictions associated with this information, and my inability to consult staff or counsel on my own, I feel unable to fully evaluate, much less endorse these activities.

As I reflected on the meeting today, and the future we face, John Poindexter's TIA project sprung to mind, exacerbating my concern regarding the direction the Administration is moving with regard to security, technology, and surveiliance.

Without more information and the ability to draw on any independent legal or techical expertise, I simply cannot satisfy lingering concerns raised by the briefing we received.

I am retaining a copy of this letter in a sealed envelope in the secure spaces of the Senate Intelligence Committee to ensure that I have a record of this communication.

I appreciate your consideration of my views.

Most respectfully,

Jay Rockefeller

Leave it to ole Jay to come up with a way of dissenting and covering his ass whilst never telling anybody. Unless it becomes public. I bet there are 20 other letters like this somewhere.............

[hcap]

Rockefeller:

“For the last few days, I have witnessed the President, the Vice President, the Secretary of State, and the Attorney General repeatedly misrepresent the facts.

“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.

“At the time, I expressed my concerns to Vice President Cheney that the limited information provided to Congress was so overly restricted that it prevented members of Congress from conducting meaningful oversight of the legal and operational aspects of the program.

“These concerns were never addressed, and I was prohibited from sharing my views with my colleagues.

“Now that this issue has been brought out into the open, I strongly urge the Senate Intelligence Committee to immediately undertake a full investigation into the legal and operational aspects of the program, including the lack of sufficient congressional oversight.”


He was prohibited from saying anything. This is not congressional oversight OR approval. Looks like "I am the Prez and can do ANYTHING I WANT" bs ain't gonna fly

[JustRalph]

He was prohibited from saying anything. This is not congressional oversight OR approval. Looks like "I am the Prez and can do ANYTHING I WANT" bs ain't gonna fly

Sure it will. What the hell are they going to do about it? Hold hearings? Big Friggin deal...........

[lsbets]

That is assuming that Rockefeller is telling the truth. My default is that 50% of everything any politician says is a lie, so I take everything with a grain of salt.

[Lefty]

Did good ol Jay write such a letter to Clinton when Bill did the same thing for less noble reasons?
A professor on O'Reillly the other night sats GW within his rights accordinfg to the 2nd article of the constitution. Gentlemen we are at war.

[46zilzal]

I have more respect for Betty Boop than the rutabaga.

[Lefty]

46zilly, so what?

[Tom]

Closer to his political persuasion, fer sure! :D

[46zilzal]

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Three Democratic and two Republican senators have sent a letter to the leaders of the Senate's Judiciary and Intelligence committees, asking for an "immediate inquiry" into President Bush's authorization of a secret wiretapping program.

"We write to express our profound concern about recent revelations that the United States government may have engaged in domestic electronic surveillance without appropriate legal authority," says the letter, which was signed by Democratic Sens. Dianne Feinstein, Carl Levin and Ron Wyden, as well as GOP Sens. Chuck Hagel and Olympia Snowe.

[46zilzal]

"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."

-- George W. Bush, April 20, 2004

QUESTION: Is spying on the American people as impeachable an offense as lying about having sex with an intern?

BRUCE FEIN, constitutional scholar and former deputy attorney general in the Reagan Administration: I think the answer requires at least in part considering what the occupant of the presidency says in the aftermath of wrongdoing or rectification. On its face, if President Bush is totally unapologetic and says I continue to maintain that as a war-time President I can do anything I want – I don’t need to consult any other branches – that is an impeachable offense. It’s more dangerous than Clinton’s lying under oath because it jeopardizes our democratic dispensation and civil liberties for the ages. It would set a precedent that … would lie around like a loaded gun, able to be used indefinitely for any future occupant.

[46zilzal]

By Carol D. Leonnig and Dafna Linzer / Washington Post

A federal judge has resigned from the court that oversees government surveillance in intelligence cases in protest of President Bush's secret authorization of a domestic spying program, according to two sources.

U.S. District Judge James Robertson, one of 11 members of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, sent a letter to Chief Justice John D. Roberts Jr. late Monday notifying him of his resignation without providing an explanation.

[Lefty]

46zil, you the dems and repubs alike can bitch all you want. But we are at war and the Constitution gives the Pres this latitude.
Two Dem Presidents before GW did the same thing but no outrage. What gives? This Presidents critics have to be the most inconsistent hypocritical assholes ever assembled.

[dav4463]

Who cares if they listen in if it catches terrorists? If you aren't doing anything illegal, it doesn't matter anyway. You do something for the good of the people and you STILL GET CRITICIZED ! IT IS UNF***ING REAL!

[46zilzal]

From the NY times: 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.

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.

[46zilzal]

Bush said his authority to approve what he called a "vital tool in our war against the terrorists" came from his constitutional powers as commander in chief. He said that he has personally signed off on reauthorizations more than 30 times.

"The American people expect me to do everything in my power under our laws and Constitution to protect them and their civil liberties," Bush said. "And that is exactly what I will continue to do, so long as I'm the president of the United States."

James Bamford, author of two books on the NSA, said the program could be problematic because it bypasses a special court set up by the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to authorize eavesdropping on suspected terrorists.

"I didn't hear him specify any legal right, except his right as president, which in a democracy doesn't make much sense," Bamford said in an interview. "Today, what Bush said is he went around the law, which is a violation of the law — which is illegal."

[hcap]

Question for all. FISA was put in place at a time when we faced the Soviet Union. The COLD WAR.

Anybody remember M.A.D., mutually assured destruction? 10,000 nukes on hair trigger. Can anybody seriously argue that the perpetual war on terror presents more a dangerous threat? How can bush take it upon himself to use his so-called "war presnit" status to claim he, and therefore all of us are further up shits creek than when we faced real nukes?

If after 1979-when FISA was first enacted, Carter, Reagan, and Bush 1 did not ignore FISA, during the height of the cold war, HOW can bush 2 do it now?

This is nothing even remotely as serious as the threat from the Soviets. Bush pumps it up to terrorize us and justify his actions. As tragic as 911 was, it did not change everything. Bush claiming "oceans no longer protect us" is ignoring those ICBMs and ruskie strategic bombers that could not only span oceans, but if I remember correctly arctic ice caps.

Laws like FISA were put in place to help us keep our liberties while dealing with the threat we faced from the Soviets.

[rastajenk]

Islamofascists are more dangerous than the Soviets were. Because they are irrational zealots with time on their side and a huge chip on their shoulders. The Russkies lived under a different operating system, but they weren't suicidal.

[hcap]

Ever hear of Stalin?

The myth of as you put it "Islamofascists", is not as real a threat as 10,000 + nukes aimed at us for years.

MAD was in essence mutual suicide. In addition there were many false alerts that almost blew us up. Much more suicidal than you would like to think.

If the 3 Presidents who faced the cold war and using FISA with a much more dangerous enemy, with the ability to blow up the entire world combined with a murderous past, did not do an end run around FISA, why should bush?

How many "Islamofascists" do you think exist? 10,000? Does that compare to 10,000 nukes? I am not denying radical fundamental Islamists as being a threat, just that 911 did not change everything as declared, except a few things like govermental checks and balances.

[rastajenk]

Around these parts, that would be known as mutuel suicide.

But that's exactly what made it safer. Sure, there were some close calls, but because it involved nation-states with direct lines of communication, and some shared values, it was more dangerous to politicians' careers in the homeland than it ever was to individual citizens. Russians share an interest in science and technology; that have a cultural history that has survived Stalin; at their core they have Western values that celebrate life.

Islamism is a cult of death. Suicide bombers are martyrs. Death to the great Satan America. Death to the Jews. Death to all infidels, wherever they may dwell. Death to Muslims who help Jews. Death to women who bring dishonor to their families. Death to children in schools. Death to Salman Rushdie. Death everywhere, glorious death. A single nuke in the hands of one of these soulless ghouls is infinitely more dangerous than all the missiles in Russia.

Ten thousand? That's a number that might suit your agenda. I don't know how many could be properly identified as an "Islamofascist," but I do know that it isn't some tiny faction. From the Philippines through Indonesia, into Thailand, beyond the Middle East into Sudan and Egypt and Algeria, even in Canada, the cult of death is forcibly expanding its scope. 9/11 did change everything. If you don't believe it, you're only fooling yourself. The War of Cultures has begun, and appeasement is an idiot's tactic.

[lsbets]

I know I've said this before on another thread, but one of the differences between the cold war and now is the insane plan of MAD actually promoted stability because neither nation found destruction to be acceptable. In our current war, our enemy sees no problem with death and doesn't care who dies with him, so even the threat of nuclear anihilation is not a deterrant.

[lsbets]

Another intriguing leak case?

Despite the best efforts of spinning by far left columnists to call this an impeachable offense, most credible folks are saying nothing illegal was done. WIth a highly secretive intelligence effort in the war on terror, one would expect GWB to do everything he could to stop the NY Times from running the story. I remember all kinds of folks calling Bob Novak a traitor over the Plame thing (interesting side note - Bob Woodward says the Novak's source was not in the WH. Novak says the source was not a partisan gunslinger. My money is on Richard Armitage, who was then at the State Department). So - where are all those folks now and why are they not calling the NY Times traitors?

Something very interesting when you look at the NY Times article and then read Rockefeller's letter. Jay never said in the letter the plan was illegal, but he said he had deep reservations about his lack of ability to provide proper oversight since he couldn't consult with anyone. So, he wrote a letter and sealed it and did not show the letter or discuss the letter with anyone. The original NY Times article mentions Rockefeller as having expressed reservations about the program. Could the Senator be the source of the story? Could he be shitting a brick about the President's outrage and what seems likely to be an investigation into a leak of highly classified material? Who knows, I'm not going to say he is the source of the leak, but that tidbit sure makes this interesting.

[Lefty]

46, the reason Bush didn't want NY Times to publish the story was so they wouldn't alert the terrorists to what we doing. This is EXACTLY why FDR had censorship of the press during WW11.
Clinton did it, Carter did it. Where was the friggin NY Times then?

[46zilzal]

they are EVERYWHERE, under the rocks, behind the counters at 7-11's, EVERYWHERE, be on the lookout.

'Bout the same with all those killer bee stories

[PaceAdvantage]

Judging by Bush's rising poll numbers, I guess he's doing something right for a change....after all, when his poll numbers were going down, and the four horsemen were on here crowing about his plummeting popularity, that was during the height of PlameGate....

So if we are to go by polls, then I would have to surmise that whatever Bush has done now (tapping phones) is AOK.....

[Lefty]

46, maybe you should watch Fox News if your liberal station didn't tell you about 9-11 and other terrorist attacks. Yes, little man, they are everywhere whether you know it or not.

[46zilzal]

Fox news? only when I need a good laugh

[Tom]

they are EVERYWHERE, under the rocks, behind the counters at 7-11's, EVERYWHERE, be on the lookout.

'Bout the same with all those killer bee stories

You dispute the presence of killer bees???????

[Lefty]

you keep laughin/ zilly, keep laughin and keep ignorant right up to to the time your ox is gored.

[46zilzal]

I don't even have an ox

[hcap]

rastajenkAround these parts, that would be known as mutuel suicide.Correcting my spelling is a silly tactic, particularly when your wrong.
From

http://www.answers.com/topic/mutual-assured-destruction

mutual assured destruction...
Severe, unavoidable reciprocal damage that superpowers are likely to inflict on each other or their allies in a nuclear war, conceived as the heart of a doctrine of nuclear deterrence.

rastajenkIslamism is a cult of death.Islamofascism is nothing but an empty propaganda term. Does not represent Islam. Besides those that do ascribe to the extreme-fundamental wahabi type, or Salafis or the Muslim Brotherhoods-take full advantage of our decades long manipulation and exploitation of the Mid East for their recruitment and propaganda purposes. We and the Soviets ironicly have fueled resentment by first drawing up artificial boundries-the Brits- and creating politically expedient nation states. Then bouncing various groups like a football. Our geopolitical game in Afghanistan with the Soviets produced most of the "blowback" and encouraged Bin Laden. Nothing happens in a historical vacuum. Remaking the ME in our image may not play well if our image is tainted by years of supporting despots and convenient kings and kingdoms. Hell, we even had the cia install Saddam originally.

"It is hard to see the difference between the bigotry of anti-Semitism as an evil and the bigotry that [Michael] Medved displays toward Islam. It is more offensive than I can say for him to use the word "Islamo-fascist." Islam is a sacred term to 1.3 billion people in the world. It enshrines their highest ideals. To combine it with the word "fascist" in one phrase is a desecration and a form of hate speech. Are there Muslims who are fascists? Sure. But there is no Islamic fascism, since "Islam" has to do with the highest ideals of the religion. In the same way, there have been lots of Christian fascists, but to speak of Christo-Fascism is just offensive."

(http://www.juancole.com/2004/02/passion-of-christ-in-world-religions.html) Juan Cole, professor of modern Middle East and South Asian history at the University of Michigan.

[hcap]

Could this be why we are seeing the resistence to Bush?

Revolt of the Professionals

By David Ignatius

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/20/AR2005122000973.html

"The national security structure that the Bush administration created after Sept. 11, 2001, began to crumble this month because of a bipartisan revolt on Capitol Hill

...One little-noted factor in this re-balancing is what I would call "the officers' revolt" -- and by that I mean both military generals in uniform and intelligence officers at the CIA, the NSA and other agencies. There has been growing uneasiness among these national security professionals at some of what they have been asked to do, and at the seeming unconcern among civilian leaders at the Pentagon and the CIA for the consequences of administration decisions.

The quiet revolt of the generals at the Pentagon is a big reason U.S. policy in Iraq has been changing, far more than Bush's stay-the-course speeches might suggest. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is deeply unpopular with senior military officers. They complain privately about a management style that has stretched the military to the breaking point in Iraq. For months they have been working out details of troop reductions next year in Iraq -- not just because such action will keep the Army and Marine Corps from cracking but because they think a smaller footprint will be more effective in stabilizing the country.

A similar revolt is evident at the CIA. Professional intelligence officers are furious at the politicized leadership brought to the agency by ex-congressman Porter Goss and his retinue of former congressional staffers. Their mismanagement has peeled away a generation of senior management in the CIA's Directorate of Operations who have resigned, transferred or signaled their intention to quit when their current tours are up. Many of those who remain are trying to keep their heads down until the current wave of political jockeying and reorganization is over -- which is the last thing you would want at an effective intelligence agency."

[hcap]

Originally Posted by LsCould the Senator be the source of the story? Could he be shitting a brick about the President's outrage and what seems likely to be an investigation into a leak of highly classified material? Who knows, I'm not going to say he is the source of the leak, but that tidbit sure makes this interesting.
Ls you are spinning. I guess you will have to expand your spin to include Pelosi as well.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 20, 2005

CONTACT:
Brendan Daly
202-226-7616
Pelosi Requests Declassification of Her Letter on NSA Activities

Washington, D.C. -- House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi released the following statement today on her request to the Director of National Intelligence to declassify a letter she wrote several years ago to the Bush Administration expressing concerns about the activities of the National Security Agency.

"When I learned several years ago that the National Security Agency had been authorized to conduct the activities that President Bush referred to in his December 17 radio address, I expressed my strong concerns in a classified letter to the Administration and later verbally.

"Today, in an effort to shed light on my concerns, I requested that the Director of National Intelligence quickly declassify my letter and the Administration's response to it and make them both available to the public.

"The President must have the best possible intelligence to protect the American people. That intelligence, however, must be produced in a manner consistent with our Constitution and our laws, and in a manner that reflects our values as a nation to protect the American people and our freedoms."

[lsbets]

Originally Posted by Ls
Ls you are spinning. I guess you will have to expand your spin to include Pelosi as well.



Hcap - I'm speculating - remember how you guys did that with Plame? Turns out none of you had Libby (at least on your target list) and none of the guys on your target list have been charged with anything. Now on this matter, which revealed real information about real operations and had a real effect on national security, you guys are silent. The Plame Platoon who called Bob Novak a traiter and said Rove and Cheney should go to jail and responded with outrage when many pointed out that it seemed like Plame's showboat husband may actually have done her in has shown no outrage about this very real and probably very harmful leak. Now, Sen Rockefeller wrote a letter, sealed the letter, and no one saw the letter, yet that letter was referenced in the NY Times article. Not Pelosi's. Rockefellers. So, how did the NY Times find out about this letter that Rockefeller sent no one and kept locked away? Was he the leak of this information? I don't hear you guys calling him a traitor and saying he should be in jail. (I'm not calling him a traitor either, I'm speculating about how the Times found out about the letter). Are some highly classified leaks good and some bad? Are they okay when they have the potential to make things look bad for Bush? Is that the new standard of how to worry about national security?

[rastajenk]

rastajenkCorrecting my spelling is a silly tactic, particularly when your wrong.



hcap, you are one humorless dude, or dudette.

And anybody who quotes Juan Cole cannot be taken seriously. Seriously.

[Lefty]

h'cap, resistance to Bush? I blve the pipples support him bigtime on this wire tap business. Most of us think it's ok to wiretap suspected terrorists. He's being proactive. That's a good thing.

[PaceAdvantage]

Are some highly classified leaks good and some bad? Are they okay when they have the potential to make things look bad for Bush? Is that the new standard of how to worry about national security?

Sadly, it does appear that way....

[46zilzal]

Judges on Surveillance Court To Be Briefed on Spy Program

By Carol D. Leonnig and Dafna Linzer / Washington Post

The presiding judge of a secret court that oversees government surveillance in espionage and terrorism cases is arranging a classified briefing for her fellow judges to address their concerns about the legality of President Bush's domestic spying program, according to several intelligence and government sources.

Several members of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court said in interviews that they want to know why the administration believed secretly listening in on telephone calls and reading e-mails of U.S. citizens without court authorization was legal. Some of the judges said they are particularly concerned that information gleaned from the president's eavesdropping program may have been improperly used to gain authorized wiretaps from their court.

"The questions are obvious," said U.S. District Judge Dee Benson of Utah. "What have you been doing, and how might it affect the reliability and credibility of the information we're getting in our court?"

[ljb]

And from the lighter side, did anyone catch Leno last night ?
He said now we know what the W stands for in George W. Bush.......
Wiretap :lol: :lol: :lol:

[ljb]

Quote:
Originally Posted by lsbets
Are some highly classified leaks good and some bad? Are they okay when they have the potential to make things look bad for Bush? Is that the new standard of how to worry about national security?

And PA's reply

Sadly, it does appear that way....

Oh guys, my heart bleeds for you in these times of stress. Guess that's why they call us bleeding heart liberals. :D :D :D
Get real guys, it was wrong to out a cia operative and it is wrong to wiretap American citizens without a warrant. This is not about leaks, this is about breaking laws. Impeach those who are not already indicted.

[lsbets]

Quote:
Originally Posted by lsbets
Are some highly classified leaks good and some bad? Are they okay when they have the potential to make things look bad for Bush? Is that the new standard of how to worry about national security?

And PA's reply

Sadly, it does appear that way....

Oh guys, my heart bleeds for you in these times of stress. Guess that's why they call us bleeding heart liberals. :D :D :D
Get real guys, it was wrong to out a cia operative and it is wrong to wiretap American citizens without a warrant. This is not about leaks, this is about breaking laws. Impeach those who are not already indicted.

ljb - one problem with your theories. No operative was outed and no laws were broken with the wiretapping. The truth sucks when you're a liberal.

[PaceAdvantage]

At least LJB seems to be gaining more of a sense of humor at about the same rate as he is losing his common sense.

[Tom]

Still no outrage for the libs about exposing national security operations.
I guess it's opnly a problem when it makes Bush look bad.
I mean, just how bad was it outing Plume as the CIA cleaning lady?

[46zilzal]

Do you believe President Bush's actions justify impeachment? * 118137 responses
Yes, between the secret spying, the deceptions leading to war and more, there is plenty to justify putting him on trial.
85%
No, like any president, he has made a few missteps, but nothing approaching "high crimes and misdemeanors."
5%
No, the man has done absolutely nothing wrong. Impeachment would just be a political lynching.
8%
I don't know.
2%

[Lefty]

46, results completely opposite O'Reilly's poll where 90% say Bush is doing the right thing with the wiretaps.
But, it's not impeachable as other President's have set precedent and article 2 of the Constitution gives him the right.
A better Poll would be in the NY Times Editors and Publisher should be indicted for revealing wartime secrets.

[PaceAdvantage]

Do you believe President Bush's actions justify impeachment? * 118137 responses
Yes, between the secret spying, the deceptions leading to war and more, there is plenty to justify putting him on trial.
85%
No, like any president, he has made a few missteps, but nothing approaching "high crimes and misdemeanors."
5%
No, the man has done absolutely nothing wrong. Impeachment would just be a political lynching.
8%
I don't know.
2%


Hah! Are you serious? Read the questions. Then look at the outcome. Do you seriously think this poll outcome wasn't rigged by some motivated party (such as MoveOn.Org and their merry band of internet pranksters)? Any motivated person with half a brain and basic programming skills can alter the outcome of most internet polls.

Or do you truly believe this is a representative poll and 85% of this country wants to see GWB impeached....lol

I guess LJB isn't the only one quickly losing his common sense.

[46zilzal]

Hah! Are you serious? .
no

[ljb]

ljb - one problem with your theories. No operative was outed and no laws were broken with the wiretapping. The truth sucks when you're a liberal.
ls
Reality is beggining to bite the neocons real hard, don't you think? :D
Some can't even admit the outing of Plame was treason and wiretapping w/o proper procedures is not a crime. Hard to believe isn't it !

[Lefty]

lbj, no it wasn't treason. Nobody was charged with treason, because it wasn't treason. As for the wiretapping. Been done by other presidents. So the truth will only hurt or bite the arse of those that oppose the Pres. He has learned the lessons of 9-11, sadly, the Dems and a couple Repubs have not.

[ljb]

lbj, no it wasn't treason. Nobody was charged with treason, because it wasn't treason. As for the wiretapping. Been done by other presidents. So the truth will only hurt or bite the arse of those that oppose the Pres. He has learned the lessons of 9-11, sadly, the Dems and a couple Repubs have not.
Lefty,
Your appearently one of those I mentioned. :D
It appears you have been watching faux infotainment. They are blaming Clinton again also. :bang: :bang: :bang:

[hcap]

Originally Posted by lsbetsNow, Sen Rockefeller wrote a letter, sealed the letter, and no one saw the letter, yet that letter was referenced in the NY Times article. Not Pelosi's. Rockefellers. So, how did the NY Times find out about this letter that Rockefeller sent no one and kept locked away?Ls,

Simple he and others spoke to the times.It is clearly spelled out.
It may be Pelosi as well.

There is no doubt many were concerned.

Here is your suspicion From the Times original..

"According to those officials and others, reservations about aspects of the program have also been expressed by Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, the West Virginia Democrat who is the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and a judge presiding over a secret court that oversees intelligence matters."

"After a 2003 briefing, Senator Rockefeller, the West Virginia Democrat who became vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee that year, wrote a letter to Mr. Cheney expressing concerns about the program, officials knowledgeable about the letter said. It could not be determined if he received a reply. Mr. Rockefeller declined to comment

Also...

"Nearly a dozen current and former officials, who were granted anonymity because of the classified nature of the program, discussed it with reporters for The New York Times because of their concerns about the operation's legality and oversight.



1-It would seem that Rockefeller, Pelosi and others were prepared to go forward after being stiffled by the WH for years.

2-I think this is why the Times finally broke the story

3-It also appears FISA itself was pissed and easily could have been one of the sources.

4-Things like this don't stay secret for long

5-There is no evidence yet that by spilling the beans, and announcing that evesdropping was taking place WITHOUT warrants, any intelligence was compromised. All that changed was that there was no judicial reveiw or checks and balances via the standard FISA oversight.

So in effect we have a whistleblower rebellion. It appears it is headed for major congressional debate. Ironicly the whistleblower in the Plane case was Joe Wilson. So the difference is outrage pretended or otherwise, against leakers in the Plame investigation is against those who would silence whistleblowers by sending a message to critics of the administration, versus now in spygate outrage not at the messengers of bad news, but of those who might do serious harm to civil liberties and the constitution.

If you believe that harm was done by Rockefeller, Pelosi and it seems dozens of others, get the repubs moving to investigate. I welcome a bipartisan or prefeereble indepenent investigation of the whole matter.

We may have dueling investigations. Let the chips fall where they may

[hcap]

Now answer these points.
It appears that John Yoo may be originally responsible for the "wartime president argument"

The September, 2001 Yoo Memornadum:

In both the War Powers Resolution and the Joint Resolution, Congress has recognized the President's authority to use force in circumstances such as those created by the September 11 incidents. Neither statute, however, can place any limits on the President's determinations as to any terrorist threat, the amount of military force to be used in response, or the method, timing, and nature of the response. These decisions, under our Constitution, are for the President alone to make.



Once you advocate a theory that authorizes a President, even during times of an undeclared and endless war, to violate any Congressional laws he wants as long as he says -- with no judicial review possible -- that doing so is for the sake of our security, what possible checks or limitations on Presidential power are left?

Are there any limitations at all on what the President can do under the guise of national security and, if so, what are they? And, given this theory of the "wartime" President who can violate the laws of Congress and who can ignore the courts in areas of national security, what legal foundation could exist to argue for any such limitations?

Once it is accepted that George Bush has the power to violate the laws of the United States (such as FISA) based on his status as a "wartime" President, there is no coherent way to claim that he is without the power to unilaterally impose still-greater intrusions.

One other thing. According to the bushites theory we are engaged in perpetual war. If Hilary becomes pres in 08, how does the whole "wartime president" theory come accross then?
Or say Kerry?

BTW,

Congress passed the law creating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court because another president, Richard Nixon, used the intelligence agencies to go after those he considered his enemies. If you made the Nixon enemies list, then your phones were tapped, your comings and goings watched, your tax returns audited.
Richard Nixon, said, "When the President does it, that means it's not illegal,"

[JustRalph]

Do you believe President Bush's actions justify impeachment? * 118137 responses
Yes, between the secret spying, the deceptions leading to war and more, there is plenty to justify putting him on trial.
85%
No, like any president, he has made a few missteps, but nothing approaching "high crimes and misdemeanors."
5%
No, the man has done absolutely nothing wrong. Impeachment would just be a political lynching.
8%
I don't know.
2%

hysterical.........truly hysterical. This pretty much proves where the MSNBC viewers come from. I predict that MSNBC won't even be on the air in another 2 years. The ratings will be so low that they will change to another format or start another cartoon network..............

[Tom]

85% , eh?


That's what, 13 MSNBC viewers???

[dav4463]

If Abdul Rashad calls Raheem Muhammed, I would hope our country is listening in!

[ljb]

I would urge you all to use caution here, they are watching internet usage also. I may have to change my avatar. :D Or possibly sign on under a different screen name. :D Or change my message, oh wait a minute that is what they want. Total compliance to their goals. Free thought and expression of different opinions is a threat to our safety so we should all just shut up and mimic the party line. Get in line, single file folks, the path is narrowing ahead.

[rastajenk]

Ah, that old horse has been totally beaten to death. For all the handwringing about clampdowns on expression, there sure is plenty of goofy, loony shit out there. Nobody's been tossed in the hoosegow for their beliefs yet, and it ain't gonna happen. At least not 'til the libsters regain power, if they ever do. Won't stop them from playing that woe-is-me card anyway, but reality trumps that fantasy any day.

[JustRalph]

Ah, that old horse has been totally beaten to death. For all the handwringing about clampdowns on expression, there sure is plenty of goofy, loony shit out there. Nobody's been tossed in the hoosegow for their beliefs yet, and it ain't gonna happen. At least not 'til the libsters regain power, if they ever do. Won't stop them from playing that woe-is-me card anyway, but reality trumps that fantasy any day.

good post! you are reading my mind!

[Tom]

"woe-is-me" card! :lol: :lol: :lol:

[ljb]

Ah, that old horse has been totally beaten to death. For all the handwringing about clampdowns on expression, there sure is plenty of goofy, loony shit out there. Nobody's been tossed in the hoosegow for their beliefs yet, and it ain't gonna happen. At least not 'til the libsters regain power, if they ever do. Won't stop them from playing that woe-is-me card anyway, but reality trumps that fantasy any day.
And the folks that were held without being charged during the Republican convention. Were they tossed in the hoosegow for their beliefs ? Also, if you wait until someone has been tossed in the hoosegow for their beliefs, you have waited to long.

[Lefty]

lbj, when you make assertians like that you should back them up. There were hooligans who were doing things like throwing ball bearings under mounted policemen's horses during that convention. Is that who you are talking about? Were they tossed in jail for their beliefs or their actions?

[46zilzal]

Power We Didn't Grant

By Tom Daschle / Washington Post

In the face of mounting questions about news stories saying that President Bush approved a program to wiretap American citizens without getting warrants, the White House argues that Congress granted it authority for such surveillance in the 2001 legislation authorizing the use of force against al Qaeda. On Tuesday, Vice President Cheney said the president "was granted authority by the Congress to use all means necessary to take on the terrorists, and that's what we've done."

As Senate majority leader at the time, I helped negotiate that law with the White House counsel's office over two harried days. I can state categorically that the subject of warrantless wiretaps of American citizens never came up. I did not and never would have supported giving authority to the president for such wiretaps. I am also confident that the 98 senators who voted in favor of authorization of force against al Qaeda did not believe that they were also voting for warrantless domestic surveillance.

[46zilzal]

On the evening of Sept. 12, 2001, the White House proposed that Congress authorize the use of military force to "deter and pre-empt any future acts of terrorism or aggression against the United States." Believing the scope of this language was too broad and ill defined, Congress chose instead, on Sept. 14, to authorize "all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons [the president] determines planned, authorized, committed or aided" the attacks of Sept. 11. With this language, Congress denied the president the more expansive authority he sought and insisted that his authority be used specifically against Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda.

Just before the Senate acted on this compromise resolution, the White House sought one last change. Literally minutes before the Senate cast its vote, the administration sought to add the words "in the United States and" after "appropriate force" in the agreed-upon text. This last-minute change would have given the president broad authority to exercise expansive powers not just overseas -- where we all understood he wanted authority to act -- but right here in the United States, potentially against American citizens. I could see no justification for Congress to accede to this extraordinary request for additional authority. I refused.

[Lefty]

Dumbass opinions like this is prob why Daschle lost his seat. Why is it when guys like Daschle and Clinton are out of power they never want to leave quietly?

It is not domestic surveilance it is surveilance of someone here who may be talking to al queda operatives overseas. I don't remember Daschle hollering when that Fl couple taped Newt's phone conversation a few yrs ago.
Why is it you libs hollered 9-11 should have been prevented and now when the Pres is trying to prevent another one you're still hollering?

[lsbets]

I can just imagine the support the platform of "Civil Rights for Al Queda" will get in the elections. Rove is a genius - he has the Democrats shooting themselves in the proverbial foot - again.

[rastajenk]

A few more "leaks" like these and W's popularity will be greater than ever. As long as national security is the frontburner issue, the Dems will remain the party out of power. If libs are supposed to be so much smarter and free-willed, how come they keep getting suckered onto the wrong side of history? It's like mosquitoes drawn to a bugzapper.

[hcap]

http://americablog.blogspot.com/nsaweb.jpg
http://www.nsa.gov/coremsgs/corem00003.cfm

Full text from NSA

Americans expect NSA to conduct its missions within the law. But given the inherently secret nature of those missions, how can Americans be sure that the Agency does not invade their privacy?

The 4th Amendment of the Constitution demands it... oversight committees within all three branches of the U.S. government ensure it... and NSA employees, as U.S. citizens, have a vested interest in upholding it. Respecting the law is only a part of gaining Americans' trust.

The American people need to know, within the bounds of operational security, what NSA does and why they do it, and how they work within the Intelligence community and the Department of Defense to protect the Nation's freedom.

With each new day, NSA is writing new and unexpected chapters. The missions have never been clearer. The challenges have never been greater. The stakes have never been higher.

[hcap]

The folks who publish the WSJ? They also publish Barron's. And this is their editorial. Finally some real conservatives. Oh yeah Barron's is read by many in the buisness community. Maybe the CEO's of the telecommunication companies that bent over to give bush access to their phone records will get Barron's message.

http://online.barrons.com/article_email/SB113538491760731012-lMyQjAxMDE1MzI1NDMyODQ0Wj.html

Unwarranted Executive Power

The pursuit of terrorism does not authorize the president to make up new laws

By THOMAS G. DONLAN

AS THE YEAR WAS DRAWING TO A CLOSE, we picked up our New York Times and learned that the Bush administration has been fighting terrorism by intercepting communications in America without warrants. It was worrisome on its face, but in justifying their actions, officials have made a bad situation much worse: Administration lawyers and the president himself have tortured the Constitution and extracted a suspension of the separation of powers.

....Putting the president above the Congress is an invitation to tyranny. The president has no powers except those specified in the Constitution and those enacted by law. President Bush is stretching the power of commander-in-chief of the Army and Navy by indicating that he can order the military and its agencies, such as the National Security Agency, to do whatever furthers the defense of the country from terrorists, regardless of whether actual force is involved.

[wes]

If THOMAS G. DONLAN was so dam smart he would be PRESIDENT instead of writing and complaining about what he knows vewry little about.


wes

[Tom]

Tommy Dashole can say whatever he wants about powers they din not grant. He is currently out of an office WE did not grant.
TD is a loser, he was rejected by he American people of his state, quite possibly for being a weak, terror-loving coward only 24 hours after 9-11.

More people are in favor of the wire tapping than even voted fo Bush, so it looks like even some of libs have some common sense.

[JustRalph]

Just before the Senate acted on this compromise resolution, the White House sought one last change. Literally minutes before the Senate cast its vote, the administration sought to add the words "in the United States and" after "appropriate force" in the agreed-upon text. This last-minute change would have given the president broad authority to exercise expansive powers not just overseas -- where we all understood he wanted authority to act -- but right here in the United States, potentially against American citizens. I could see no justification for Congress to accede to this extraordinary request for additional authority. I refused.

Yep, that part right there has a bunch of people twisting their heads around. Nobody else remembers it............Funny, he is out on his ass making things up

[46zilzal]

Gonzales says it was okay to spy on Americans without authorization because the war resolution gave them that power. But when asked why they didn't ask for specific congressional authorization, he says, well, Congress wouldn't have given them that power.

[46zilzal]

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

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

[Lefty]

46, not true. Pelosi, Rockefeller and several others KNEW...

[46zilzal]

didn't say NO one

[lsbets]

Let's see - we're at war, some of our enemies are in the country, and when those enemies are contacted by folks who we also happen to be at war with we listen in to those conversations without seeking a warrant. So friggin what? I guess the only people who really would have a problem with that are the folks who don't quite understand that we are at war.

[46zilzal]

at war????

[lsbets]

at war????

Thank you, you prove my point almost every time whether you know it or not.

[46zilzal]

let's see last time there was a declared war was 1941

[Lefty]

46, if there'd no war then how come liberals are having anti-war rallies?

[46zilzal]

friend of mine's daughter goes to Yale and you know what all the students refer to the rutabaga as? their Persian rug....

[Lefty]

Shows you the state of non-education in this country. I taught my children to respect everybody including Presidents. Meaningful debate is one thing, calling the President disrespectful names is for small minds.

[46zilzal]

respect, hmm let's see, on a scale of one to a googolplex, Richard Milhous Nixon gets 10 and the rutabaga gets 0.000000001

[Lefty]

Guess that makes you one of the small minded ones. No surprise.

[46zilzal]

no, opinion just like yours

[Lefty]

It's one thing to have an opinion; another to be completely disrespectful. Maybe you don't know the difference.

[JustRalph]

no, opinion just like yours

yep, opinions are like assholes...........everybody has one, and they all stink........

[Tom]

Gonzales says it was okay to spy on Americans without authorization because the war resolution gave them that power. But when asked why they didn't ask for specific congressional authorization, he says, well, Congress wouldn't have given them that power.

Not congress's place to give him a power already granted him by the constitution. And it is not like he is willy nilly listening on people - only with good cause. Like, I'm SURE he listens in on YOU, Ljb, Sec, and Hcap, but other than that, maybe only a few Al Qeda warlords! :lol:

[lsbets]

Tom - no one would have a problem with him listening to 46 - 46 doesn't live in the U.S. :lol: :lol: :lol:

[JustRalph]

does anybody really think that every damn call is being listened to? Computers are doing the bulk of the work and only when certain persons are identified does it come down to the personal level. Like I have said before.........why worry unless you are doing something wrong..............

[ljb]

does anybody really think that every damn call is being listened to? Computers are doing the bulk of the work and only when certain persons are identified does it come down to the personal level. Like I have said before.........why worry unless you are doing something wrong..............
Define wrong.

[PaceAdvantage]

Define wrong.

JustRalph's current avatar for starters. :lol:

[Lefty]

The NY Times does a good thing by uncovering a bunch of pedaphiles but, oh, looky, they got into peoples financial records and...
I'll let Ann tell ya about it
http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi

[JustRalph]

JustRalph's current avatar for starters. :lol:

Hey, I hurt my back posing for that thing!

[46zilzal]

The NY Times does a good thing by uncovering a bunch of pedaphiles but, oh, looky, they got into peoples financial records and...
I'll let Ann tell ya about it
http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi
it could help if you gave a creditable source!

[toetoe]

Jeez, she was on a sort of lopsided roll; then she had to throw in, as an example, Japanese internment camps,(and no, I DON'T want to know how she really feels about them) and compare them to Caesar's no-limit game. I guess the fact that the Chinese love to gamble is close enough. Maybe it IS all Japanese at Caesar's. Doubtful, but possible. It's just that she has an editor. She's a hatchet man, not Don Rickles.

[46zilzal]

during a public discussion with Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., former Nixon White House counsel John Dean called Bush "the first president to admit to an impeachable offense." Boxer took Dean seriously enough to consult four presidential scholars about impeachment.

"This startling assertion by Mr. Dean is especially poignant because he experienced firsthand the executive abuse of power and a presidential scandal arising from the surveillance of American citizens," she wrote to them. "Given your constitutional expertise, particularly in the area of presidential impeachment, I am writing to ask for your comments and thoughts on Mr. Dean's statement."

[Lefty]

46, you're a laugh riot. Ann is not creditable but J Dean is? Gimme a brk.
Article 2 of the Constitution gives Bush the right no matter what Dean says.
And guess Dean doesn't know Clinton did the same thing during peace time.

[46zilzal]

you are on a first name basis with that lady?

[Lefty]

What's your objection to my using her first name? Why don't you write something meaningful instead of just asking stupid questions or calling names?

[Tom]

Barbara Boxer is a doormat for terroists. People like her will be the death of us all.

BTW, how is here casino deal coming along? :kiss:

[46zilzal]

Defense Lawyers in Terror Cases Plan Challenges Over Spy Efforts

By Eric Lichtblau and James Risen / New York Times

WASHINGTON, Dec. 27 - Defense lawyers in some of the country's biggest terrorism cases say they plan to bring legal challenges to determine whether the National Security Agency used illegal wiretaps against several dozen Muslim men tied to Al Qaeda.

The lawyers said in interviews that they wanted to learn whether the men were monitored by the agency and, if so, whether the government withheld critical information or misled judges and defense lawyers about how and why the men were singled out.

The expected legal challenges, in cases from Florida, Ohio, Oregon and Virginia, add another dimension to the growing controversy over the agency's domestic surveillance program and could jeopardize some of the Bush administration's most important courtroom victories in terror cases, legal analysts say.

[46zilzal]

http://perljam.net/google-satellite-maps/id/1448/United_States/Texas/Crawford/George_W_Bushs_Prairie_Chapel_Ranch

[JustRalph]

So what's the big deal? shots of the ranch? give me your address and we can post your house too...............you planning an attack?

[Lefty]

It wouldn't surprise me, JR. Dr. zilly seems to be on the side of the terrorists by virture of the fact he seems against everything the admin is doing to fight em. We are fighting an enemy that wants to kill us all and the libs wanna give em due process. Scary.

[46zilzal]

It wouldn't surprise me, JR. Dr. zilly seems to be on the side of the terrorists by virture of the fact he seems against everything the admin is doing to fight em. We are fighting an enemy that wants to kill us all and the libs wanna give em due process. Scary.
How Unique the old Yur either with me or aggin me.....

I just observe

[GaryG]

I just observe
That is a crock....you are clearly against anything done by this administration. Have the cojones to tell us where you really stand....or is it sit?

[Lefty]

46, you are not truthful. Yes, in times of war, if you are not with us then you are against us. If you are not with us then you are the enemy.

[JustRalph]

How Unique the old Yur either with me or aggin me.....

I just observe

You do not just observe. You log on to this website and disparage the U.S. military. You post information from articles that are critical of the military and the U.S. goverment. You scream you are a passive observer who is neutral. Yet you can't wait to post information that you deem essential to the debate. You are an anti-american troll. End of story

[lsbets]

Remember, 46 does not root for our guys. In my mind, whether you believe the war was a good idea or not, if you do not root for those serving over there you are an anti-American piece of crap. But, this is also the guy who lives in Canada, loves to tell us he is still a U.S. citizen, but also says he would love to not be a U.S. citizen. Oh, don't forget he is also very open minded and 6'3". :lol: :lol: :lol:

[GaryG]

Remember, 46 does not root for our guys. In my mind, whether you believe the war was a good idea or not, if you do not root for those serving over there you are an anti-American piece of crap. But, this is also the guy who lives in Canada, loves to tell us he is still a U.S. citizen, but also says he would love to not be a U.S. citizen. Oh, don't forget he is also very open minded and 6'3". :lol: :lol: :lol:
This is starting to really piss me off....When we finish the Great Wall of Mexico maybe we could build a Great Wall of Canada....sorry Banacek.

[46zilzal]

You do not just observe. You log on to this website and disparage the U.S. military.
they are just pawns akin to the origin of the word in the game of chess

[Tom]

Do we really want him to be with us? :eek:

[hcap]

http://ap.washingtontimes.com/dynamic/stories/E/EAVESDROPPING_AP_POLL?SITE=DCTMS&SECTION=HOME

Poll: Most Want Court OK for Gov't Taps

By KATHERINE SHRADER
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A majority of Americans want the Bush administration to get court approval before eavesdropping on people inside the United States, even if those calls might involve suspected terrorists, an AP-Ipsos poll shows.

http://ap.washingtontimes.com/photos/G/GFX99501071932-big.jpg

[lsbets]

Hcap - if the question were reworded, and instead of "suspected terrorists", it asked about communications with "known terrorist operatives" do you think the poll result would have been different? I know the Rasmussen poll showed much different results, but I don't know how they worded their questions.

[hcap]

Rasmussen was framed inaccurately

Snippet...
December 28, 2005--Sixty-four percent (64%) of Americans believe the National Security Agency (NSA) should be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States. A Rasmussen Reports survey found that just 23% disagree.

Now here's the problem:
Rasmussen is questionning the issue through an irrelevant strawman argument.

Isn't the real issue here about evesdropping indiscriminately and illegally on domestic phone calls and not getting proper secret warrants within an allowed time frame?

Rasmussen didn't include the larger issue of yes/no warrants.
Of course the NSA needs to conduct wiretaps-- that's not the issue

I doubt "known terrorist operatives" would change things substantially. According to what we now know about how few convictions the feds achieved compared to the hundreds of 1000's of intercepted warrantless datamining intercepts-most indeed were only "suspected", and did not succeed in many convictions.

BTW, Can you explain, how "national security has been damaged" by revelations that the Administration was eavesdropping without FISA-required warrants and judicial oversight rather than with them?

[JustRalph]

Isn't the real issue here about evesdropping indiscriminately and illegally on domestic phone calls and not getting proper secret warrants within an allowed time frame?

nope. Because the evesdropping wasn't "indiscriminate" nor was it on "domestic" only phone calls. Your phrasing is faulty

[hcap]

How do we know what bush says is gospel?
He has already blown his credibility with well over 1/2 of us.
Shouldn't there be checks and balances on the executive?
The issue of legality is far from settled. I thought real conservatives and liberals would have a common groung on this one.

I guess the over reaction to 911 is the division.

We have heard over and over again that we face a mortal and incomparably powerful enemy on the precipice of destroying us, and only the most extreme measures taken by our Government can save us. We engaged in a War of Civilizations and our very existence is in imminent jeopardy. We must stand loyally behind George Bush as he invokes extreme and unprecedented measures necessary to protect us from this extreme and unprecedented threat. This is not WWII guys. This is not the cold war with 10,000+ nukes aimed at us. 911 was a horrible tragedy, but the global war on terrorism (GWOT) is a misnomer. And according to cheney-perpetual.
Should be PGWOT

Iraq was a stupid diversion from effectively removing real terrorist threats

The same crapola whether you’re talking about Iraq or the NSA eavesdropping program. You’re either with the administration or a naive fool who helps the terrorists.

"Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits, but according to who does them. There is almost no kind of outrage - - - -torture, imprisonment without trial, assassination, the bombing of civilians - - - - which does not change its moral color when it is committed by our side. The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, he has remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them."

-George Orwell

[JustRalph]

I guess the over reaction to 911 is the division.

I will never understand this sentence. I have seen it before. But in my opine I don't think we could possibly "over react" to 911. I am sure a Nuke strike might be considered over reaction. But, I am not so sure I would agree with that either. I think we have under reacted to 911. There are lots of things we could have done differently. We once again are trying to fight a tactical war with sharpshooter intentions. When we should be broadbrushing the hell out of the middle east...........just like they do us..............

[hcap]

We will never agree on this one.

I remember clearly hearing "you are either with us or against us" from bush for the first time shortly after 911. I knew we were in trouble then, not only from those that attacked us, but also with a simplistic reading of world events by an good/evil world view president.

It's What We Do
The administration says the terrorists hate us for who we are. But that isn’t what the terrorists say—or what the record shows.
January 5, 2006
Ivan Eland
American Prospect

...However, the president has backed into the hypothesis by saying that terrorists “hate us because we are free.” The president, that is, has essentially made the argument that they hate America for “what it is.” We are not, Bush once said, “facing a set of grievances that can be soothed or addressed.”

... Public opinion polls in Islamic nations repeatedly show that people in those countries actually admire America’s political and economic freedom. They also admire our wealth, technology, and even culture. So some other factor must be generating anti-U.S. hatred in these parts of the world.

...Let’s take another look at those public opinion polls in Islamic countries. Although people in most of those nations admire U.S. political and economic freedoms, wealth, technology, and culture, the poll numbers plummet when respondents are asked if they approve of U.S. foreign policy toward the Arabic and Islamic world. A recent poll conducted by Zogby International and the University of Maryland asked 3,617 respondents in six Arab nations: “Would you say that your attitudes toward the United States are based more on American values or on American policy in the Middle East?” More than 75 percent of respondents specified policies, while just 11 percent objected more to American values.

Empirical evidence indicates that a primary cause of terrorism is the U.S. government’s foreign policy

More
http://independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1648

[lsbets]

Empirical evidence indicates that a primary cause of terrorism is the U.S. government’s foreign policy

More
http://independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1648

Total bullshit - and anyone who claims to be an expert on the Middle East and believes that is far from an expert.

The primary cause of terrorism is regimes in the Middle East that grow enormous wealth for themselves while doing little or anything for the people in their countries. In order to stay in power they need to direct the anger of their subjects outward rather than inward. First it was Israel, but Israel pretty much kicked their ass everytime they attacked, so they shifted that focus to the United States, and then also to the Soviet Union after the invasion of Afghanistan. By exporting the radicals with the capability to organize and lead, the likes of Mubarak and the Saudi Royal family have been able to stay in power. If you ask some poor person in Egypt why they are poor they will say "Because of America and the Jews" rather than "Because of the corrupt government that runs this country and denies hope and opportunity to the people here." State controlled media, including Al Jazera, continuously run stories and programs designed to focus the attention of the people towards the United States and Israel. While the leaders of these countries come here and profess their friendship, they pursue policies at home designed to enrage the people - at us rather than them. Why do you think they do nothing to stop the flow of terrorists into Iraq? Because their hope is that those who have the courage to go and fight will leave their country, go to Iraq, and get killed. It removes a threat from their land. No, the primary cause of terrorism is not US foreign policy, the primary cause of terrorism is the regimes in the Middle East who use us as the scapegoat for the sad shape their people are in while they themselves live in luxury.

[toetoe]

Good point, hcap. The prez brought out the "They hate us because ..." speech ill-advisedly. I guess it was a sop to the masses, but the sentiment of the thought, "Why do they hate us?," complete with handwringing, is pure bleeding-heart liberalism. Don't wonder why an incorrigible punkass juvenile delinquent wants to destroy lives, just deal with him. And make no mistake, those bastids are incorrigible. Liberals believe in the corrigibility of ALL mankind. How do "disenfranchised," "marginalized" fools with anger problems regard my country? That appeals to my heart on the level of a loose gorilla or an earthquake. They're an unfortunate reality to be reckoned with, but not appeased.

[Tom]

I will never understand this sentence. I have seen it before. But in my opine I don't think we could possibly "over react" to 911. I am sure a Nuke strike might be considered over reaction. But, I am not so sure I would agree with that either. I think we have under reacted to 911. There are lots of things we could have done differently. We once again are trying to fight a tactical war with sharpshooter intentions. When we should be broadbrushing the hell out of the middle east...........just like they do us..............

Ralph for president!

Hcap, look at the timeline of terrorism prior to 9-11....the WTC in '93, the Cole, the embassies, etc.etc. We are nowhere near reacting harsh enough....nowhere near.

[Secretariat]

nope. Because the evesdropping wasn't "indiscriminate" nor was it on "domestic" only phone calls. Your phrasing is faulty

We cannot trust GW on this. He's lied often enoguh before.

According to right wing writer William Safire he beleives his calls were bugged, likewise Andrea Mitchell has asked about Christine Amanpour being bugged.

This is just the beginning of one more investigation. THe man has created a climate of fear and suspicion once again.

[hcap]

I am suggesting a broader historical perspective and less we is da best.

I never claimed we should "appease" any hard core terrorist. Once again you gentlemen are using yer wit us or ag'nist crapola. Yep you can't negotiate with those that are fanatically out to kill you. But that is not who you are supposed to negotiate with. You must speak to and UNDERSTAND the 99% of those who are as decent as any of us but are not exactly like us

Not all Arabs or Muslims are with the terrorists

A new Zogby poll of 3,900 people in six once-friendly Arab nations finds that, when asked to name the leader they detest most, 45 percent named Ariel Sharon, but Bush has moved into second at 30 percent. Tony Blair was a distant third at 3 percent. No one else was close.

Only 6 percent agreed with al Qaeda's goal of a caliphate ruling the Islamic world, and only 7 percent approved of its terrorism -- but fully 36 percent admired how al-Qaida ``confronts the U.S.''

Israel is a problem. Saying Israel kicked their asses does not put Israel in the right in all issues. The creation of the Jewish state was not done in ways to engender peace. Ironicly, before the brits and the west began to carve up the ME for geopolical-resource reasons, the Jews and Arabs were more neighborlike.

Historical mainstream Islam allowed Jews to live within their borders with less grief than our Christian forebears

There are many grievances on the arab side that were and will probably never be settled. Does that justify killing innocents-of course not. But when hundreds of palestinians are collaterly damaged, Israel will not easily escape the circle of violence. Maybe enough on both sides will tire of the bloodshed and will end it. Meanwhile the uneven support for the Israelis by us is creating endless opportunities for enlistment of the easily swayed by the fanatics.

Ls, the corrupt regimes are bound to us by their oil. We have been propping up many for decades and are now paying the price. WE, by way of the CIA initially installed Saddam, helped the Shah of Iran-a despot-and innadvertantly eased the fundamental Mullahs into power. Then looked the other way as Saddam used chemical weapens during the Iran-Iraq wr

We took an active roll in supporting Bin Laden an his mujahadeen in Afghanistan in our great game with the soviets.

Blowback all around

[lsbets]

Hcap - I won't deny that we have supported those regimes, and looked the other way as they exported terrorism as long as it did not encroach our borders. And even encouraged it when it was useful to us as a tool during the Cold War ala Afghanistan. One of Saddam's biggest mistakes was failing to realize that while he was still very useful to France, he was no longer useful to us, and we did not need him. That does not change the fact that the state runs everything in the middle east, and in the mosques from a very young age they are taught "Your life sucks because of America and Israel." That is where terrorism comes from. The only real way we will ever win this war on terror is by turning the anger and frustration in the Muslim world inward, at the governments who propogate the conditions and prosper on the misery of their people.

Saying Israel kicked their asses does not put them in the right, but it is also true. The Arab world was humiliated in 1948, 1967, and has tried to spin 1973 as a great victory, even though once again Israel kicked their ass. The goal at that time, and the goal of Hamas today is not to live peacefully with their Jewish neighbors, it is to drive the Jews into the sea. When they did coexist peacefully, what happenned? The holiest shrines in Judaism were destroyed and had mosques built on them. Many of the hliest shrines in Christianity were virtually inaccesible to Christians. There is no religious tolerance amongst the modern Muslim leadership (although I am not one who thinks the Koran preaches hate and violence, that's what their leaders do). There would be no peaceful coexistance right now. As long as a Jew lives in Israel, there are Muslims who will want to kill them.

[JustRalph]

The man has created a climate of fear and suspicion once again.

Good! Only those who are our enemy should be worried.....you have yet to point out one example of someone who was being tapped, that was unjustly prosecuted etc. Safire was monitored for offering a "leak" to someone and having it overheard by an outsider. If you want to run with the big dogs........you better be able to put up with the conditions. Nothing came of the tap on Safire's phone. That is the ultimate judge of whether it was unjust or not.

I wish we would have had a little more fear and suspicion at places like Logan Airport on Sept. 11th.

[46zilzal]

paranoia makes eveyone the enemy

[JustRalph]

paranoia makes eveyone the enemy

http://www.pa-aware.org/assets/images/intro/4.jpg
This is not paranoia...........and there are much worse things that could happen

[Tom]

lsbets, excellant points. the muslems do no live well with anyone. They are the evil religion, suppressing all others, pushing their way into other nations an "colonizing" them. They are taking over Euorpe right now. Islam must be not only contained, it must be driven back. Islam is at war with the west, and it is a holy war. Our denial of this is unsettling. We can't win a war we don't acknowledge.

[46zilzal]

Robert Baer, a CIA case officer in the Middle East until 1997, told us how it works. "We pick up a suspect or we arrange for one of our partner countries to do it. Then the suspect is placed on civilian transport to a third country where, let's make no bones about it, they use torture. If you want a good interrogation, you send someone to Jordan. If you want them to be killed, you send them to Egypt or Syria. Either way, the US cannot be blamed as it is not doing the heavy work."

[toetoe]

hcap,

I don't suggest that YOU suggest appeasement, at all. I only want to deny the enemy (and like it or not, we have big-time enemies) the fodder for logical argument against us. Which brings me to LSBets. LS, our politicians forsake us for wealth and power, also. No surprise ... they're POLITICIANS!!! Our system works DESPITE the pols. The hell of it is, we can't establish that anywhere else in the world, that human foible-proof type of rule. The sooner we recognize that, the better.

Ralph,

If I posted a photo of an aborted fetus, it might win over some converts, or inspire some to kill doctors, but it's cheap and, in your photo's case, it's doing the bastids' work for them. Any horrible death scene that is no longer "newsworthy" serves only to terrorize, and that's the murderous bastids' objective.

[lsbets]

LS, our politicians forsake us for wealth and power, also. No surprise ... they're POLITICIANS!!! Our system works DESPITE the pols. The hell of it is, we can't establish that anywhere else in the world, that human foible-proof type of rule. The sooner we recognize that, the better.



Toe - you won't hear any disagreement from me on that. I've said many times the only reason I voted for Bush is I trust him more with our national security than I trusted Monsieur Kerry. I wholeheartedly agree with Thomas Sowell when he says that all too often the only reason to vote for Republicans is Democrats. I think we desperately need a party of independance in this country and we don't have one. There is zero honest debate or discussion about the issues in this country - all the debate is framed by special interests on both sides of the issue and nothing is looked at objectively. If it were, most of our current system would be scrapped.

[Tom]

Here,here!

Go back and read my early posts about Bush before the 2000 election.
It was never Bush I liked - it was Gore I feared. Ditto 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------
46.....take them to Jordan, sounds ok to me. You gotta play the hand you're dealt. Everyone whines about bad intel, but how does one suspect one get's good intel? Here's a a suggestion for our middle eastern "friends" who object to torture, murder, undetermined jail sentences and the like......don't decalar jihad on us! Looks like they ji'd more than they can 'had! :D

[toetoe]

I don't endorse the "vote-against-one-not-for-the-other" strategy, but it IS refreshing to hear it turned around. The Dems want to murder Nader and his voters. Now, the Republicans never hated Perot for running, did they? Besides the flaw in the mathematical reasoning ("A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush; let me just tell you whom to vote for so it counts."), a flaw big enough to drive a Hummvee through, the hubris is astounding. Odd that they don't have a problem with folks voting for Bush, only those voting for Nader. Kinda like taking Nat Cole to task for not agitating enough for his "brethren," while ignoring white racists. Speaking of race, I've noticed that Bush's black officials are not black enough for the Dems. :confused: :bang: :faint:

[lsbets]

A couple of great points in there toe, although I might take them differently. First, the blacks in power issue. THere have never been African Americans in the positions of power that there are in the Bush administration - and he gets zero credit for that. Because they are not liberal blacks, and the groups that supposedly represent African Americans really only represent liberal African Americans.

On the other point about no one being bothered by votes for Bush but being bothered by votes for Nader, that's because, at the end of the day they both (Dems and Reps) have a monopoly on power. They don't want to let any outsiders into their club, and that's why they set up the system the way they do.

[Lefty]

Yeah, but Porot got to be in on the debates and Nader was not. What's that tell you? Tell's me dems don't practice what they preach.

[toetoe]

I understand that, LS, but the morally high and mighty tone of the Dems' appraisal of election politics has no Republican counterpart. They're like the gods on Mt. Olympus, looking down on the mere mortals, shaking their heads, wondering whether to miraculously interfere. Now, I'm not saying they're ALL like this, but those that I've encountered can ruin my day. (Imagine steam rising from the wallbanging head.)>>> :bang:

[lsbets]

Toe - for 8 years everytime Rush talked about Clinton he said he never got a majority and only won because of Perot. The Republicans had the same attitude about Perot that the Dems have about Nader.

[toetoe]

I find that easy to believe, but would RLim ever try to interfere with a voter's right to choose (not a woman's, just a voter's)? Gimme the good old-fashioned motives --- greed, bigotry, etc. God save me from the true believers that want to vote their conscience and want US to vote theirs too.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by toetoe
hcap,

I don't suggest that YOU suggest appeasement, at all. I only want to deny the enemy (and like it or not, we have big-time enemies) the fodder for logical argument against us.There are reasons that we are losing the PR end of the battle. Ls claims"and in the mosques from a very young age they are taught "Your life sucks because of America and Israel." Ok maybe this is part of it-although I suspect not as all pervasive as Ls argues. What about right now. Denying the enemy, as toetoe says the "fodder" for the enlistment of OLDER recruits, no longer attending so called "mosque brainwashing"? Those already weaned on stories of the west intruding for selfish reasons.

You guys seem to define history as existing as only large events, usually those adversely affecting us. Without taking account the less visable strings that set the stage, and tie things together.

Alan Watts a western Zen Buddhist writer has an analogy to constricting reality in this way

"Here is someone who has never seen a cat. He is looking through a narrow slit in a fence, and, on the other side, a cat walks by. He sees first the head, then the less distinctly shaped furry trunk, and then the tail. Extraordinary! The cat turns round and walks back, and again he sees the head, and a little later the tail. This sequence begins to look like something regular and reliable. Yet again, the cat turns round, and he witnesses the same regular sequence: first the head, and later the tail. Thereupon he reasons that the event head is the invariable and necessary cause of the event tail, which is the head's effect."

The chicken and the egg paradox is solved by seeing a larger unity.
I think we must look at the larger cycle of violence.
Although it would be foolish to allow those already caught up in hatred to kill or injure us, it would also be foolish to kneejerk into existance a shortsighted foreign policy.

Funny, I was reading an article about "entanglement". A very interesting concept in quantum physics...."Einstein's "Spooky Action At A Distance"

http://www.earthfiles.com/news/news.cfm?ID=1035&category=Science

That means scientists discovered that measurement of only one atom's spin direction caused another atom to match that spin direction. Physicists began calling this phenomenon "entanglement."


So there are spooky connections on a deeper level that ties actions of one apparently seperate atom with another. An underlying connection? As so are complicated historical events.

Do you think that they "started it". This stuff goes back a ways. They can quote you real greivances as well. Thousands killed and many more injured.
And they would be right. As would we.

Most conflicts are mired in convoluted origins. Untying the strings are more involved than simply fitting the data points into absolute good vs evil talking points

Should we have dopped the bomb? Our actions whether correct or incorrect, produce action and reaction.

..In early 1993, Islamic extremists attempted to kill 250,000 people by toppling the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York City. Ramzi Yousef, the leader of the group, claimed that the intent was to cause casualties on the order of the atomic bomb blast at Hiroshima in order to punish the United States for its support and aid for Israel.

Do we attempt to understand EVERY lunatic out to avenge a particular cause? No, impossible but major actions on our part have major consequences.

Btw, the last about the first World Trade Center attack is why I disagree that 911 "changed everything".
They just succeded the second time.


Might the Arabs Have a Point?
by Patrick J. Buchanan

http://amconmag.com/2006/2006_01_16/buchanan.html

"America’s standing in the Arab world could hardly be worse. And the questions the survey raises are these: Do we care? And, if we do, do not the Arabs have a point? Has not U.S. behavior in the Middle East lent credence to the view that our principal interests are Israel and oil, and, under Bush II, that we launched an invasion to dominate the region?"

[ljb]

http://www.pa-aware.org/assets/images/intro/4.jpg
This is not paranoia...........and there are much worse things that could happen
Nice photo. However using it tends to create paranoia among many.

[PaceAdvantage]

Nice photo. However using it tends to create paranoia among many.

So what is the alternative? Ignore the fact that 9/11 ever happened? How silly.

If a little paranoia goes a long way to preventing the next 9/11, then that's a good thing in my book.

[Suff]

So what is the alternative? Ignore the fact that 9/11 ever happened? How silly.

If a little paranoia goes a long way to preventing the next 9/11, then that's a good thing in my book.

Those planes crashed into those buildings. Thats for darn sure.

But tell me you believe Towers 1, 2, and 7 toppled due to Jet Fuel! Tell me you believe that. Because I know you don't and niether do I.


The Gig is up. There were other factors about 9-11, and the subsequent collapse of the three buildings. Fact.

[PaceAdvantage]

Those planes crashed into those buildings. Thats for darn sure.

But tell me you believe Towers 1, 2, and 7 toppled due to Jet Fuel! Tell me you believe that. Because I know you don't and niether do I.


The Gig is up. There were other factors about 9-11, and the subsequent collapse of the three buildings. Fact.

Good point.

Where were you when I started the "9/11 becoming the new JFK assassination (http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=23758&highlight=9%2F11)" thread?

[Tom]

I believe it. Show me some evidence that it was something else. I've seen actual video of the start of the collapse. Goes along with what we have been told in extensive reporting.

Like the JFK deal, after seeing objective, scientific evidence, I no longer believe in the conspiracy theory - it was Oswald acting alone (at least for the shooting - he may have been part of a plot, but he fired all the bullets).

[Suff]

I believe it. Show me some evidence that it was something else. I've seen actual video of the start of the collapse. Goes along with what we have been told in extensive reporting.

Like the JFK deal, after seeing objective, scientific evidence, I no longer believe in the conspiracy theory - it was Oswald acting alone (at least for the shooting - he may have been part of a plot, but he fired all the bullets).

Physics prevents the 3 buildings from collapsing the way they did. Any Structural Steel Engineer worth his salt will tell you that it is a physical impossibilty for fire to cause vertical collapse in the speed they came down.

Tower 7's collapse is the best example. It fell in 6.6 seconds. If we were to use the best demolition experts in the world, the quickest the building would fall is a flat 6.0 seconds. The Joiners, and welds were still in place in Tower 7. As the concrete slabs fell on one another there would have to be a delay longer than .6 seconds, coupled with different stress points that would cause a Horizontal collapse in the range of 10-15 seconds minimum.

[Lefty]

hcap, bet you're a big fan of Ward Churchill too.

[Suff]

"America’s standing in the Arab world could hardly be worse. "

The Arab world!!?? The whole world. Right now, out of 200 something countries in the world , only 6. 6!! six!! Have greater than 50% of thier Population with a favorable view of America.

They are, Canada, England, Isreal and 3 others I forget because they're small like Rhode island size.

:lol: :lol:

I mean look what this guy Bush has done to us. Even Kuwait who we freed with his own father has a majority unfavorable view of America. It seems just yesterday the America was the envy of the world, when no matter where you went in the word, when you said you were American you were a celebrity. In 5 short years this guy Bush has put a SHIT STAIN right down our backs. Honestly, I would'nt vacation outside North America if it was for free.

[46zilzal]

Swiss Investigate Leak to Paper on C.I.A. Prisons

By Doreen Carvajal / International Herald Tribune

PARIS, Jan. 11 - Switzerland is conducting criminal investigations to track down the source of a leak to the Zurich-based newspaper SonntagsBlick of what it reported was a secret document citing clandestine C.I.A. prisons in Eastern Europe.

The Sunday weekly published what it reported was a summary of a fax in November from Egypt's Foreign Ministry to its London embassy that said the United States had held 23 Iraqi and Afghan prisoners at a base in Romania. It also referred to similar detention centers in Bulgaria, Kosovo, Macedonia and Ukraine.

"The Egyptians have sources confirming the presence of secret American prisons," said the document, dated Nov. 15 and written in French to summarize the contents of the fax.

"According to the embassy's own sources, 23 Iraqis and Afghans were interrogated at the Mikhail Kogalniceau base at Constanza, on the Black Sea."

The leaked fax, which the newspaper said was sent by satellite and intercepted by the Swiss Strategic Intelligence Service, was signed by Egypt's foreign minister, Ahmed Aboul Gheit, the report said.

[Bobby]

Canada, England, Isreal and 3 others


that's ashame.

[46zilzal]

you can COUNT Canada Out. Everyone: teachers, dotors, nurses, people on the street are afraid of the clown rutabaga.

[PaceAdvantage]

The Arab world!!?? The whole world. Right now, out of 200 something countries in the world , only 6. 6!! six!! Have greater than 50% of thier Population with a favorable view of America.

This doesn't affect me one way or the other. I couldn't care less about how other countries view America.

We've ALWAYS been the subject of jealousy and criticism from the way we dress, to the way we act, to the way we talk, to our supposed non-stop materialism (despite the fact that when these countries get into trouble, we're the first ones to offer aid), etc. etc.

It's ALWAYS been this way....however, TODAY, it's FASHIONABLE to publicly display this disdain, thanks to the Bush crusades (and by that, I mean the crusade by the left and certain media elements to "get Bush").

[Suff]

This doesn't affect me one way or the other. I couldn't care less about how other countries view America.

We've ALWAYS been the subject of jealousy and criticism from the way we dress, to the way we act, to the way we talk, to our supposed non-stop materialism (despite the fact that when these countries get into trouble, we're the first ones to offer aid), etc. etc.



huh? wrong. IN addition to living overseas for two years, I've traveled over seas many a time. I could'nt buy a beer for years. The world loved America. I mean LOVED!

Now we are down the end of the bar by ourselves. And watch your back when you hit the mens room.

[PaceAdvantage]

Remember, I said *I* couldn't care less. This doesn't make my opinion correct, or even reflective of the majority....if I ever travel abroad again, then maybe I will change my tune...

[Tom]

I have a large ass, and the world is welcome to kiss it! Our standing in the world? We are the greatest nation in the world and in history. We set the standards. We don't do things to impress anyone. We do what is right for us, and we are there for just about everyone else when they need help. Anyone wishing to disparage us should show up with a receipt for the amount of foreign aid this PSO countries have given. Kuwiat's opinion, eh? Those MF POS leaders had thier sorry asses in posh hotles in Brittain while OUR troops did the dirty work. Kuwait is first on my list on knee-pad nations. As far as I am concerned, every drop of oil in Kuwait is ours for the taking - we earned it. But no, we just free them and leave.

If the rest of the world is against us, then I guess we are doing something right. Anyone aspire to earn the respect of the french? :lol:

[toetoe]

Tom, you HAVE a large ass, whereas I AM a large ass. :)

The Arab world as a monolithic unit, ... hmmm, kind of insulting to think of a billion people like a bunch of sheep. Here's the terror part, man --- maybe they ARE!!!! As creepy/crawly as the Muslim die-hard zealotry is, demography based on race alone REALLY creeps me out. A worldwide Caucasian movement is laughable, but we're supposed to isolate the Arabs in the world and cater to them, based on some perceived similarity in tastes, likes and dislikes? If, to our disbelief, we find that all Arabs worldwide think alike, okay ... w'ere in for it. Circle the wagons. If not, why all the stuff about growing Arab discontent? It's always "growing" in the newscast. I wish our economy grew like that. :D

IF (big "if") we want to favorably impress the regular folks in "Arabworld" (coming soon to Disneyland Cairo), we have to solicit THEIR opinions, and IGNORE the psychotic, sadistic needs of the trash that like to bomb and maim.

[Lefty]

suff says:I mean look what this guy Bush has done to us. Even Kuwait who we freed with his own father has a majority unfavorable view of America. It seems just yesterday the America was the envy of the world, when no matter where you went in the word, when you said you were American you were a celebrity. In 5 short years this guy Bush has put a SHIT STAIN right down our backs. Honestly, I would'nt vacation outside North America if it was for free.
_______________________________________________
He puts america first. The rest of the world thinks we should give all we have to them.
In those 5 short yrs Bush has enabled two countries to get a start on Democracy. That's a good thing.

[hcap]

Lefty sayshcap, bet you're a big fan of Ward Churchill too."From SUN TZU ON THE ART OF WAR

Hence the saying: If you know the enemy
and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a
hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy,
for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat.
If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will
succumb in every battle.

Therefore the clever combatant imposes his will on
the enemy, but does not allow the enemy's will to be imposed on him.

Nothing to do with appeasement Lefty, everything to do with pragmatics and morality. I am neither with you or against you. There are other choices.

[rastajenk]

"Therefore the clever combatant imposes his will on
the enemy, but does not allow the enemy's will to be imposed on him."

There's the Bush Doctrine in one sentence. It's a beautiful thing, is it not? :cool:

[Lefty]

hcap says: Nothing to do with appeasement Lefty, everything to do with pragmatics and morality. I am neither with you or against you. There are other choices.
____________________________
What migHT THOSE be? Y'now, you guys talk theory, quote stuff, but we're in a real war and brave troops have made sacrifices, freddom and lives are at stake, and you say i'm not with you or against you? EXPLAIN! Are you another 46zilly?

[Tom]

We will need your name and address, too, Hcap.......we will be acting right after we take over the third and final branch of government! :eek:

It will soon be clear to you what we mean by that statement.......:jump:

[46zilzal]

____________________________
What migHT THOSE be? Y'now, you guys talk theory, quote stuff, but we're in a real war and brave troops have made sacrifices, freddom and lives are at stake, and you say i'm not with you or against you? EXPLAIN! Are you another 46zilly?
REAL WAR now that's funny

[Lefty]

46zilly, nothing funny about it. It's a grim, necessary business.

[46zilzal]

In those 5 short yrs Bush has enabled two countries to get a start on Democracy. That's a good thing.
Let's see how long those "propped up" democracies last

[Lefty]

zilly, at least they have a chance they didn't have when Saddam was in power. More and more you sound as if you want them to fail.
Hey, understand the liberals in your country are beset with scandal and may lose to the conservatives. Bet that scalds your goat.

[JustRalph]

zilly, at least they have a chance they didn't have when Saddam was in power.

and that is the crux of the matter. providing life to fledgling democracy is all that you can do, really. You light the flame and hope it continues to burn. Anything beyond that wouldn't be right.

[Indulto]

JR,

If only that flame had been ignited internally. The innocents who died shocked and awed never had a chance regardless of who was in power. As our own individual rights and freedom appear to be declining in the name of the war on terrorism, it gives one pause to wonder whose happiness and liberty we are pursuing at the expense of life.

[twindouble]

JR,

If only that flame had been ignited internally. The innocents who died shocked and awed never had a chance regardless of who was in power. As our own individual rights and freedom appear to be declining in the name of the war on terrorism, it gives one pause to wonder whose happiness and liberty we are pursuing at the expense of life.

You know Indulto I do like where you come from, you sound like a real nice guy and would make a good neighbor providing we all live on utopia street. I say that with respect but I'll tell you what, if you were my neighbor I would feel the need to protect you for the simple reason I know in today's world you would be prayed upon being viewed as a weakling. I'm not saying this is fact but the above paragraph hints of pacifism. As a child I realized there comes time when I and others had to stand our ground and had to dispense those feelings you promote. Example, the north side bullies had a ball field but ours was in better condition, they thought they could just scare us and just take it over. They even went as far as staking claims on our favorite fishing holes, well back then just a few bloody noses and black eyes solved the problem real quick but today knives, guns, clubs, heavy boots and bombs are the weapons of choice.

So you are in my opinion more venerable today than ever, taking into account those that just want to kill you and your family for the sport of it, for money or for some sick religious belief. I fear you might put your children in dangerous situations thinking everyone feels as you do but I hope not. You do need people like me and many others that can see the good in others, at the same time stand guard and be willing to fight. At my age all I can do is express myself, pull a trigger or swing one mean bat if need be. Yes, reality sucks some times.

T.D.

[Tom]

JR,

If only that flame had been ignited internally. The innocents who died shocked and awed never had a chance regardless of who was in power. As our own individual rights and freedom appear to be declining in the name of the war on terrorism, it gives one pause to wonder whose happiness and liberty we are pursuing at the expense of life.


So you supported the nazis in WWII? You MUST be opposed to our having had to bomb them to HELL to win? And you favored a long, drawn out land war in Japan? Just trying to be sure where you are coming from.

[Tom]

Physics prevents the 3 buildings from collapsing the way they did. Any Structural Steel Engineer worth his salt will tell you that it is a physical impossibilty for fire to cause vertical collapse in the speed they came down.

Tower 7's collapse is the best example. It fell in 6.6 seconds. If we were to use the best demolition experts in the world, the quickest the building would fall is a flat 6.0 seconds. The Joiners, and welds were still in place in Tower 7. As the concrete slabs fell on one another there would have to be a delay longer than .6 seconds, coupled with different stress points that would cause a Horizontal collapse in the range of 10-15 seconds minimum.

So how did that building burn 7 hours before it collapsed?

[Tom]

Let's see how long those "propped up" democracies last

Yeah, like that one the French helped "prop" up in the 1700's - when Brittain, one of the most powerful empires in the world, was trying to prevent it. Go figure. Whatever happen to those loose cannon 13 colonies anyway?

[ljb]

Yeah, like that one the French helped "prop" up in the 1700's - when Brittain, one of the most powerful empires in the world, was trying to prevent it. Go figure. Whatever happen to those loose cannon 13 colonies anyway?
Those loose cannon 13 colonies were nothing but a bunch of insurgents in their day. Or perhaps they were called freedom fighters. In England they may have been called terrorists. Imagine that, hiding behind trees and such. Not fighting according to military rules.

[46zilzal]

Yeah, like that one the French helped "prop" up in the 1700's - when Brittain, one of the most powerful empires in the world, was trying to prevent it. Go figure. Whatever happen to those loose cannon 13 colonies anyway?
that one evolved ON IT'S OWN

[Lefty]

lbj says: Those loose cannon 13 colonies were nothing but a bunch of insurgents in their day. Or perhaps they were called freedom fighters. In England they may have been called terrorists. Imagine that, hiding behind trees and such. Not fighting according to military rules
______________________--
You &*%# dare equate terrorists that use homicide bombers to kill innocent women and children; terrorists that have called a jihad on everyone that doesn;t blve the way they do; you DARE to equate those monsters with the 13 colonies? My God, lbj, how Low can YOU go?

[Lefty]

46 says: you can COUNT Canada Out. Everyone: teachers, dotors, nurses, people on the street are afraid of the clown rutabaga.
_________________________________________
Well, your libs are afraid of losing the elections over there to the conservatives and they have invoked the name of Bush hoping to get theit poll numbers up, but I understand there's a backlash and the conservatives still ahead in the polls.

[Tom]

lbj says: Those loose cannon 13 colonies were nothing but a bunch of insurgents in their day. Or perhaps they were called freedom fighters. In England they may have been called terrorists. Imagine that, hiding behind trees and such. Not fighting according to military rules
______________________--
You &*%# dare equate terrorists that use homicide bombers to kill innocent women and children; terrorists that have called a jihad on everyone that doesn;t blve the way they do; you DARE to equate those monsters with the 13 colonies? My God, lbj, how Low can YOU go?

There is no limit to the depths this guy will sink to. A truly sick person - in the head. He is on my ignore list becasue he has never offered anyhting remotely intelligent in all the time he has been here. He is not worth the bother to even pass over.

[Tom]

Just look at this! Disgusting.

Those kids are being "propped" up by the mother.
They cannot stand on thier own, they cannot walk or talk.
They are a drain on their parents finances. They contrbute nothing to the family funds, and they are putting debt on the backs of poor ole Dad.
The mother should abandon them in the park and cut her loses.
They are occupying the family home.

[46zilzal]

POOR analogy

[Tom]

GOOD analogy.

[toetoe]

Tom,

The Iraqis would not like that analogy.

ljb,

Your analogy might work if the revolutionaries were causing havoc in Jolly Old England, but in the colonies it fails, I think Maybe the Indians would fit into that picture somehow.

[46zilzal]

Revolutions are the idea of the people IN a country NOT arrived at via the PLANTING of said idea and them implementing of the same by a THIRD power

[46zilzal]

There is no comprehensive theory of what causes revolutions on which all social scientists and historians agree. Instead, theories generally break down into two camps:

* Revolutionary furor. Outrage, in this perspective, fuels revolution. Resentment against the pampered French aristocracy, the grievances of the American colonies against the British government, the disgust with communism across Eastern Europe—pick any revolution, and it’s easy to look at it through this lens. Some of the most articulate proponents of the “revolutionary furor” thesis include political scientists like Ted Robert Gurr, Theda Skocpol, and James Davies, historians of particular revolutions like Alexis de Tocqueville and Stephen Cohen, and, of course, Marx and Engels with their theory of class conflict and revolutionary consciousness. However, the “revolutionary furor” perspective crosses ideological lines, so someone arguing about middle class resentment against Salvador Allende’s policies before the military coup that ousted him is as likely to stress popular discontent as a neo-Marxist interpretation of the Iranian revolution. Social historians often appear in this camp, since their focus on everyday life is going to put popular discontent in the foreground of their research.

* Revolutionary opportunity. Revolution, in this perspective, is the apocalyptic resolution of an ongoing conflict among competing elites. Factions eager to seize power from their enemies ride the wave of popular discontent, but it’s merely one of many tools in the revolutionary leader’s arsenal. “The organizational weapon,” terror, intrigues, agitprop—there may be a mass audience, but it’s a small group of revolutionaries, the “counter-elite,” that creates these implements and directs their use. Again, you can find a mix of political scientists (for example, Charles Tilly) and historians (such as Richard Pipes and Edmund Burke) of many ideological stripes who argue this position. Often, people who write “grand histories” of important leaders and events will fall into this camp, again because of where they focus their attention.

[Tom]

Revolutions are the idea of the people IN a country NOT arrived at via the PLANTING of said idea and them implementing of the same by a THIRD power

You mean what Sadaam did when he stole control of the counry in the 70's?
He imposed a cruel dictatorship upon the poeple - they had NO say in it whatsoever.
WE gave them the ability to write thier own contstitution, offered them elections with more than one candidate, prtected them from intimidation from terorists when they decided in rehuge numbers to vote.
WE are standing on the sidelines more and more, allowing the PEOPLE to make the decisions instead of being slaves to monsters. Damn us anyways!

Do you really suffer from the delusion that if we were to pull out today the PEOPLE would be overcome by the terrorists? Remeber Afghanistan and the Taliban?

Beside, the iudea of freedom is not implanted by anyone - it is mans God-given right and destiny to be free. You dare suggest that the Iraqi people were better of under the rule of SH, a murdering dictortor who stole thier freedom?
You have got to read more than medical books.

[Tom]

So while you sit in Canada, not taking sides, but totally opposed to Bush and the war, just what sage advice do you serve up? What, today, right now, is the best thing for the Iraqi people?

Specifics, please - or do you have nothing but barbs to throw out?

All you 4 horsemen - feel free to chime in here. What is the liberal solution to the problem today?

[46zilzal]

I don't have answers for the rutabaga's screw up and frankly don't care what happens there since whatever I BELIEVE, it will have NO effect on the outcome.


I reitierate OPPOSED to the sham of a war in IRAQ

[Tom]

Predictable answer.

[twindouble]

sicko's.

[twindouble]

So while you sit in Canada, not taking sides, but totally opposed to Bush and the war, just what sage advice do you serve up? What, today, right now, is the best thing for the Iraqi people?

Specifics, please - or do you have nothing but barbs to throw out?

All you 4 horsemen - feel free to chime in here. What is the liberal solution to the problem today?

The only thing they can come up with is, cut run and surrender. Their next brilliant thing will be burning the flag or having their pictures taken with those wonderful brave freedom fighters ala, Harry Bellefonte, Jane Fonda. Bunch of sicko's in my opinion.

T.D.

[ljb]

lbj says: Those loose cannon 13 colonies were nothing but a bunch of insurgents in their day. Or perhaps they were called freedom fighters. In England they may have been called terrorists. Imagine that, hiding behind trees and such. Not fighting according to military rules
______________________--
You &*%# dare equate terrorists that use homicide bombers to kill innocent women and children; terrorists that have called a jihad on everyone that doesn;t blve the way they do; you DARE to equate those monsters with the 13 colonies? My God, lbj, how Low can YOU go?
Lefty, Lefty, Lefty, Get a grip !

[46zilzal]

THAT would be impossible

[Indulto]

Originally posted by twindouble
You know Indulto I do like where you come from, you sound like a real nice guy and would make a good neighbor providing we all live on utopia street. I say that with respect but I'll tell you what, if you were my neighbor I would feel the need to protect you for the simple reason I know in today's world you would be prayed upon being viewed as a weakling. I'm not saying this is fact but the above paragraph hints of pacifism. As a child I realized there comes time when I and others had to stand our ground and had to dispense those feelings you promote. Example, the north side bullies had a ball field but ours was in better condition, they thought they could just scare us and just take it over. They even went as far as staking claims on our favorite fishing holes, well back then just a few bloody noses and black eyes solved the problem real quick but today knives, guns, clubs, heavy boots and bombs are the weapons of choice.

So you are in my opinion more venerable today than ever, taking into account those that just want to kill you and your family for the sport of it, for money or for some sick religious belief. I fear you might put your children in dangerous situations thinking everyone feels as you do but I hope not. You do need people like me and many others that can see the good in others, at the same time stand guard and be willing to fight. At my age all I can do is express myself, pull a trigger or swing one mean bat if need be. Yes, reality sucks some times.

T.D.


TD,
I'm glad for you that you learned to fight your own battles as a child. Once you achieved that satisfaction, did you go out looking to defend other victims of bullies, either as a child or as an adult? Did you make any distinction between those who couldn’t -- and those who wouldn’t – defend themselves? Wouldn’t you agree that knowing when to fight is as least as important as being willing to fight?

Is it any worse to be killed for sport or because of someone else’s religious beliefs (or your own) than if you were simply an innocent bystander? Do you agree with this administration that some lives lost exiting the towers on 9/11 were more valuable than those lost entering them? Was a life lost due to 9/11 in New York any more heartbreaking than one lost to gang crossfire in Los Angeles? Why aren’t those streets patrolled by our National Guard?

Do you often feel the need to protect a neighbor? Have you ever offered and been refused? What if the neighbor considered your protection to be more threatening than the alternative? Aren’t you at all alarmed by this administration’s penchant for secrecy while it reduces our privacy? Does it concern you that the technology that invades our privacy could be used to rig future elections (if it hasn’t already)? What would you do if the same unchecked power that produced elections held in Afghanistan and Iraq caused them to be suspended here?

Weaklings are in the eyes of the beholder. Make sure you’re looking in the right direction and not just maintaining “eyes right.” Rest assured, I am as venerable or vulnerable as you are.

[Indulto]

Originally posted by Tom
So you supported the nazis in WWII? You MUST be opposed to our having had to bomb them to HELL to win? And you favored a long, drawn out land war in Japan? Just trying to be sure where you are coming from.

Tom,
Your largesse in dispensing outrageous suppositions suggests you have had one too many suppositories inserted into your self-proclaimed large ass, which in all likelihood, will always prevent you from being sure where I am coming from or going to.

But to give your piece of mind a head start, the easy answer is: In WWII, our military actions were justified, in Viet Nam, they were not. Our actions in the Gulf War weren’t -- and in Afghanistan aren’t -- inconsistent with our principles and traditions; in Iraq, they are.

The last sentence of my previous post was intended to lament the American/allied lives lost there although I do regret the unnecessary deaths of innocent Iraqis, U.N. workers, etc. The death of Saddam’s sons was cause for legitimate celebration as will be their father’s. I believe his continued existence is viewed as proof that regardless of your crime(s), nothing there has really changed, and in turn, fuels the insurgency.

The acclaimed patriot, Nathan Hale, regretted that he had only one life to give for his country. It would appear that at least one self-proclaimed patriot regrets that he has not volunteered enough lives other than his own.

[46zilzal]

But to give your piece of mind a head start, the easy answer is: In WWII, our military actions were justified, in Viet Nam, they were not. Our actions in the Gulf War weren’t -- and in Afghanistan aren’t -- inconsistent with our principles and traditions; in Iraq, they are.
[
well stated

[Tom]

well stated
What would you know about principles?
You have no solutions, no alternatives, just wild insults day after day, from a monotonous narrow focus, with nothing to back them up, then, when called out on facts, you dodge and run. All the while claiming not to care. I would guess principles are not a part your life.

[46zilzal]

even IF I DID what difference would it make?...The world goes along the way it is going to go along INDENPENDENTLY or any or our OPINIONS and has since time began