165 Comments

1. Jeff M:

Another reason for article to be published right now is that one of the authors of the piece, James Risen, will be releasing a book on this and similar matters in ten days time:

http://drudgereport.com/flash9nyt.htm

Dec 17, 2005 - 8:27 am 2. Popeye:

I suspect this piece was held specifically for release not simply to puff the book, but as a damaging salvo to fire at the administration in case the Iraqi elections went well - which of course, they did. A can’t lose scenario: elections go badly, pile on with the “wiretap” theme; elections go well, discrediting the naysayers, blunt the triumph with the same “wiretap” meme. The timing was definitely calculated very coldly.

Dec 17, 2005 - 8:53 am 3. Richard Nieporent:

Sen. Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., said he had considered voting for the House-Senate Patriot Act proposal until he saw The New York Times story yesterday.

“If this government will discard a law that has worked well for over 30 years without a wit of discussion or notice, then for sure we better be certain that we have safeguards on that government,” Mr. Schumer said.

Except for that Ms. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?

Dec 17, 2005 - 9:25 am 4. David Thomson:

ìSen. Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., said he had considered voting for the House-Senate Patriot Act proposal until he saw The New York Times story yesterday.î

I also received an email from a Nigerian prince promising me a ten percent commission if I help him get fifty million dollars out of his country. Schumer is similarly credible. No, this disgusting man is only interested in sticking his finger into the eye of the Bush administration. The safety of our families does not even register on his personal radar screen.

President Bush has already set in place checks and balances to oversee the spying activities of the NSA. They are well known to top Democrats like Jay Rockefeller. The New York Times is simply trying to take advantage of the gullibility of its readers.

Dec 17, 2005 - 9:48 am 5. Ed Poinsett:

My understanding is that the President can order that NSA surveillance at any time he deems necessary. He is obligated by law to disclose this to the senior leadership of both houses of congress and the FISA court after the fact. He evidently followed the letter of the law and the kerfluffle only illustrates how panicked the MSM and left is over the successes in Iraq! Bush beats them at every turn. It really must be disheartening to be on the wrong side of every issue all the time.

Dec 17, 2005 - 9:50 am 6. sammy small:

Congress has begun to eliminate tools needed to ensure our government protects the country from radical Islamic forces. In voting down the PATRIOT Act provisions, mandating the terrorist Bill of Rights, pursuing Plamegate rather than CIA leaks that continue to harm national security, continuing to demean our troops in Iraq, ignoring the Iran threat, Congress is showing it isn’t serious in protecting the country.

I hope someone starts a blog which chronologically lays out the backpedaling going on in Congress which will ultimately contribute to the next major terrorist event in the U.S. Maybe that data will save us from having to endure another politically incompetent 911 Commission after the next attack.

Dec 17, 2005 - 10:15 am 7. Justin K.:

Wow. Cognitive dissonance on such an awesome scale is truly something to behold. Roger, you say you’re skeptical about whether the the president ordered secret warrantless wiretaps in the US. Well the president just admitted admitted to authorizing them personally 30 times, said it this morning in his radio address. Ed, you say that the law requires the president to disclose the such requests to Congress and the FISA court. Well, guess what, he did neither. Roger again, you say you’re suspicious of the timing, well I am too. I’m suspicious about why the Times did not release this story a year ago, when they discovered the wiretaps. The Times sat on the story for a year at the administration’s request. Yet another example of active collusion between the administration and MSM to hide the truth. Yes, I know that this is far from the first time the government has spied on its own citizens (COINTELPRO anyone?) but it was wrong then, and it’s wrong now. No government should have the power to surveil its people without legal due process. Ever. If these wiretaps are so vital to the war on terror, why won’t the government put it before a judge? If the danger is so clear, getting a warrant should be easy.

Here’s what I don’t get. You conservatives and libertarians are supposed to want limited government, respect for privacy, and then you rally ’round an ideology that seeks remove any limits on presidential power. What kind of hypocrisy is that?

The lying, abuse of power, the incompetance, and, now with this easedropping, the flat-out felonies of this administration are grounds for impeachment. Bush and Cheney deserve no less.

Dec 17, 2005 - 10:53 am 8. David Thomson:

ìIf these wiretaps are so vital to the war on terror, why won’t the government put it before a judge?î

You are obviously not paying attention. These rules concern incoming phone calls which must be monitored immediately! There is no time whatsoever to get an approval from a judge. That is why these check and balanced procedures were set in place. Oversight is possible only after the fact.

The terrorists are also wise enough to hop from phone to phone. Obtain approval on one phone number—and in the next minute you will have to start all over. Modern technology places overwhelming demands on our police and security officers. We no longer live in a simpler age.

Dec 17, 2005 - 11:08 am 9. TedM:

JustinK

In case you missed it:

The activities I authorized are reviewed approximately every 45 days. Each review is based on a fresh intelligence assessment of terrorist threats to the continuity of our government and the threat of catastrophic damage to our homeland. During each assessment, previous activities under the authorization are reviewed. The review includes approval by our nation’s top legal officials, including the Attorney General and the Counsel to the President. I have reauthorized this program more than 30 times since the September the 11th attacks, and I intend to do so for as long as our nation faces a continuing threat from al Qaeda and related groups.

The NSA’s activities under this authorization are thoroughly reviewed by the Justice Department and NSA’s top legal officials, including NSA’s general counsel and inspector general. Leaders in Congress have been briefed more than a dozen times on this authorization and the activities conducted under it. Intelligence officials involved in this activity also receive extensive training to ensure they perform their duties consistent with the letter and intent of the authorization.

Dec 17, 2005 - 11:28 am 10. Justin K.:

David, the need for speed in some wiretaps is not something that suddenly came into being on 9/11. Criminals, spies, terrorists, etc have long used the methods you describe to dodge wiretaps. Law enforcement has always had legal means by which to speedily wiretap (the FISA court itself is built for administrative speed). As for these checks and balances people are talking about, what are they exactly? What specific steps has the administration taken to prevent abuse of this power? Why did it not simply use the legal protections already in place? Anyone serious about civil liberties should know better than to simply take a president’s word for it.

As for “we no longer live in a simpler age,” well, we have never lived in a simple age. What bothers me about this whole “9/11 changed everything” mentally is the historical amnesia it induces. Yes 9/11 was horrific, and yes it began a serious challenge for our nation, but this lesson has faced worse crises in its past (the Civil War, World Wars I & II, the Cold War threat of nuclear annihilation, etc.) History teaches us that in such times governments always overreach (Lincoln’s revocation of Habeus Corpus {now mirrored by the Bushies}, the jailing of dissenters during WW I, the internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII, Surveillance and attacks on domestic dissenters). It is precisely in times of crisis that we need to be vigilant and hold our leaders to a higher standard, not excuse any course of action they wish to take.

Dec 17, 2005 - 11:29 am 11. Justin K.:

TedM. Sure there is occasional review, never denied there was, but it is only within the executive branch. Congressional leaders are “briefed” (and I’d be interested to know which ones actually got the briefing and how much info they actually got) but simple briefing (espcially if it only goes to political loyalists and/or representatives are prevented from taking public legislative action) is not tantamount to oversight. Where are the courts, the traditional overseers of government police powers, in all of this? Why ignore the the separation of powers so thoroughly?

I understand that officials are trained in how they conduct these taps and that the administration reviews the program, but the Constitution and standard legal practice demand oversight from outside the executive branch. Simply trusting one branch of government to police itself is unconstitutional and, if we look at history, dangerous.

Dec 17, 2005 - 11:38 am 12. PeterUK:

“the need for speed in some wiretaps is not something that suddenly came into being on 9/11.”

Of course not Blossom.

Dec 17, 2005 - 11:46 am 13. chuck:

Justin K,

Why ignore the the separation of powers so thoroughly?

As far as I can tell it was all perfectly legal. The i’s were dotted and the t’s crossed. So what is your problem? Laws exist for a reason, and if they are complied with, what more do you want? As for myself, I am glad that the calls were monitored and I want it to continue. The conviction that Bush would take the defense of this country seriously is one of the reasons I voted for him.

Dec 17, 2005 - 11:46 am 14. Justin K.:

They may be legal as far as you can tell chuck, but wiretaps on citizens without warrants of any kind are still illegal in this country. And even if aspects of this plan are legal, they sure as hell are unconstitutional. I’m basing all these arguments on what I hope are fairly uncontroversial principles: that the separation of powers is necessary to preserve liberty, and that the separation of powers requires that no branch of government can exercise power without the oversight of other branches. Our founders understood that you cannot trust any one branch of government to police itself. That’s why the in-house oversight TedM describes is not satisfactory.

And remember, we’re just talking about the NSA wiretaps here. There’s a whole bunch of other abuses of power out there to discuss, ranging from secret detentions to extraordinary rendition to detainee abuse to U.S. citizens being held w/o charges to the Defense Dept. spying on dissidents. Anyone else want to tell me everything’s hunky-dory with this gov’t and civil liberties?

Dec 17, 2005 - 11:57 am 15. Justin K.:

Sorry for the double post. Computer went wonky for a second.

Dec 17, 2005 - 11:58 am 16. David Thomson:

ìAnyone serious about civil liberties should know better than to simply take a president’s word for it.î

You and I are in complete agreement. In no way, shape, or form, should we entirely trust any White House. That is why the U.S. Senate and the House of representatives have oversight on these matters. George W. Bush is not able to act like some tin-pot dictator. What is it that you fail to understand?

Dec 17, 2005 - 11:59 am 17. chuck:

No, Justin K.

I believe you are wrong. The statute in question seems to be Title 50,1801 and the calls monitored made connections overseas. Seems to me that the legalities were carefully checked and complied with.

Dec 17, 2005 - 12:01 pm 18. PeterUK:

David Thomson,

This is all over the web,is the Democrats Ardennes assault.

Dec 17, 2005 - 12:02 pm 19. Charlie (Colorado):

Justin: actually, the President’s actions are specifically authorized by 50 USC 1801(a)(1). In fact, if you look at this post (mine wearing my “Seneca” hat) you’ll find a detailed analysis of how Bush laid out a specific argument that he’d satisfied the requirements of 50 USC 1801 et seq.

Dec 17, 2005 - 12:02 pm 20. Justin K.:

Because simply briefing a few members of Congress does not amount to oversight. Especially when they are not at liberty to inform other members or the public, essential for any sort of legislative action. I ask again, if the threat is so serious, why not take it to a judge?

Also, the president cannot simply decide to order warrantless eavsedropping when no law allows it. We’re supposed to live in a government of laws, not men. Are you seriously defending this behavior.

Look, this is a line in the sand moment. The President went on the radio today and said that he has committed crimes and intends to do so again. Anyone, liberal, conservative, whatever, who believes in our Constitution should see this as an affront to American values.

Dec 17, 2005 - 12:08 pm 21. Charlie (Colorado):

Dammit, that link should read “50 USC 1802(a)(1)”. The link leads to the right place, which says:

(a)

(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year….

Dec 17, 2005 - 12:09 pm 22. Justin K.:

Charlie, yes, for foreign intelligence, not on U.S. Citizens. You still need a warrant for that. And judging from this administration’s record, I wonder just how much of this surveillance is acutally connected to Al Qaida.

The administration cannot simply examine itself and declare itself within the law. A full investigation is in order here.

Dec 17, 2005 - 12:15 pm 23. TedM:

Charlie seems to be citing the most prevelant

citation around the legal blogs.

Caveat. Since none of us are lawyers it is a little presumptuous to judge this “illegal” or unconstitutional.

I wonder what your opinions are concerning the

advisability of doing this? If you were in charge, would you have taken the action the President did?

Dec 17, 2005 - 12:17 pm 24. PeterUK:

Justin K Are you a Democratic activist?

Dec 17, 2005 - 12:22 pm 25. flenser:

Justin K

The President went on the radio today and said that he has committed crimes and intends to do so again.

Thats a pretty extraordinary accusation you are making. Do you have any evdence to back it up? I have read the radio address and I missed the part where the president said he has commited crimes.

And judging from this administration’s record, I wonder just how much of this surveillance is acutally connected to Al Qaida.

I have no idea what this means. Would you care to expand a little on this point?

Dec 17, 2005 - 12:25 pm 26. PeterUK:

As the 9/11 Commission pointed out, it was clear that terrorists inside the United States were communicating with terrorists abroad before the September the 11th attacks, and the commission criticized our nation’s inability to uncover links between terrorists here at home and terrorists abroad. Two of the terrorist hijackers who flew a jet into the Pentagon, Nawaf al Hamzi and Khalid al Mihdhar, communicated while they were in the United States to other members of al Qaeda who were overseas. But we didn’t know they were here, until it was too late.

From Powerline

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/012583.php

Dec 17, 2005 - 12:27 pm 27. Justin K.:

TedM, we’re not lawyers (well maybe someone here is, I don’t know), but we are citizens, and I think we have a right and obligation to try and figure out what is illigal or unconstitutional in what our government does. And lots of people out there see what Bush just admitted to as at least “inappropriate” (to use the words of Arlen Specter, who’s planning on holding hearings) ranging upwards to appalling. In a democratic republic, the executive does not have the final authority to decide what the law says, that’s the point I’ve been making here. When the executive branch works without oversight, we get the abuse and incompetance that have been the salient traits of this administration.

And what would I do if I was in charge? I would get warrants if I was spying on citizens, charge people if I arrested them, and generally respect civil liberties and human rights. We put ourselves in more danger if we act like a tyrant in front of the world. America is strongest and safest when it holds to its principles and is better than the enemy it fights.

Dec 17, 2005 - 12:28 pm 28. chuck:

Justin,

Look, this is a line in the sand moment. The President went on the radio today and said that he has committed crimes and intends to do so again.

He didn’t say he committed crimes. That is your interpretation. My interpretation is that your credibility just died. It *is* a line in the sand moment and I will be doing my damndest to make sure that folks like yourself, who find it impossible to stick to the facts, lose. And I hope lose big. I have been putting up with this nonsense from the left all of my life and I’m tired of it. I’m not going to take it any more.

Dec 17, 2005 - 12:29 pm 29. David Thomson:

ìSince none of us are lawyers it is a little presumptuous to judge this “illegal” or unconstitutional.î

I cannot let you get away with this error. One does have to be a lawyer to be able to speak knowledgeably on legal matters. Informal reading is often all that is required. We should not be encouraging a nation of Mandarins specialists who control our lives merely because of their advanced degrees. Your misguided view inadvertently contradicts a basic premise of American democracy: the common citizenry is sufficient wise to rule. Furthermore, a number of commenters on this blog are attorneys!

Dec 17, 2005 - 12:31 pm 30. Justin K.:

A couple of responses and then I need to get back to work (been fun sparring with you guys). No, I’m not a Democratic activist. I’m no fan of Bush, obviously, and consider mayself a Progressive, but I’m not working on the behalf of any organization. It’s all me. As for saying the president has admitted to committing crimes, he admitted to personally authorizing over 30 warrantless wiretaps on citizens, an illegal action. Seems pretty clear to me. OK, enough for now. You guys have fun here, just try to let a little reality shine in now and then.

Dec 17, 2005 - 12:33 pm 31. Terrye:

Justin:

Are you suggesting that the state have fewer options when dealing with international terrorists than they have when dealing with organized crime?

My understanding is this is time sensitive. It is also legal. And one end of the coversation is coming from somewhere else and just because you live in this coutry does not make you a citizen. As far as that is concerned if you are having heart to hearts with these kind of people then someone should be paying attention even if you are a ctizen.

I don’t want to die or see someone else die because the powers that be were busy worrying about the privacy of a terrorist.

I remember after 9/11 when people were outraged that the state did not do a better job of monitoring these people and when it turns out they are we are actually their phone conversations there somes the self righteous praddle about impeachment.

Perhaps you should call Kennedy and suggest he start working on the Terrorist Protection Act. You can demand that no one should be in any way bothered or interfered with unless he has already blown himself up and taken hundreds of innocent people with him.

This is partisan politics pure and simple.

Dec 17, 2005 - 12:35 pm 32. flenser:

TedM

I cannot see how Bush, or any president, could have failed to do exactly this.

I for one have taken it for granted that efforts are being made to intercept the communications of known and suspected terrorists. I’d be alarmed if this kind of thing was not taking place.

Seems to me the left is just upset that there have been no further attacks in the US. If they can shut down all the programs which have led to that result then perhaps they will get the bloodshed they want. Which they will promptly blame on Bush of course.

Dec 17, 2005 - 12:36 pm 33. chuck:

Justin,

Seems pretty clear to me.

Judge, jury, and can’t be bothered with facts. Yes, sounds like the progressives I know.

You guys have fun here, just try to let a little reality shine in now and then.

Definitely a progressive. Sneers for all who disagree. Yep.

Dec 17, 2005 - 12:39 pm 34. flenser:

Justin

he admitted to personally authorizing over 30 warrantless wiretaps on citizens, an illegal action.

You appear to be better informed than we are. Can you provide the source for your information that the people who were tapped were citizens? And also for your assertion that that the taps were illegal?

Dec 17, 2005 - 12:41 pm 35. TedM:

David I think you misread what I wrote.

One small point, the common citizenry does not rule. We vote and elect representatives.

Interestingly, most of them are lawyers and yet they have passed many laws which have later been deemed to be unconstitutional. So even lawyers are not the definitive opinion.

We, the common citizenry have the right to almost unlimited opinion. Just read the comments on most blogs.

flenser. thank you.

Dec 17, 2005 - 12:42 pm 36. flenser:

PeterUk

This is all over the web,is the Democrats Ardennes assault.

Well, it’s Katrina Part II at least. Get the idea that Bush has done something wrong fixed in the public’s mind, then count on the true facts reaching only a small percentage of them.

Dec 17, 2005 - 12:51 pm 37. flenser:

It’s probably worth noting that the NYT itself does not think Bush acted in an illegal fashion. If they felt otherwise they could, and should, have published the information long ago. They undoubtedly sought legal advice and were told that there was no “there” there.

Dec 17, 2005 - 1:13 pm 38. Terrye:

Yes, but did the NYT break the Law?

They are the press, so I suppose not, but when I read Bush’s remarks I got the impression that some folks might be in trouble.

I hope so, this is outrageous.

For the life of me I can not understand how Libby could get indicted for that whole Plame silliness and yet these people can spill the beans on something that could really mean life and death and all the socalled progressives can do is to blame Bush.

No wonder they are a minority.

Dec 17, 2005 - 1:22 pm 39. PeterUK:

Astounding,a progressive with identical views to the DNC turns up just as the NYT publishes the article.

Dec 17, 2005 - 1:30 pm 40. dougf:

I have been putting up with this nonsense from the left all of my life and I’m tired of it. I’m not going to take it any more.–Chuch

You THE Man !

Could not agree more. We are at War with Islamofascist Ignorance AND with an internal collection of effete doofi. I think we are ALL fed up to HERE with them.

If the leftists and their trained lapdogs in the media want to fight on this particular battlefield, the only thing I can I say is —- GOOD.

Bush did the ‘right’ thing in using any and all legal means to prevent further Islamic-inspired terror attacks and more importantly he is doing exactly the ‘RIGHT’ thing in asserting that he will continue to do it,and that his enemies in the media are working to subvert the safety of all Americans. In fact — they are. They are consumed by a mindless hatred of all things Bush, and we are all liable to pay the price for their madness.

Questioning Their Partiotism ?

What Patriotism ?

Dec 17, 2005 - 1:34 pm 41. beautifulatrocities:

Excellent point noting the timing of this ‘leak’ with the Iraqi election. And Puzzle Palace is fascinating, I read it as a cryptolinguist at the Army Language School in Monterey many years ago

Dec 17, 2005 - 1:35 pm 42. Ray Zacek:

I’ll wait and see how Geena Davis deals with this prickly issue on “Commander-in-Chief.” I’m sure the clear moral choice will be dramatised therein.

Dec 17, 2005 - 1:35 pm 43. Captain Hate:

“Anyone else want to tell me everything’s hunky-dory with this gov’t and civil liberties?”

I’m guessing that Justin K feels this is much worse than 900 FBI files on citizens being in the Clinton White House.

Dec 17, 2005 - 1:36 pm 44. Terrye:

Is there any indication that anyone’s civil liberties were violated?

Other than mine when some nimrod deicdes to break the law to sell books and puts my life in jeopardy in the process.

Hey, but don’t mind me. I am just an American who is not having conversations with AlQAida operatives so I don’t count.

Dec 17, 2005 - 1:52 pm 45. monkyboy:

A reminder to the “patriots” supporting Bush what this is all about…

U.S. Constitution Amendment IV:

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

Dec 17, 2005 - 2:06 pm 46. klrfz1:

I would rather have the government listen to all of my phone calls than be blown up by Islamic terrorists. I’m just funny that way.

I sure wish all the “progressives” that threatened to move to Canada if Bush won in 2004 had actually moved there.

Dec 17, 2005 - 2:10 pm 47. Jim Rockford:

Justin K — your comments on Lincoln betray the usual Leftie ignorance. There was an active element of subversion and sympathy and help for the secessionists, the very definition of Un-American activities. Lincoln was entirely correct to suspend for the duration of the war habeus corpus and shutter secessionist newspapers. Both were vital to stopping spies and saboteurs.

The other measures represented over-reaching; but not Lincoln’s.

Bush’s actions were entirely appropriate and helped defeat terror plots including one to destroy the Brooklyn bridge and kill thousands. FISA court takes six months to approve; which is why it is used so sparingly.

Reality is that EVERYONE spies on Americans. Choicepoint and TRW will sell ALL your personal info in aggregate to East European or Chinese organized crime fronts for a fee. Any Administration can simply outsource electronic domestic spying by mutual agreement (let the Aussies or Brits do it). Bush reported his measures to the appropriate channels (Congress and FISA court) in order to pursue every measure possible to prevent more 9/11 style attacks.

This is the fundamental problem with Lefties: they celebrate 9/11 (the list of celebrants includes Norman Mailer, Susan Sontag, Cynthia McKinney, Moveon, Will Smith, Ward Churchill, and of course Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan). You reject ANY measure to stop further terror attacks, preferring unilateral surrender to bin Laden.

All the fuss by Lefties over this brings home their policy: surrender NOW!

The Greatest Civil Liberty is not to be murdered. Don’t protect THAT and you’ll see Vigilante Action by the Mob. Ugly and brutal but effective. Bush is ironically the greatest protector of civil liberties this generation has yet seen.

Dec 17, 2005 - 2:15 pm 48. flenser:

mobyboy

Do you have any evidence that an unreasonable search or sizure occured?

If not, why are you invoking the Fourth Amdt?

The clear crime that occured here was the leaking of classified information. Those responsible need to be arrested, tried, and imprisioned. At the least.

Dec 17, 2005 - 2:38 pm 49. monkyboy:

So,

“Give me Liberty or Give Me Death!”

has become:

“Take my Liberty, because there’s a remote chance it will save me from Death!”

in the minds of the fringe right?

Maybe it’s the best campaign slogan you guys have for the 2006 election, but I don’t think it will get your candidates many votes…

If Bush used the NSA to spy on political opponents, he’s all done. Sounds like there will be a Congressional investigation, and the Bolton NSA intercepts are a good place to start.

Dec 17, 2005 - 2:41 pm 50. TedM:

I am going out for dinner, but for those who have the time here is a link to Judge Sands’ opinion in the US vs ben Laden case

http://www.law.syr.edu/faculty/banks/terrorism/dummyfl/binladen_12_19_00.pdf

Dec 17, 2005 - 2:44 pm 51. Terrye:

monky boy:

The president did not break the law, the leakers did. You may not be smart enough to understand Excutive Orders and Congressional oversight, but I am sure the Justice Departmant lawyers are.

And btw the during the Revolution, Americans hanged people for working with the British.

Dec 17, 2005 - 2:50 pm 52. flenser:

mobyboy

“If Bush used the NSA to spy on political opponents, he’s all done.”

Well, sure. And if a fifty mile wide meteor hits the Earth, we are all done.

Not even the Times lame hit piece has suggested that the people tapped were anything other than legitimate targets. I suspect that if John Kerry’s phone was bugged the Times could have found a paragraph or eighty to mention it.

Dec 17, 2005 - 2:58 pm 53. klrfz1:

Isn’t it just precious when “progressives” talk about liberty?

Here’s the progressive 2006 campaign slogan: “Surrender now, before it’s too late!”

Dec 17, 2005 - 2:59 pm 54. monkyboy:

Of course Bush is presumed innocent, but the charges are serious enough to warrant an investigation.

I’m sure Congress will allow him his Constitutional rights while they look into this…

Irony indeedy!

Dec 17, 2005 - 3:04 pm 55. Terrye:

monkyboy:

If Bush’s political opponents jeopardized national security to score political points, they are done.

BTW you are having a wet dream.

Dec 17, 2005 - 3:05 pm 56. Terrye:

Monkyboy:

I think Bush should be on Mt Rushmore and you should be in the looney bin.

I think the only investigation of import here may be the one that gets a few high level traitors in jail for leaking classified information. I hope.

Sure makes that whole Plame thing look stupid.

Dec 17, 2005 - 3:12 pm 57. flenser:

mobyboy

Of course Bush is presumed innocent, but the charges are serious enough to warrant an investigation.

The only crime which has been commited here is the leaking of classified information during wartime. The only charges that will be filed are against whatever traitor decided to leak this.

Dec 17, 2005 - 3:30 pm 58. Charlie (Colorado):

Charlie, yes, for foreign intelligence, not on U.S. Citizens. You still need a warrant for that. And judging from this administration’s record, I wonder just how much of this surveillance is acutally connected to Al Qaida.

Justin, 50 USC 1801(b)(2) defines any person engaged in terrorism or supporting terrorism as an “agent of a foreign power” under the terms of the act, and therefore covered by §1802. Sorry, the statute covered that.

Dec 17, 2005 - 3:31 pm 59. monkyboy:

I think the fringe right is forgetting who you put in charge of the Supreme Court.

John Roberts believes that the Constituion, as it was written by the Founding Fathers, is the law of the land.

If Bush & his cronies violated the 4th Amendment, which is crystal clear, he is going down. No amount of legal gymnastics will save him.

Looks like a 2006 will be a good year to be a Wahington lawyer.

Dec 17, 2005 - 3:31 pm 60. Charlie (Colorado):

Oh, Ted, by the way, while I’m not a lawyer, I’ve since consulted with someone who is and she agrees with my interpretation.

Dec 17, 2005 - 3:34 pm 61. Buddy Larsen:

Take a look at this, from the NYSun a couple days ago–why are Sens Kerry & Durbin so frantic to hide this gov’t report on this same issue “are we the people being threatened by our own government?”

Dec 17, 2005 - 3:38 pm 62. Buddy Larsen:

wow-wot a botch–lost the URL, & only names were to ‘bold’–sorry–try again:

120 pgs on IRS & Justice that JFKerry won’t let you see

Dec 17, 2005 - 3:42 pm 63. Charlie (Colorado):

Monkyboy: want to put money on it?

Dec 17, 2005 - 3:44 pm 64. flenser:

mobyboy

If Bush & his cronies violated the 4th Amendment, which is crystal clear, he is going down.

And if Hillary Clinton is getting rich off the cocaine business she is going down also.

Hey, the grounds for each are equally strong.

Dec 17, 2005 - 3:44 pm 65. Buddy Larsen:

Caryl–if GOP doesn’t collapse next November, you ARE going to be a tad contrite for us, presumably?

Dec 17, 2005 - 3:45 pm 66. Terrye:

Monkyboy

You are all over the place. There is nothing in our constitution that says we have to pander to terrorists.

It ain’t there buddy.

Roberts is also a believer in checks and balances and Executive power. And so far it does not seem there is anything illegal about this.

Ever notice how people such as yourself are always right there to protect the socalled civil liberties of some fanatical terrorists, but you can not even protect your own country?

Nope, the only time you get misty eyed about the Constitution is if you think some guy like Atta might be prevented from planning attacks on the American people. And then all of a sudden his freedom to wreak havoc is just so important to you.

Bush took an oath to protect the American people, It seems he is doing just that in spite of folks like you.

Dec 17, 2005 - 3:52 pm 67. Buddy Larsen:

wow-wot a botch–lost the URL, & only names were to ‘bold’–sorry–try again:

120 pgs on IRS & Justice that JFKerry won’t let you see

Dec 17, 2005 - 3:54 pm 68. Buddy Larsen:

ohhhh, i haaaate typekey…it reposted old, and ate new…i kwit I’m too stoopid….

Dec 17, 2005 - 3:57 pm 69. moneyrunner:

Whenever the JustinKs write their comments, the discussion quickly becomes disconnected from reality. Words and phrases creep in that are not fact related - remember the Left claiming that Bush said the Saddam was an imminent threat, when he said the exact opposite? This is usually followed by claims of lying, by claims that the administration acted illegally, that we are heading for a Fascist state (or have already arrived).

In another post a Leftist wrote that Bush was such a liar that he could not be trusted to with the powers to protect the country so - if the power to take appropriate action was taken away and we were attacked - it would be Bush’s fault. This is such blatant sophistry that it defies belief.

People like this are not serious. They live in a solipsistic cocoon. It’s all about them. There is no war. The images on the screen of people being beheaded, of people jumping out of burning buildings, of the collapse of the Twin Towers, of explosive laden cars exploding have all the reality of the “West Wing” or a Steven Spielberg movie.

For many, it’s simply another political contest with the war in Iraq as background noise. They did not die on 9/11 and they really don’t believe that there will be another attack - or, if there is - the chances of their involvement are low; rather like being killed in a car crash; no reason not to drive. So the issue of this titanic clash of cultures is unreal. What is real is the politics of the moment.

But it was ever thus. Even in countries where war has come, most people try focus on the things that interest them; unless they are in the path of a bullet or a bomb or faced with starvation. And in America, the reality is that most people believe they are safe; they are well fed and therefore there is no apparent need to rally to the defense of the country.

After 9/11 a part of America woke up from the end of history. Unfortunately, another part never did. They now play word games, or indulge in political sport. They are Liberals who have not been mugged yet.

Dec 17, 2005 - 4:08 pm 70. Always right:

Sorry, JK is just too nuanced for me. I failed to appreciate his distinction of being Progressive, and progressive only. Somebody has to enlighten me about the difference.

If he brays like a donkey, walks like a donkey, eats grass like a donkey, …

Dec 17, 2005 - 4:15 pm 71. PeterUK:

Always right,

Well there is Progressive,progressive,”progressive” and “Progressive!”

I hope that clears this up for you.

Dec 17, 2005 - 4:19 pm 72. moneyrunner:

I wonder if the Left will make the term “Progressive” radioactive just as they did with “Liberal?” And a follow-on question: how long will it take?

Dec 17, 2005 - 4:21 pm 73. moneyrunner:

PeterUK,

Just finished reading a book on WW2 that provides an unconventional perspective on Blitzkreig. You may enjoy reading it. One of the points made was that the Germans were very good in defense, but Hitler was a strong advocate of offense and forced armored thrusts like the Ardennes offensive which failed, and drained his resources to defend. Which is why Germany collapsed as quickly as it did after the Battle of the Bulge. The point here is that the desire to attack is suicidal for the Left; they just don?t realize it yet because they have learned the wrong lessons from the last political wars.

Dec 17, 2005 - 4:33 pm 74. PeterUK:

moneyrunner,

Round about now.

Thanks.

Yes the German concept of Lightning War-Blitzkrieg was designed to offset that weakness.They knew the couldn’t fight a war of attrition,but Hitler insisted on operation Barbarossa,the Russians then forced the Gemans into the very kind of war that thet were unprepared to wage.

Thank God Hitler was a lunatic….are there any parallels?

Dec 17, 2005 - 4:42 pm 75. moneyrunner:

Lunatic … Moonbat …. let me think.

(pause)

Nope, can’t think of any parallels.

(sarcasm off)

Dec 17, 2005 - 4:48 pm 76. monkyboy:

It seems like this matter could be cleared up in a few hours:

Bush provides a bi-partisan Congressional panel with a list of every American the NSA has been spying on along with the reason they were spyed on.

If the Republicans haven’t been pulling a Nixon by using U.S. intelligence agencies to further political goals they have nothing to worry about…

Dec 17, 2005 - 4:56 pm 77. moneyrunner:

“American the NSA has been spying on…”

Thank you for proving my point. Good grief, it took 48 minutes. I expected faster moonbat reaction than this.

“Hello … is this mike on?”

Dec 17, 2005 - 5:06 pm 78. Buddy Larsen:

Caryl is praying she’s on the list–Glory!

Dec 17, 2005 - 5:14 pm 79. monkyboy:

Sorry I don’t follow your comment, money.

The British used to go around randomly kicking in the doors of Americans and looking around for evidence of illegal activity. The Fourth Amendment is designed to prevent U.S. government agents from engaging in this kind of behavior.

Are you guys arguing against the protections the Fourth Amendment provides?

Dec 17, 2005 - 5:20 pm 80. moneyrunner:

Listen, I know you have a short attention span, but try to concentrate.

“American the NSA has been spying on…”

I made a point before: “Words and phrases creep in that are not fact related … remember the Left claiming that Bush said the Saddam was an imminent threat, when he said the exact opposite? This is usually followed by claims of lying, by claims that the administration acted illegally…”

Now focus. Think real hard. What point have you made for me?

By the way if you are being paid for this, you are being overpaid. If you are freelancing, a little more study may make you better.

Dec 17, 2005 - 5:29 pm 81. Terrye:

monkyboy:

You do not have the slightest idea what you are talking about.

The cosntitution does not protect AlQaida.

You know somethig I have noticed is that terrorists are the only people who guys seem to care about.

To hell with the rest of us.

Put it on a bumper sticker: Today Osama, tomorrow you.

Dec 17, 2005 - 5:36 pm 82. WichitaBoy:

“Panic in Wheedle Park”–that alone was worth the price of admission today. Thank you.

Dec 17, 2005 - 6:00 pm 83. monkyboy:

The cosntitution does not protect AlQaida.

You know somethig I have noticed is that terrorists are the only people who guys seem to care about.

More arguments from the Psychic Right?

The question is: Did Bush have the NSA spy on American citizens without having any reason to believe they were engaged in criminal activity?

None of posting here know…but we’ll soon find out.

Dec 17, 2005 - 6:18 pm 84. Jim Rockford:

All anyone has to do is look at Cronulla and Sydney to see what can happen:

The Mob. There is a reason that we’ve not seen mob action and lynchings of Muslims. There’s a reason we don’t have “relocation camps” or mass deportations or pogroms or the sort of “amok” (an Indonesian word) that periodically afflicts the Chinese minority in Malaysia and Indonesia directed at Muslims. There’s a reason that Flight Attendants, pilots, and passengers don’t DEMAND that “muslim looking” men and women submit to personal inspection of everything and sit next to large and powerful men given their own lives that are on the line. PC and multi-culti and basic politeness goes out the window if it’s your LIFE.

The reason is that GWB by moderate, sensible measures has prevented terrorist attacks by hello, listening in to people talking to known terrorist contact numbers. Along with denying Miranda Rights to captured terrorists. And breaking the “Gorelick Wall” between intelligence and law enforcement as demanded by the 9/11 Commission.

GWB has been the greatest protector of civil liberties by taking limited steps under judicial and congressional review (program was stopped and modified to meet Jay Rockefeller’s objections) and thus unlike Madrid, or London, or Beslan, or Jakarta, or the Philippines, or other places, we have not suffered terrorist attacks. Neither have the embassy bombings, Khobar towers, or the Cole been repeated.

Take that away and you will have wave after wave of successful terrorist attacks. And you will see the emergence of the mob and vigilante action. It’s as predictable as the calendar. Against all odds of PC-Multi-Culti nonsense GWB has stood against caving in and getting more terrorism, and the mob on the other hand.

Westhawk believes that most people think the “war is over” and hence we can return to pre-9/11 type behavior. Believe me it is not over, and the failure of the attempt to kill Ahmadinejad is only going to result in MORE aggressive actions. Possibly even including the nuking of an American city. Want to bet the mob comes out then? And that GWB will blame the Dems and Media for tying his hands.

This is entirely predictable. The most basic civil liberty is not to be murdered. Working men and women don’t count for liberals, since they take the view that Normal Mailer had for Jack Henry Abbott’s victim. We just don’t count. And believe me, we are well aware of this contempt for our lives and we return it.

Dec 17, 2005 - 6:32 pm 85. Buddy Larsen:

Caryl, do you not realize that most of the details about NSA ops are in the public record? At least check into what you can know before going boinkers about the secret police.

Dec 17, 2005 - 6:47 pm 86. Buddy Larsen:

Great post, Rockford. And it’s a teeming, busy country, too, that GWB has had to guide, and make himself heard over an oppo party keeping the volume wide open on non-stop low-signal, high-noise static.

Dec 17, 2005 - 6:56 pm 87. Terrye:

monkyboy:

The people have already been identified as terrorists and terrorist contacts. So unless you have a habit of hanging out with AlQaida I think you are probably all right.

Stunning as it maybe to believe they are not soccer moms or DNC officials.

You are paranoid.

Did it ever occur to you that if Bush wanted to spy on you he could do so without dragging the NSA and the FISA and the Congress and the Justice Department into it?

did you hear that?? Maybe it was just the wind…………

Dec 17, 2005 - 7:13 pm 88. flenser:

That’s it terrye, keep him on the line. We are tracing his connection now ….

Dec 17, 2005 - 7:25 pm 89. Terrye:

flenser:

shhhhhhhhhhhh

Dec 17, 2005 - 7:37 pm 90. Yeshooroon:

/offtopic…

I’m not your ‘monkeyboy’, said John Stewart.

No John, you’re certainly no monkeyboy.

You ike so many other Court Jestors today on the Castle Media of TV comedy, just continue to lead the mindless masses meanderingly astray from any objectional reality.

Oh those terrible republicans, how dare they take porn away from our children.

sarcasm off, on topic/

I agree with many on this topic. Personally I have had it with the Democrats and now with the New York Times.

I am an independent always kept my options open.

But the Dems give me no choice, there is no option under Dean.

Instead of Victorious signs of Freedom on the Front Page of NYT for posterity, what do we get?

A misleading story at best which directs the mindless away from the truth of victory in Iraq.

I am so angry now with the Democrats. I’ve never been involved politically in my life. But I feel that I now will have to do everything I can to keep them from getting power again until the current flakes are run out of office.

I’ve never seen such dire lack of leadership, ever in our history that I know of until this hour by the Democrats. Maybe others have, oh yes, we have Carter to remember. The man who led our nation into double inflationary digits.

Kerry pretends to smoke a ‘j’ with Peter, Paul and Mary on the campaign trail. Is this the best they have to offer?

The President had every right under law to take the steps that he did and under legal advice by his staff and that of the NSA.

This was no Nixon!

This was a responsible President looking out for this nation’s best interest to keep us safe. He asked a legal organization under law to aquire and maintain information on those who would do us harm.

All information was passed to members of congress and the justice department. Every item was above board.

The New York Times(scoundrels and sleazy book seller reporter) themselves stated ‘deep’ below the sensationlized headlines that they were not aware of any laws being broken.

This is slimy journalism 101. I hope Pajama’s Media is all over this.

I hope our administration takes full action against those who may have leaked this information.

I have sent letters to the editors of the NYTimes and the Presedential staff asking for an investigation and voicing my complete disgust with NYT and the Democrats for their recent remarks and actions from Dean, Pelosi, Boxer, Murtha, Durban and others.

I’ve had it with politics as usual. This have gone far beyond the normal bounds of normal discourse and disagreements.

The NYT and Democrats have gone to far in so many areas of misleading statements and headlines.

At no time were congressmen, the justice department not informed of the NSA action.

Now, anyone under current watch will immediately cut off all future communications.

If I were the President I would be furious with an irresponsible media and Democrats who are openly aiding the enemy with frivolous claims and misleading accusations.

Because of the actions of the NSA, terrorist, people who traveled to Pakistan and received training were apprehended and put in jail.

I’m totally disgusted with the NYT and democrats.

Dec 17, 2005 - 9:11 pm 91. monkyboy:

How are the Democrats to blame for this, Yesh?

Dec 17, 2005 - 9:45 pm 92. Macker:

Yeshooroon: You want disgusted? I’ll give you disgusted!

As far as I am concerned; the M.O. of the NY Times is “Loose Lips Suck D*cks!” I am so pissed off at these guys, Dubya should make an example of them by shutting down their entire operations, from publication to seizure of their servers and web domain registration (don’t think ICANN can’t do that!)…and the serving of Hard Time by the authors and main editors at FORT LEAVENWORTH!

Dec 17, 2005 - 9:55 pm 93. Alexandra von Maltzan:

All Things Beautiful TrackBack ‘The President’s Week From Hell (OPEN THREAD)’:

Dec 18, 2005 - 1:28 am 94. Jim Rockford:

Thank you Buddy. I am no fan of GWB on many things, but at least he knows one big thing.

For those actually interested, Cornell has the whole FISA act online and you can view it here

You can also view the process required to obtain a FISA warrant here

There are by my counting ELEVEN major steps required for FISA warrants. Among the delays are the certification by the National Security Advisor that the information is foreign intelligence and can be obtained in no other fashion; and the review by the Attorney General.

The whole process is designed BEFORE the warrants get to judges to minimize survellaince, note the constant minimization procedures that MUST be documented by law before the warrant is granted, and the requirement to document before hand the people, places, and things targetted for surveillance.

I am personally shocked that requests move to a FISA judge in less than Six months which is supposedly standard. I would figure at least a year. #4 the statement of facts regarding the target being an agent of a foreign power and facilities targeted could take months alone. A few words won’t do it; everything has to be certified and reviewed by the National Security Advisor and the AG; which means layers of lawyers.

FISA grants warrants with almost NO rejections. This is because the law itself is built to prevent almost any warrant from getting to the court in the first place due to the onerous documentation process. Each one of these steps requires pages and pages and pages of documentation and lawyering and reviews by lawyers.

Timely FISA is not. Simply because the delays are built in BEFORE warrants get to court.

Really, read the whole thing. Just google FISA Law and use Cornell.edu as the domain in Google’s advanced search. FISA was written in 1978 by Civil Liberties absolutists who made sure the process pretty much eliminated any warrants by drowning it in paperwork.

No judge will grant or can grant a warrant BY LAW until all eleven major steps with many substeps are granted. Read it all.

Dec 18, 2005 - 1:51 am 95. monkyboy:

Jim, it sounds like you are saying that because the administration is incompetent they should be allowed to violate the Constitution.

How hard is it to hire enough lawyers to fill out the FISA warrants and have them review and submit them rapidly?

Here are the number of FISA warrants granted by year:

2004 - 1754

2003 - 1724

2002 - 1226

2001 - 932

Doesn’t look like the “process pretty much eliminated any warrants by drowning it in paperwork”

http://www.usdoj.gov/oipr/readingroom/oipr_records.htm

Dec 18, 2005 - 3:44 am 96. Ed Poinsett:

MB

1754 warrants in 2004 is a lot? Seems to me that one might generate 5 warrants a day in Los Angeles or NYC alone. Looks to me like the “process pretty much eliminated any warrants by drowning it in paperwork” is working pretty well.

On the OTH, by your count there were 5636 warrants issued in the last 4 years. Bush says he invoked his privledge to speed things along more than 30 times. .5% hardly seems like abuse of power to me. Regards

Dec 18, 2005 - 5:46 am 97. klrfz1:

So the next time the Islamic terrorists attack America, monkeyboy wants to fire off a couple of lawyers at them and leave it at that. You don’t care how many Americans die in the next attack, do you monkeyboy?

What’s your motto again? Oh yeah, “Surrender faster, please.”

Dec 18, 2005 - 6:07 am 98. Terrye:

monkyboy:

Bush has been competent enough to stop any further attacks since 9/11.

Of course if folks like you have your way that will end.

We are talking about something like 500 people here. That is all.

Let’s see secret prisons with less than 100 people. 600 at Gitmo. Out of 68,000 detainees 38 have died in total, 500 AlQaida contacts listened to while they plan to kill my family and neighbors.

That is still fewer people than died on Tuesday September 11, 2001.

The Democrats are to blame because they are feeding the paranoia of the base for short term politcal gain in spite of threats to the American people. That is why the Democrats, a party I used to proud to belong to are to blame.

Dec 18, 2005 - 6:24 am 99. Terrye:

And besides it is a lie to say Bush violated the constitution.

He did not do anything of the kind.

The issue of warrants has always been more open than that, just look at the use of warrants in criminal cases. Police officers can act without a warrant, but the evidence can not be used in a criminal case if they do. The idea of hot pursuit and exigent cirmcumstances are all part of the law and the there were statutes here which were strictly adhered to.

Dec 18, 2005 - 6:50 am 100. PeterUK:

Terrye,

Have you noyiced that Monkyboy is using the same argument as markg8 (Mark Garrity) over at YARGB? http://yargb.blogspot.com/2005/12/opening-act.html

Coincidence or have instructions gone out from Troll Central?

Dec 18, 2005 - 7:17 am 101. syn:

Bush follows the law while informing Senate members of his activities yet the Able Danger program continues to be hidden from public eye.

I do not understand why the secret military operation Able Danger was never disclosed to members of Congress during operations and why it continues to be buried by the Bushhate crowd?

Dec 18, 2005 - 7:22 am 102. RogerA:

Wow–is the good s**t or what–if ANYTHING ever epitomized the difference between democrats and republicans it is this contretemps–The very early posters nailed it–its all about the surrender monkys (intended) raining on the iraqi parade, and selling some dipwad reporter’s book in the process.

Re MBs comments about the 4th amendement: which supreme court justice said the constitution is not a suicide pact–Moreover, the congressional democrats who were consulted and advised in what seems to be every step in the process are now not available for comment or not returning phone calls.

I believe George W Bush should have been impeached–particularly so if he had NOT ordered the NSA to look for bad guys intent on spreading biologics or flying planes into buildings–THAT would have made in culpable.

In fact, every thing I have been able read so far suggests this surveillance was NOT a rogue operation–congressional leaders from both parties were briefed, and legal opinions were rendered (strange, isnt it that the surrender monkys such as Jay Rockefeller, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are keeping VERY low profiles). They knew and acquiesed–if they had a scintilla of courage, they could have gone on the floor of congress and condemned this–they didnt.]

Finally, that MF**ker who leaked this to the NYT should be shipped to Bagdadh, delivered to the Jihadis and have his head removed forthwith, but very slowly and with a dull knife–I hope the administration pursues this leak with all the diligence of the valery plame impbroglio–Where is any sentient human being’s sense of proportion when looking at the damage done by the leaks in the respective cases.

This is genuinely a low point for ahem “PROGRESSIVES” who some how think that the rights of a few people who seek to do grevious damage, are more important than trying to find them out–Sorry Progressives–this doesnt pass the no s**t test.

Dec 18, 2005 - 7:38 am 103. Buddy Larsen:

Yesharoon, great letter, Alexandra, great site–the livid pink–wot a coffee-substitute, and the Euro thread is most heartening.

Dec 18, 2005 - 7:38 am 104. Buddy Larsen:

USA’s measured war-fighting is winning friends among the opinion-makers of Araby (read the laundry list), and amounts to a reversal of the contempt built-up over the years over precisely that (previous) inability/unwillingness.

The opinion-makers of Araby know far better than American BDSers what would’ve ensued had Dems won the 2000 election. Rather than a measured response to 911, we’d've seen either a grand Paris Peace Conference with President Gore attending in hair shirt and ashes, or, president Gore would’ve sashayed immediately to the football, and pushed the red button.

Either way, Dems with 911 would’ve changed the world–bin Laden’s objective–far more than the measured-response has changed the world (so far, that is, of course). Considering the challenges, the changes made seem near-optimal, to me. What was averted–again, ’so far’–doesn’t really need imagining, just ‘remembering’.

Dec 18, 2005 - 8:09 am 105. chuck:

PeterUK,

Have you noyiced that Monkyboy is using the same argument as markg8

It’s just cut and paste, nothing more than that. As noted here before, it is one of the distinquishing features of trolls that they seldom manage to express an original thought of their own. That is why they seem to be the same person masquerading under different names.

Dec 18, 2005 - 9:08 am 106. Buddy Larsen:

…and they obviously do not even believe their own line–proof is right here on these websites, anyone in fear of the police state woouldn’t be screaming about the police state. But they’re not the slightest bit damped.

Some “chilling effect”.

Dec 18, 2005 - 9:20 am 107. Old Dad:

A hypothetical. Fast forward, God forbid, to the aftermath of our next 9/11.

It’s found that abundant intel existed to thwart the attack, but the intel was not accessed due to niceties about FISA.

I promise you that the same bedwetters here who are frothing about their civil liberties would still be calling for the President’s head because he did not protect us.

Disgusting, especially when you consider what we do know–that a major news organ used leaks to damage an important national security program in order to flack a book.

Dec 18, 2005 - 9:23 am 108. Buddy Larsen:

…what a left-handed hat-tip to the administration’s cleanliness, that it can’t be subverted without the use of perfidy and calumny.

Dec 18, 2005 - 9:28 am 109. PeterUK:

Chuck,

I didn’t think they were the same entity,Monkyboy has all the hall marks of DoubleStandard..but looking round the web it is obvious that this is a concerted offensive to boost the latest DNC defeatism.

Dec 18, 2005 - 10:01 am 110. Buddy Larsen:

Dems on ‘prior restraint’ and ‘toughness’:

“Well, Mohammed al Dingdong, we know you have nukes set up to blow in our ten largest cities, and by golly, as soon as you explode ‘em, we’re coming after your ass!”

Dec 18, 2005 - 10:08 am 111. Buddy Larsen:

…and you can expect a severe tongue-lashing before we let you loose to go do it again!

Dec 18, 2005 - 10:32 am 112. Buddy Larsen:

Turn on the news, Ariel Sharon has been hospitalized. Pray for old Ajax.

Dec 18, 2005 - 10:33 am 113. Yeshooroon:

monkyboy says, “How are the Democrats to blame for this, Yesh?”

Did I say they were to blame?

What I did was state my utter disgust with their actions. Words and actions over the last 5 years which have gone off track completely from the realm of reason.

You asked for it…

Did you not read what the President’s remarks were yesterday? He personally did not ask to put names on the list. The list was brought to his staff and that of the NSA by interdiction of known terrorist and suspected terrorist abroad who communicate with people in our country.

Did you understand that?

The procedures were put in place long before he was ever in office. This is a time of war, we were just attacked at the time he put these orders in place after September 2001.

Over 3,000 people had died, thousands others wounded, our national economy rocked to the core, all planes stopped for a week, business people stranded away from their families, people left wondering what would happen to our nation, who attacked us and why, and would we be attacked again.

The Democrat party people today are so lost and misinformed and do not understand our current situation. They act as if we are watching some movie or mini-series on TV.

I flew to Chicago the second day flights were allowed after the WTC’s fell and remember the anxiety and nervousness in everyones face, the somber mood of the nation, a people shaken, wondering how our nation would pull itself together amid reports of panic both financial, real and imagined by all.

What exactly do you not remember about this occasion?

I remember calling New York checking on my friends and a cousin to make sure they were alive and not harmed by the terror attacks. I remember calling on a friend in Ohio stranded away from his family.

Zoom forward… In London, I called my friend of 25 years to check and make sure his wife was safe when crazed lunatics in the name of Allah blew themselves up yet again near to where she works knowing she sometimes took the underground trains of London at one of the very corners the terrorist hit.

What exactly do you not understand about this situation?

Why do I blame Democrats? Why do I put them into the same category as the recent NY Times episode?

I don’t monkyboy - they do it themselves over and over again. And they do it against my hopes, dreams and ideas for this nations future. They bring nothing to the table these days except paranoia, whining and moaning.

They are completely lost! They somehow equate everything that is happening today back to some 60’s freedom lovefest of Acid Rock, LSD sex dreams and “Don’t invade my privacy man, hippy commune” statement.

They twist the current reality to appease some far left ACLU types and fan the fires of paranoia for the purpose of what unlikely event?

That maybe one person who has traveled here from the Middle East might get his phone tapped because he talked to a suspected terrorist in Pakistan, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, etc.?

My Lord, please let it be so! I hope, pray that every day our nation is doing its best to interdict, spy on and capture terrorist and their sympathizers which wonder about our nation unaware to you and me.

Democrats are not interested in protecting my rights at all. And they certainly do not represent my concerns. They are simply using this occasion to mislead the public and prune their feathers for the far left base. They do not give us reality, but instead they give us National Inquirer-like seizures of mental flagellation.

Any level headed person in today’s world knows that we must take certain ‘legal’ steps to safe guard our country, our people.

President Bush at advice by informed legal advisors, his staff, people from the FBI, CIA, NSA and in talks with Congress, and the Justice Department took the legal steps allowed to him under law - under the law to protect this nation.

The NSA then went about doing their job.

If there were any improprieties on the part of the NSA then that is not something which the President himself aspired to do. He never set out to illegally tap your phone monkyboy or mine.

He simply took the natural step any sane person would do after 9/11. He asked all the powers that be what could we do to stop this from ever happening again in our country. Informed by legal staff, he took the steps I or any sane person would do. If upon interdiction of intelligence abroad or domestically which deemed appropriate that indicate possible terror connections within our country to terror connections abroad - interdict and ascertain whether or not these connections pose any significant harm to our country and therefore the safety of our people.

Therefore is it contemptable for the Democrats to point fingers at the man when at the same time they blame him for not protecting this nation from the first attack. Or they accuse him of not doing enough all the time domestically on the homefront. It is insincere and disgusting rhetoric at the lowest of levels.

He is simply trying to do his best job to protect this nation from another attack. Procedures were put in place for review. Leaders of Congress were informed as well as the Justice Department included on his orders.

Feingold comes on TV and misleads the public completely from the actual truth, feigning contempt for the President as if he stepped into everyone’s house in the nation to listen to their phone conversations. This is simply not true.

Only this morning he claimed abuse on CNN. When asked who was abused what did he say? He could not quote one instance of abuse, but he said there was at least 2 that he knew of to date.

Lets put this in perspective - 2 ‘possible cases’ of which he could not recite evidence - out of over 250 million people.

Please forgive me if I don’t run for the hills afraid of my government and begin to build a bunker!

This is why I am so angry at the Democrats. They willingly mislead the public, play to paranoid far leftist crowds, and incite misguided hatred towards our nation and our President on many levels both foreign and domestic.

Another example? How abour our lovely representative from the state of Ohio - Dennis Kucinich.

This man had the audacity yesterday to stand in front of the media lackeys and compare this to Richard Nixon and Watergate.

He went completely over the top!

Why do you ask that I blame the Democrats?

Do I have to? They do it to themselves by their flaky behavior and actions.

Lets take another example, Senator Boxer from California who comes on TV and to millions of people claims that over 15,000 soldiers have been wounded and will never recover to have a good life again. She appeals ‘falsely over the top’ to peoples hearts and sympathy for those wounded when her real agenda is to simply gain power.

Her statements were simply not true.

She either is totally misinformed by her staff or - she is WILLFULLY and DECEITFULLY misleading the public as to the truth.

The year is 2005, I have a computer and the web at my finger tips.

Within 2 minutes I had the truth of the statistics at my hands of current wounded by our armed forces.

Only approsimately 2,000 soldiers first of all were actually “wounded in action(WIA)”. Of those, approximately 350(if I remember correctly) have lost limbs and are severely impacted in their life. And while this is sad, it is Senator Boxer is misleading the public with her statements by claiming over 15,000 have suffered to the point they will not ever recover.

The rest of the wounds were not due to enemy encounters, but accidents, illness, surgery that anyone today like you or me would encounter lifting heavy boxes with back strains, moving heavy machinery and other dangerous equipment which might cause one to get deep lacerations of the skin, bruises, bumps, concussions and on and on for the usual list of accidental injuries which might occur. Or even normal surgery like appendicitus(sic).

She OVER HYPED the information and did not tell the truth to the people. She could care less about the health of our soldiers. She only cares about regaining power back in the Congress and pointing accusing fingers at our President.

Yes, I do believer her and others like her are either callous or completely clueless.

As a result, her, Murtha, Kucinich, Dean, Pelosi and others call for immediate withdrawals, or they say our soldiers are ‘living hand to mouth’, or they say, ‘we cannot win’, or they say, ‘its a quagmire’. They completely undercut our nations will to fight this war, to have the true victory that our troops deserve, have won all major battles and are now cleaning up in Iraq’s insurgency. They aid the enemy in this day and age by knowingly stating such accusations in a public media that is then turned around and used by our enemy and supporters with the type of Al Jazeera and others of extreme ideaologies against this country.

About 2,500 soldiers have died in Iraq and Afghanistan. And they act like this is a travesty of historical proportions. They do not mention that these soldiers VOLUNTEERED.

They DO NOT MENTION this is one of the most successful war efforts in history next to the first Gulf war.

They DO NOT MENTION this is one of the lowest losses of life in any war that America has ever fought.

They DO NOT MENTION the Brilliant JOB our young men and women have done in liberating 50 million people.

They DO NOT MENTION how Americans, military families by the millions are sending money, clothes, shoes, medical supplies, school supplies, and so much LOVE to the Iraqi people by our actions through our young men and women in the military by the millions upon millions of dollars over the last few years.

Our young men, women and leaders of the military deserve credit for a job well done. For eliminating an enemy that hates us without cause.

And at the same time, by the goodness of their own hearts - they call home and ask Mom, Dad, sis and bro, or friends from work to help out poor Iraqi families in need. And what do the American people do? They give! They GIVE!

Why do they give monkyboy??? Because we know who the true enemies are… they are the corrupt leaders like Saddam who have used media and oppression to warp young minds for the last 30 years. We know that inherant in every heart is a person longing to be free from oppression.

And we recognize how they’ve been harmed for so long both physically and mentally and so America, average John and Jane Doe, the type who silly enough believe in God and are routinely mocked and scoffed at by the likes of John Stewart, who are villified by the elite media left, they reach deep in their pockets - and they GIVE.

So not only has our military brought us victories in Iraq and Afghanistan that are not reported by the Media or the Democrats refuse to acknowledge as great historical milestones in freedom for people long oppressed. But this military ask for us at home to give and we do.

This is what the Democrats fail to recognize and fail us as a nation to tell the truth to the world of what we are doing there.

That is why I blame the Democrats today. They lack any leadership. With the exception of a few people, like the honorable Senator Joseph Lieberman the Democratic Party represents very little of what I hold dear in America.

This country is made of Can Do people, not whiners, scoffers and mockers. The is a nation that took on the tyranny of Hitler and Stalin.

Today we take on similar villains who promote hatred, incite violence, and fund terrorism around the world.

Honestly, why the Democrats and people like you do not wake up, open your eyes and pull together as a people for this nation is beyond explanation. Your hatred for our President has so misled you as to not see the truth of what is happening in the world and what we must do as Americans ONE AND ALL together to fight against such tryanny.

Should only the America’s, Europeans, Aussie’s, Japan and a few Asian nations be free?

Do not the people in the Middle East deserve freedom? Have you not read the blogs of people from the Middle East who cry out for our help to recognize the oppression they are under every single day in Iran, Egypt, Syria and so many other nations in this world?

September 11, 2001 forever changed the equation of allowing Dictators, Despots, Tyrant Kings to rule brutally over their people without action from America. We were accused of not understanding the world, of not looking at other cultures.

Well, I’ve traveled, I’ve talked, I’ve looked. And what I see is brutal regimes lying to their people, oppressing them, using torture, rapes and any other mental device to mislead people to hatred of our free country in order to lead the people away from the truth of their own shortfalls.

We can no longer stand silent while this happens around the world in places like Sudan, Eritrea and other Middle East, African and Asian nations. We as a free people must demand that ALL PEOPLE have their freedom.

We have had it easy in this country for a long time and we are truly blessed. But it does not mean it will last forever while we turn our heads and look the other way as millions suffer.

This is not America’s fault ‘only’. All the nations are to blame for the current situation. America cannot itself lead the whole world to freedom and prosperity.

But our leaders can certainly point us in the right direction. And that direction is no longer corrupt institutions like the United Nations who pander to unapproved leaders that brutalize their own people.

Instead, we and other free nations should start to stand up and demand - nation by nation - that all people be free.

Democrats who call themselves liberal and demand no one mess with their privacy should be the first ones to call for such progress in the world.

Instead all they want to do is discuss for years and years in the United Nations how better to understand someones culture. BS!

There is nothing to understand about Brutality and Corruption except that it is Wrong!

Russia, China and other nations routinely support corrupt Dictators around the world. China routinely locks away thousands upon thousands of innocent people in their country every year. Where is the outrage by the left? Where are the Democratic Leaders?

I could go on and on… and justifiably so but this post has grown to long.

one final bit….

/sarcasm on

Approximately 2,500 soldiers have died in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001/2003 and the Democrats ask for immediate withdrawal because it is unfair? to dangerous? our soldiers are ‘terrorizing’ Iraqi’s according to Kerry?

Over 2000 deaths occur every year in California due to violent conflict.

Hurry Senator Boxer, Pelosi! Tell the Police to withdraw immediately!! Tell all California citizens to leave the state!!!! Governor please withdraw all Armed Reserves now to the safety of Mass, no wait, people have been killed there too, hurry lets all hide all Californians in Yellowstone Park - certainly they’ll all be safe there. Watch out for killer bears and buffalo of course.

sarcasm off for monkey boy and John Stewart/

rant off/

Dec 18, 2005 - 10:54 am 114. Alexandra von Maltzan:

Buddy,

Give me a break on the pink already, I am not changing the color for you, and that’s final!

Ah, all right already, what color do you want?

In any case you never come over and play properly, so I classify you as just another voyeur on my statcounter…Watching, occasionaly reading, but never…

Dec 18, 2005 - 10:59 am 115. Buddy Larsen:

Alexandra–the pink is wonderful–don’t listen to me, my favorite color is deep gray-brown. No, I’m a one-finger tongue-between-teeth typist–so I just read–unable to degrade more than one or two threads at a time (alas).

Yesharoon, bravura, bravo.

Dec 18, 2005 - 11:08 am 116. Buddy Larsen:

One-for-the-books, matter-of-fact, comprehensively disdainful. and readable, too.

Dec 18, 2005 - 11:55 am 117. Luther McLeod:

Yes, Yeshooroon. Well and thoughtfully said. We await MB’s response…

I like the pink myself, as well as the intense and beautiful graphics. Though it is the writing that is most engaging.

Dec 18, 2005 - 1:06 pm 118. Alexandra von Maltzan:

OK Buddy, you’re back on my Christmas card list…and on the subject that is dearest to me. Ten out of ten there Buddy!

Thanks guys for the compliment.

Dec 18, 2005 - 1:19 pm 119. PeterUK:

See Caryl,that’s how it is done…got them eating out of her hand!

Dec 18, 2005 - 2:21 pm 120. Buddy Larsen:

…and wot a hand, yowzah!

Dec 18, 2005 - 2:59 pm 121. PeterUK:

Of course Caryl..it might not work for a two bag job.

Dec 18, 2005 - 3:25 pm 122. monkyboy:

Nice post, Yesh.

But of course, I disagree.

When I look at the Republicans, all I see is a corrupt and incompetent party that violates the Constitution every chance they can.

What are you guys so afraid of?

Will the radical Muslims:

1. Win an election and seize power in America?

Nope…not a chance.

2. Launch an invasion and sieze power militarily?

Nope…not gonna happen.

3. Pull off another terrorist strike here and cause massive damage and death?

Maybe. Will America survive if they do? Yes. Japan took two nuclear attacks and bounced back.

If the terrorists are going to use nukes, odds are they have them in some corner of the world where we aren’t are now. The money we are spending in Iraq would be better spent searching all the containers entering our ports.

Maybe if you guys had lived under the threat of nuclear annihilation from the Soviets you wouldn’t be so worried about nuclear firecrackers.

And you wouldn’t give up your Constitutional freedoms to the bumbling gang of thieves “protecting” us now so willingly…

Dec 18, 2005 - 4:05 pm 123. Buddy Larsen:

“…a corrupt and incompetent party that violates the Constitution every chance they can.”

…should be, “…every chance it can.”

“party” is singular, “they” is plural.

Dec 18, 2005 - 4:15 pm 124. Luther McLeod:

So MB;

“Pull off another terrorist strike here and cause massive damage and death?

Maybe. Will America survive if they do? Yes. Japan took two nuclear attacks and bounced back.”

I take it by this pronouncement you would prefer that the US do nothing pro-active beyond its borders to PREVENT an attack before it happens. Search all the containers, but heaven forbid we should go after the slimes who will load the bomb in the container. Talk about treating the symptom and not the cause. Interesting that you are so righteous in your views that you would willingly sacrifice potentially millions of lives to further your political beliefs. Sounds similar to the world view of the people we are fighting right now, not to mention their enablers in the democratic party and on the staff of the NYTimes.

And if you think you are the only one here who remembers “duck ‘n cover” and that that somehow adds some preposterous validity to your views…think again. And to equate nuclear weapons with “firecrackers” is just asinine. Grow up.

Dec 18, 2005 - 4:36 pm 125. Buddy Larsen:

Too late for that, Luther–Caryl was born in 1945. How is she going to grow up?

Dec 18, 2005 - 4:44 pm 126. PeterUK:

3. Pull off another terrorist strike here and cause massive damage and death?

Maybe. Will America survive if they do? Yes. Japan took two nuclear attacks and bounced back.

Proof, if ever it was needed, that no price is high enough to pay for the Democrats to get back in power.

Once again the Democratic motto.

“OUR PRINCIPLES - YOUR FUNERAL”

Dec 18, 2005 - 4:56 pm 127. PeterUK:

Yes if you whippersnappers had been older you might have grown up as warped as Monkyboy.

“Nuclear firecrackers”,the Iranians will be mortified.

Dec 18, 2005 - 5:00 pm 128. Buddy Larsen:

Photo of child “bouncing back” from a nuke blast (warningXXX).

Dec 18, 2005 - 5:02 pm 129. Luther McLeod:

You know PeterUK, If I recall correctly ol’ DS was as infuriatingly obtuse as old MB here but did on occasion present some modicum of intelligent discourse. Sadly lacking in this case.

Dec 18, 2005 - 5:05 pm 130. monkyboy:

The Republican motto?

Be a coward. Give us your freedoms and hundreds of billions of dollars. You won’t be safer…but we will be richer!

Probability that, if al-Queda has a nuclear device, it’s in Afghanistan or Iraq?

zero

Probability that Republican front companies are getting billions of dollars a month to turn Iraq into a Shiite theocracy?

100

In the unlikely event that a terrorist group acquires a small, working nuclear device and manages to detonate it here, it will kill, at most, a few thousand people.

No need to wet your pants and grab your ankles…unless you enjoy it.

Dec 18, 2005 - 5:07 pm 131. Buddy Larsen:

She’s gone…off the deep end…the typed words are building her a complely integrated cloud-cuckooland reality…completely disconnected to the meaning of what she says. Getting a little ugly to watch…ghoulish, almost.

Dec 18, 2005 - 5:10 pm 132. PeterUK:

Monkyboy you gibbering fuckwit there were 10,283,491 intermodal container shipments in 2004,that is 15,8207 per day.http://www.intermodal.org/fact.html

Many containers are customs sealed,many are refrigerated,they are on the move,ports have to be cleared.

This is the most stupid idea,from a long and undistinguished line,that you have come up with.

Dec 18, 2005 - 5:11 pm 133. Buddy Larsen:

Of course, she knows those “few thousand people” won’t be in York, Maine. So, “what’s the prob?” she asks, exhaling a cloud of smoke and stubbing out the kitty-cat butt.

Dec 18, 2005 - 5:17 pm 134. PeterUK:

What has John F Kerry,Ted Kennedy and most of the Democratic leadership got in common,MONEY,vast quantities of mazuma,boodle dripping from every orifice,loot lapping at their armpits,dosh aplenty,lolly lying in bank accounts,pelf permeating every pore and they keep it in trust funds.

Tax is for the little people like Caryl,Kerry spends more on his hair than monkyboy gets in a week.

Dec 18, 2005 - 5:20 pm 135. TedM:

Mon Kentucky boy

thank you for your interest. we will let you know

when there is an opening. In the meanwhile, good luck at the institution where you currently reside.

And, please don’t forget the meds.

Dec 18, 2005 - 5:22 pm 136. Syl:

What a MAROOOOOOON

Did Bush have the NSA spy on American citizens without having any reason to believe they were engaged in criminal activity?

Probable Cause = receiving from or making a call to a number belonging to terrorists.

Next!

Dec 18, 2005 - 5:32 pm 137. Captain Hate:

“Caryl was born in 1945. How is she going to grow up?”

It all makes sense now. At first I was thinking some young naive product of a broken home that has been lacking guidance and finds a poor substitute with the “Progressives”. But no, it’s much more hopeless: A hubris drenched boomer, the source of most of our country’s ills. And broken homes. A product of the disgusting Peter Pan generation that knows the price of about 20% of things worth having and the value of none of them.

Thank you Dr. Spock. A very good argument for terminating Social Security.

Dec 18, 2005 - 5:32 pm 138. Buddy Larsen:

Caryl, why not invest in the stock market, get some of the earnings you disdain, and give them to charity–or improve the animal shelter–or donate to your candidates?

Dec 18, 2005 - 5:36 pm 139. monkyboy:

Probable Cause = receiving from or making a call to a number belonging to terrorists.

Did the U.S. diplomats that John Bolton requested NSA intercepts on make calls to terrorists, Syl?

Should make for some very interesting Congressional hearings…

Dec 18, 2005 - 5:38 pm 140. Buddy Larsen:

..or buy a brain.

Dec 18, 2005 - 5:39 pm 141. Buddy Larsen:

Would you please provide those Bolton links, Madam Dexamethasone?

Dec 18, 2005 - 5:47 pm 142. TedM:

Let’s stick with the facts.

Bolton was NEVER accused of

requesting that intercepts

be made.

Imbecile.

Dec 18, 2005 - 5:47 pm 143. Always right:

Re: monkyboy at December 18, 2005 05:07 PM

MB kept stating everything he/she said as FACTS, as everybody should accept it as a pre-qualifier in this and other threads. Since we don’t read DNC/DailyKos talking points, we’ve been asking for the proof for days now.

So far MB hasn’t convinced anyone I can see.

Dec 18, 2005 - 6:20 pm 144. Luther McLeod:

Words will not get the job done MB. Neither yours nor anyone else. Trust me, no one is tapping your phone in order to listen to your blather. There are good men/women standing in harm’s way to protect your right for saying the most utter BS you may come up with. You should try appreciating that fact some time.

Dec 18, 2005 - 6:28 pm 145. Buddy Larsen:

harry reid on tv a couple hours ago:

“blah blah blah secret program blah blah unconstitutional blah blah committing crimes against the people blah blah”

Interviewer “But senator, aren’t you on the review committee, haven’t you taken part in this program, and know all about it?”

reid (blustering up, and not answering the direct q)) “This is the PRESIDENT’s PROGRAM and we will NOT let him weasle-word his way out of responsibility blah blah blah….”

ya shoulda seen it–the interviewer had to suppress a smile.

This is the Senate Minority Leader.

These people think they’re gonna impeach the president, and we’re gonna stand by and let them rule?

Dec 18, 2005 - 6:49 pm 146. monkyboy:

The U.S. Constitution gives me the right to say what I’m saying, Luther.

The “good men/women standing in harm’s way” are protecting the special interests of a greedy few.

The only way Americans will lose the freedom of speech is if the Constitution is overturned…something you guys seem bent on doing.

Dec 18, 2005 - 7:04 pm 147. Buddy Larsen:

lady from DNC came on to rebut pres’ speech tonite. I had to mute, the shrill bitterness was a horror…worse with the sound off, her face twisted in hate. This is really getting bizarre, ladies and gentlemen–I’ve never seen anything like it.

Dec 18, 2005 - 7:06 pm 148. Buddy Larsen:

Caryl, what about those Bolton cites?

Dec 18, 2005 - 7:08 pm 149. Luther McLeod:

Caryl,

The constitution gives many “rights”, they are only so good as the willingness of men to fight to protect them.

“The “good men/women standing in harm’s way” are protecting the special interests of a greedy few.”

And now, you accuse the 3 million members of the military of being either (1) ignorant (2) In collusion with…just what exactly?

Dec 18, 2005 - 7:35 pm 150. Buddy Larsen:

“Give me the Bolton cites, Caryl.”

“I’m sorry, Dave, I’m afraid I can’t do that.”

“Give me the Bolton cites, Caryl.”

“Daisy, Daisy, give me your answer do. I’m half crazy all for the love of you…It won’t be a stylish marriage, I can’t afford a carriage….But you’ll look sweet upon the seat of a…bicycle…built…for…….two…….

Dec 18, 2005 - 9:12 pm 151. PeterUK:

MB”

The U.S. Constitution gives me the right to say what I’m saying, Luther.

The same Constitution gives everybody else the right to disagree,ie You are talking out of your anal orifice!

Dec 19, 2005 - 3:11 am 152. Buddy Larsen:

Good thing she’s actually typing, rather than talking, Peter. Otherwise–according to your theory–unless she uses a standup desk, her voice would be terribly muffled. I suppose she could lean far to the left or right, to voice her poison gas.

“Open the pod bay doors, Caryl.”

“riiip—ka-BOOOm!…I’m sorry, Dave, I’m afraid I did do that.”

Dec 19, 2005 - 5:53 am 153. Buddy Larsen:

Not all leftists are fools–it’s just the 99% that makes the rest look bad.

Dec 19, 2005 - 7:44 am 154. PeterUK:

Buddy,

Sounds like she needs worming,her breath is beginning to smell.

Dec 19, 2005 - 9:02 am 155. Buddy Larsen:

I wouldn’t be surprised at all if she and Dr. Dan were spiking up some of the treats from the vet med cabinet. All the symptoms are in fine display.

Dec 19, 2005 - 9:11 am 156. PeterUK:

Dan Dan the Medicine man?

Dec 19, 2005 - 9:45 am 157. Buddy Larsen:

Yes, he of the maniacal laughter at the coming destruction of all us “Totalitarian Teat-Suckers”, the man of medicine and defender of the Hippocratic Oath.

Dec 19, 2005 - 9:58 am 158. PeterUK:

“Totalitarian Teat-Suckers”..He’s into dominance then? Don’t say Caryl makes him dress up as a dog.

Dec 19, 2005 - 10:41 am 159. Buddy Larsen:

Thanks for that mental picture, Peter. I’ll be off to the vomitorium now.

Dec 19, 2005 - 10:47 am 160. Yeshooroon:

monkyboy says…

Nice post, Yesh.

- thanks and to others, Buddy, Luther

When I look at the Republicans, all I see is a corrupt and incompetent party that violates the Constitution every chance they can.

funny, I’m an Independent, what does your statement have to do with my views?

My glasses are not tainted one way like yours. I see corruption on both sides and if you do not then you are only misleading yourself. Each side is receiving far to much money from corporate donors as well other institutions and lobbyist.

What are you guys so afraid of?

Honestly, I’m not afraid at all. That is why I voice my opinion clearly to you on these topics. You completely misunderstood my post. I called for leadership from the Democrats. Very few however gives us that today. I gave you one example of an honest man that I see on the Democrat side regarding the War on Iraq.

Will the radical Muslims:

1. Win an election and seize power in America?

Nope…not a chance.

-What kind of nonsensical mutterings are these? This is avoiding directly all the issues that I raised about giving our government the freedom to track those who might try to harm us.

-Instead of addressing any of my issues directly you sidestep it entirely with a disingenuous statement.

-Maybe you should direct your answer to France? or possibly Europe in the future if they allow Turkey into the EU?

2. Launch an invasion and sieze power militarily?

Nope…not gonna happen.

- another misleading and irrelevant remark designed to get off the orignal topic

3. Pull off another terrorist strike here and cause massive damage and death?

Maybe. Will America survive if they do? Yes. Japan took two nuclear attacks and bounced back.

- and what kind of statement is this? Are you saying you don’t care?

- As a citizen of this country I have a right to vote and determine who I want in office. For me it is important that they will do all that is ‘legal’ to protect my family, friends, my business and livelyhood.

- Exactly what do you want? Someone who will hold hands with CodePink like Dean? This is not some far right issue. I’m an average person, have traveled, owned a successful business and I desire that our government do its duty to protect our economy, our people. That is what I pay taxes for and why I vote for people.

- You seem to want to throw your hands us and say the terrorist wins without trying. This epitomizes for me the Democratic response. A lot of hot air, meetings, panels, expert opinions, more hot air, more meetings and then - nothing but a consensus to do another study.

If the terrorists are going to use nukes, odds are they have them in some corner of the world where we aren’t are now. The money we are spending in Iraq would be better spent searching all the containers entering our ports.

- well at least this is an attempt to get at real solutions. I agree we should be doing our best to stop any type of nuke proliferation or access to nukes by terrorist orgainizations. I just happen to think our government is capable of doing both.

- I also think we get more intel by being in Afghanistan and Iraq(the heart of the beast of radical Islam) and by getting more intel we will understand the underbelly of these radical organizations. Being in Iraq in my estimation gives us much more information than running blindly around the world.

Maybe if you guys had lived under the threat of nuclear annihilation from the Soviets you wouldn’t be so worried about nuclear firecrackers.

- huh? Honestly I don’t understand your response to well. But if it interest you, I grew up during a time of early age when we had to do nuke bombing drills in our schools. I also lived by an AFB which ran B-52’s every single night on runs to the old Soviet border just in case of any attack. You’re making incorrect assumptions of my knowledge and experience. As I grew up, I learned that it was more important to have a strong defense than to blow a lot of hot air. President Carter proved this by his weakness. I learned not to fear nuclear attacks, but instead to be prepared and to be on the offensive always. I learned this from men with actual military experience. Never give the enemy the upper hand.

And you wouldn’t give up your Constitutional freedoms to the bumbling gang of thieves “protecting” us now so willingly…

- now I’m really at a loss to understand this paragraph after the last. I’m not giving up my constitutional rights like you mistakenly put it.

- You are completely ignorant of the programs already on the books. The government if it wants to can peek into my privacy any day they want under certain laws on the books prior to 9/11 if they suspect I have broken certain laws. You believe way to much propaganda the ACLU sends out by its minions of misinformation.

- After 9/11

The house and senate approved the Patriot Act. Democrats signed onto the bill. Did you forget this too?

And you obviously do not understand what the constitutional law allows a President during war time to exercise specific war time acts and orders to protect this nation while under threat.

You have been somehow brainwashed by far leftist and ACLU types and Democrats who confuse us with their misleading accusations.

The President is not asking to tap your phones. He simply asked his staff what he could do legally to find, interdict and track anyone with foreign connections related to terrorist organizations such as Al Queda. This is something any student of a civics class should understand.

He is not advocating breaking my or your civil rights. He is however watching foreign communications or by way of information gathering on the fronts in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and other places to use the information gathered from the enemy on their PCs, CDs, DVDs, notebooks, letters or any information with numbers linking back to people in this country.

What is so SCARY TO YOU about this action?

I am not the one who is illogical and afraid.

It is you monkyboy who is not making any sense during a time of war. I also find it completely unacceptable that you would tolerate an attack by not allowing our government to interdict such communications by possible enemy combatants within our nation.

We live in a wonderful, free society. I’m not afraid of the government tapping my line. I have nothing to hide in the first place. Unless they want to hear me coooo over my Darling wife or about our domestic conversations, my thoughts on where we might travel, or the music I like.

It is you who are being irrational, not I.

With regards to Russia. Have you ever traveled there? I was there in 98 and I’ll never forget the day George Soros completely rocked that nation by his move on the Russian currency market. The rubble fell… and kept falling and the poor people of that nation ran to the banks to get their money out.

This was their introduction to the free market thanks to the likes of George Soros - the supporter of organizations like moveon.org. The guy who pretends to care about people, while he raked in hundreds of millions at the expense of millions of Russians.

It took them years to recover financially and emotionally many of them have never truly trusted a free market economy again.

Thank you Democrats - yet another victory in NOT freeing a nation, but instead spreading fear.

Corrupt people? You don’t really want to go there monkyboy.

Kennedy and clan have moved hundreds of millions offshore - yet he expects you to pay more taxes.

He and those like him are worse than hypocrites. They’re scoundrels of the lowest kind. They will suck you dry here in this nation, while sending their own money offshore.

I’m sorry to say you’ve been misinformed. I do hope you wake up. I’m sure you’re a nice person.

And let it be clear, I’m not a republican. There is much the Republicans can do better - a better energy policy for one.

We should have a national energy policy which calls upon all Americans and corporations to commit like JFK called us to go to the moon. We should treat alternative energy resources and removing ourselves from dependency on oil from the Middle East.

I’ve written the President to ask for such a move.

So don’t try to pin me in. You’re making way to many assumptions of who I am and what I believe.

But the Democrats have been utter failures on the war in Iraq and have misled the public for only one reason - to gain power.

If you care to actually respond and show me where I’m wrong in anything I said, I’ll be glad to rejoin you in a valid debate. But if you just toss up trivial lines without relevance to the discussion, there’s no need to continue.

I am willing to listen. All I ask is you give me good, solid information.

Dec 19, 2005 - 11:25 am 161. Luther McLeod:

Good 64 gun retort Yeshooroon. But as for:

“I am willing to listen. All I ask is you give me good, solid information.”.

Asking that from MB shows your optimistic spirit and a willingness to engage, but would find MB with nothing to say.

Dec 19, 2005 - 11:51 am 162. Buddy Larsen:

If the prez wants to frisk me on the 911 beef, fine, I’m more than happy to cooperate, where would you like to start, sir?

Very seldom does a day pass I don’t visualize myself on the 100th floor, burning, choking, thinking about my family, and preparing to jump.

Dec 19, 2005 - 12:02 pm 163. Buddy Larsen:

York, Maine, is under NSA scrutiny–which is no doubt the cause of Caryl’s hysteria.

Apparently someone has purchased a Canadian ear-flap cap and a pair of galoshes, and has walked back across the border without declaring them.

Dec 19, 2005 - 12:16 pm 164. PeterUK:

“Apparently someone has purchased a Canadian ear-flap cap and a pair of galoshes, and has walked back across the border without declaring them.”

You don’t understand the depth or the problem Buddy,Caryl’s people captured him had him neutered and placed in a good home.Paul Martin is said to be unsettled with his new owners.

Dec 19, 2005 - 1:00 pm 165. Buddy Larsen:

Mr. Martin’s master–Mr. Soros–will return soon as he defends his right to mine Bolivia tax-free (as if people who grow cocaine need an alternate source of hard currency!).

Dec 19, 2005 - 1:12 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed) remember personal info?
Comments: