President Bush

[johncoby]

Hum.....so if someone would give Bush a BJ, we might be able to impeach him?

[TJones]

TJ, you do not KNOW who is being listened to. The DOD was spying on peace protesters in Florida, claiming them to be a threat. Not one of them was of Middle Eastern descent. Besides, these are Americans that everyone is concerned about, not foreigners. Different rules apply to foreigners. Again, do you want the USA that was founded by our forefathers and defended by our parents, or do you want a quasi-Soviet government that allows capitalism?

BTW, For those who choose sides based on which political party is pissed, BOTH parties are in an uproar over this.

(Not you, TJ )

Agreed that one third of the post is Iraq, though.

Did not hear about any peace protesters, I do agree however, that having no legitimate reason to spy on Americans is unfounded, and will not be tolerated by me, no matter WHO is doing the spying, it is bad enough that the FBI and CIA have folders on just about everyone in the U.S. who has ever stood up for anything. I agree that Americans being spied on by Americans for no other reason than just to spy is unconstitutional. I can see the uproar, I have to see all the facts though. Do you have a link on the Peace people thing in Florida ?

[nmainguy]

Do you have a link on the Peace people thing in Florida ?

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/bro...mostemailedlink

[gardenoaksguy]

TJ, you do not KNOW who is being listened to. The DOD was spying on peace protesters in Florida, claiming them to be a threat. Not one of them was of Middle Eastern descent. Besides, these are Americans that everyone is concerned about, not foreigners. Different rules apply to foreigners. Again, do you want the USA that was founded by our forefathers and defended by our parents, or do you want a quasi-Soviet government that allows capitalism?

BTW, For those who choose sides based on which political party is pissed, BOTH parties are in an uproar over this.

(Not you, TJ )

Agreed that one third of the post is Iraq, though.

I agree with you RedScare. I keep hearing excuses about how "times are different now", etc. etc. etc. My favorite one is "Well, if you aren't doing anything wrong, how is this going to hurt you?" Who is now the arbitrator of "anything wrong"? Trusting this current government (or probably any other) is just bad policy. Time to re-read George Orwell.

[TJones]

I agree with the editor. I firmly stand with all other reckless accusers of blaming absolutly EVERYTHING that goes wrong on at least one Clinton. You know, even though he has been out of office for over 5 years and the Republicans control the entire government, that Clinton woman is still lurking about.

I suggest we wiretap her...and that Chelsea kid while we're at it!

I'd much rather have a president who assumes a free reign in chipping away at the Constitution instead of Bill Clinton! His problem is he was just too gutless to defy the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.

Law smaw! That's what I say...

PS-Don't forget those Quakers in Florida-I understand they are poised to attack...

Does the Patriot Act overule the FISA of 78 ? I don't agree with illegal wiretaps, but "ILLEGAL" wiretaps have not been proven yet, and until they are, You can only speculate, and that is exactly what is going on here.

Edited December 19, 2005 by TJones

[west20th]

Condoleeza says the President, was within the letter of the law, as well as others, You and I know that a special sub-committe will be commissioned to investigate.

Well Condoleeza kept premising her statements with "I'm not a lawyer" so if she says the Prez was within the letter of the law it really doesn't mean anything. A continuing investigation is called for. We need to at least know they were only wiretapping Al-Qaeda operatives only and not peace activists or political enemies. I doubt they were but I sure don't trust them at there word. And yes I wouldn't trust them if they were Democrats either.

[TJones]

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/bro...mostemailedlink

Thanks, nmain, 2 questions, What footwear do anarchist's prefer, nevermind, I'll ask Redscare. Red, show'em the picture !

and where was the part about illegal wiretaps on the peacemongers ?

So, I will stick by my staement about Abdullah !

Ok west, then we are cool, I just wanted to make sure you were in the right frame of mind.

Edited December 19, 2005 by TJones

[VicMan]

How quickly we forget July 20, 1993 and the name Vince Foster.

Snopes.com debunked something similar... a "Clinton Murder List"

Also there is a "Bush Murder List" floating around.

Clinton's single biggest mistake was not doing anything to stop the Rwanda Massacre. All the anger related to Lewinski is a joke.

http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/clinton.htm

And snopes talks about Foster:

"White House deputy counsel Vince Foster committed suicide on the night of 20 July 1993 by shooting himself once in the head, a day after he contacted his doctor about his depression. A note in the form of a draft resignation letter was found in the bottom of his briefcase a week after his death. (Note that this letter was not, as is often claimed, a "suicide note." It was Foster's outline for a letter of resignation.) Foster cited negative Wall Street Journal editorials about him. He was also upset about the much-criticized role of the counsel's office in the controversial firing of seven White House travel office workers.

On 10 October 1997, special prosecutor Kenneth Starr released his report on the investigation into Foster's death, the third such investigation (after ones conducted by the coroner and Starr's predecessor, Robert B. Fiske) of the matter. The 114-page summary of a three-year investigation concluded that Foster shot himself with the pistol discovered in his right hand. There was no sign of a struggle, nor any evidence he'd been drugged or intoxicated or that his body had been moved.

If Foster had been murdered or if unanswered questions about his death remained, Starr would have been the last person to want to conclude the investigation prematurely. Or are we to believe Starr is part of the cover up, too? And if we buy into the conspiracy theory, what are we expected to believe? That a group of professional killers capable of carrying out dozens of murders all over the world shot Vince Foster, then clumsily dumped him in a park (after he had bled out), planted a gun he didn't own in his hand (without bothering to press his fingerprints onto it), amateurishly forged a suicide note (in several different handwritings), and then seriously expected the nation would believe it was suicide? Claims too crazy to believe are never discounted when they're needed to help establish a conspiracy, of course."

Edited December 19, 2005 by VicMan

[editor]

Not one of them was of Middle Eastern descent.

Sounds like you favor racial profiling. Don't commit your hate crimes here! HATE CRIME!!!

[RedScare]

Thanks, nmain, 2 questions, What footwear do anarchist's prefer, nevermind, I'll ask Redscare. Red, show'em the picture !

and where was the part about illegal wiretaps on the peacemongers ?

So, I will stick by my staement about Abdullah !

Ok west, then we are cool, I just wanted to make sure you were in the right frame of mind.

Uhmm...Birkenstocks...muddy Birkenstocks?

[TJones]

, not THAT picture of your funtime at Woodstock, you know the one, with you in the all black get up.

[RedScare]

Oh, TJ, these are TWO different spy campaigns. One is DOD engaging in Domestic spying. The other is Bush authorizing warrantless wiretaps, allegedly only to listen in on Al Qaida, though Bush added this morning, "and related groups".

Interesting thing about FISA Court warrants. They can be retroactive. So, the argument that the government has to move quickly does not wash. They could ask the court later to approve what they did.

OH! My Mardi Gras pics! Why didn't you say so?

[eelimon]

Admitting it is a start. Certainly better than the previous occupant of the White House who did everything from lie to Congress to allegedly murder people to cover up his wrongdoings.

Of course, for there to be an impeachment you'd have to have some impeachable offenses. It has yet to be determined if the NSA's activities are a clear Constitutional violation for a number of reasons, among them the fact that Congress knew about it.

"Screwing up," as you put it, is not an impeachable offense.

If you've got phone calls between suspects in Afghanistan and the United States and the Afghan side of the conversation is, "What targets are you going to attack next?" And the law prohibits you from listening to the answer, I can't say I would have done anything differently. It may be wrong, and maybe I would be impeached, too. But when the nation is under attack, as it was when the first of the executive orders were issued, you do what you have to in order to protect the people.

Do too much, and you risk the wrath of Congress. Do too little and you risk the wrath of Congress and the deaths of thousands. It's a fairly simple choice.

Now.. Let the flames begin!

Admitting a wrong doing does not make it right. If a child admits to his parents that he disobeyed them even after he was lectured not to do something he would most likely still be punished

[TJones]

Oh, TJ, these are TWO different spy campaigns. One is DOD engaging in Domestic spying. The other is Bush authorizing warrantless wiretaps, allegedly only to listen in on Al Qaida, though Bush added this morning, "and related groups".

Interesting thing about FISA Court warrants. They can be retroactive. So, the argument that the government has to move quickly does not wash. They could ask the court later to approve what they did.

OH! My Mardi Gras pics! Why didn't you say so?

OOOOOOOOOOOO WWWWEEEEEEEEEEE !!!! That's what I'm talking about, I love that pic, don't condone that behavior, but that is a cool pic. Ok, so the military spooks are just rousting the local peaceniks, kind of cruddy, but as soon as you turn your back, those are the guys making Napalm out of frozen orange concentrate and gasoline. As far as Bush doing unauthorized tapping, didn't he say it WAS in fact discussed with members of Congress ?

Edited December 19, 2005 by TJones

[Jeebus]

So the government is spying on us. They've probably been doing so as far back as the Revolutionary War. The only difference is that technology has caught up to the civilian sector, and so now we: John Q. Public are finally becoming aware.

No one seems to have a problem with not being allowed to say "bomb" in an airport. Is that not the government infringing upon you in your own best interest? So what if the government has their ear to the ground? I've got nothing to hide - you shouldn't either.

[TJones]

Admitting a wrong doing does not make it right. If a child admits to his parents that he disobeyed them even after he was lectured not to do something he would most likely still be punished

Here is the deal, he didn't admit to any wrong doing. Was anyone listening to the speech besides myself this morning. Here is a link to help those that weren't listening, better understand. I don't know, maybe he was speaking too fast for some.

here's the link.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20051219-2.html

Edited December 19, 2005 by TJones

[west20th]

So the government is spying on us. They've probably been doing so as far back as the Revolutionary War. The only difference is that technology has caught up to the civilian sector, and so now we: John Q. Public are finally becoming aware.

No one seems to have a problem with not being allowed to say "bomb" in an airport. Is that not the government infringing upon you in your own best interest? So what if the government has their ear to the ground? I've got nothing to hide - you shouldn't either.

That's right. If you got nothing to hide don't worry. I'm sure Jeebus would be the first to invite the police into his home for a quick "look around". We need to make sure he is not an "evil doer". What does Jeebus really mean? Sounds kind of Arabic if you ask me. We need to know!!! I mean really. Do we actually need all of those "rights". They just get in the way. Besides we are fighting for Iraq's freedom, we don't need to hog it all for ourselves.

Edited December 19, 2005 by west20th

[CE_ugh]

Don't forget that the constitution gives the president SPECIAL POWERS in times of war.

We are not at war. We havent been at war since World War II

So the government is spying on us. They've probably been doing so as far back as the Revolutionary War. The only difference is that technology has caught up to the civilian sector, and so now we: John Q. Public are finally becoming aware.

No one seems to have a problem with not being allowed to say "bomb" in an airport. Is that not the government infringing upon you in your own best interest? So what if the government has their ear to the ground? I've got nothing to hide - you shouldn't either.

The argument of "I've got nothing to hide" is tired and naive. I guaruntee you that if someone eavesdropped on your conversations and monitored your email, they could find something that would make you blush at best.

Edited December 19, 2005 by CE_ugh

[TJones]

We are not at war. We havent been at war since World War II

The argument of "I've got nothing to hide" is tired and naive. I guaruntee you that if someone eavesdropped on your conversations and monitored your email, they could find something that would make you blush at best.

What rock have you been living under ? Ask the veterans of Korea, Vietnam, and Kuwait and Iraq, if they have been to war or not, and when you tell them they haven't ,I guarantee you'll get a mouth full of teeth.

Edited December 19, 2005 by TJones

[west20th]

What rock have you been living under ? Ask the veterans of Korea, Vietnam, and Kuwait and Iraq, if they have been to war or not, and when you tell them they haven't ,I guarantee you'll get a mouth full of teeth.

None of those were "declared" wars. I don't know why. Anyone know why we no longer "declare" war when we go to war? Instead we call them "police actions" or what have you.

[CE_ugh]

What rock have you been living under ? Ask the veterans of Korea, Vietnam, and Kuwait and Iraq, if they have been to war or not, and when you tell them they haven't ,I guarantee you'll get a mouth full of teeth.

Call it whatever you want. It takes an act of congress to declare war.

[TJones]

Call it whatever you want. It takes an act of congress to declare war.

I apologize, I see where you were going with that. Go ahead and act coy, I'll play along.

[Jeebus]

That's right. If you got nothing to hide don't worry. I'm sure Jeebus would be the first to invite the police into his home for a quick "look around". We need to make sure he is not an "evil doer". What does Jeebus really mean? Sounds kind of Arabic if you ask me. We need to know!!! I mean really. Do we actually need all of those "rights". They just get in the way. Besides we are fighting for Iraq's freedom, we don't need to hog it all for ourselves.

Sure I'll invite the police in. You need to realize something West20th: If the government is out to get you, they will get you - cloak & dagger operations, or not.

I love how, by me stating that I don't mind the government doing what it has to do to protect me, you make the assumption that I'm Arabic - excuse me: "kind of Arabic" [sic]. What is "kind of Arabic" [sic] anyway? If anything, you fighting for privacy will raise more flags that my submission ever will - no matter what color you are.

By making a fuss, all you do is draw attention to yourself. So go ahead: keep fussin'!

[west20th]

you make the assumption that I'm Arabic - excuse me: "kind of Arabic" [sic]. What is "kind of Arabic" [sic] anyway? If anything, you fighting for privacy will raise more flags that my submission ever will - no matter what color you are.

I wasn't assuming you are Arabic. That was an attempt at humor. Guess I'll keep my day job. I have no clue as to what your ethnic background is.

Edited December 19, 2005 by west20th

[TJones]

In total agreement with Jeebus, if you are not involved in criminal activities, then what do you have to worry about. Our government doesn't go out and just pick people at random to look into . The people they are looking at have done something to garner attention fromt he powers that be. Don't try to blame Bush, this has been going on since the McCarthy days, and has happened in both houses. Do you really think the Gov. is gonna come after you and tap your house, what makes you soooooooo friggin special ? The ones who seem to worry about it most are the last ones the Gov. is worried about. Calm your pretty little heads down. Big Brother is not after you, you bunch of paranoid freaks !

Edited December 19, 2005 by TJones

[west20th]

In total agreement with Jeebus, if you are not involved in criminal activities, then what do you have to worry about. Our government doesn't go out and just pick people at random to look into . The people they are looking have done something to garner attention fromt he powers that be. Don't try to blame Bush, this has been going on since the McCarthy days, and has happened in both houses. Do you really think the Gov. is gonna come after you and tap your house, what makes you soooooooo friggin special ? The ones who seem to worry about it most are the last ones the Gov. is worried about. Calm your pretty little heads down. Big Brother is not after you, you bunch of paranoid freaks !

You can toss away your rights like they are meaningless but please don't be so free at tossing mine away.

[nmainguy]

Ok, so the military spooks are just rousting the local peaceniks, kind of cruddy, but as soon as you turn your back, those are the guys making Napalm out of frozen orange concentrate and gasoline.

Really?

From http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/bro...mostemailedlink

"We have nothing to hide," said Hersh, whose group counts about eight members, most over 50 and many who are Quakers.

Has there been a rash of Quakers making napalm?

Edited December 19, 2005 by nmainguy

[west20th]

Really?

From http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/bro...mostemailedlink

"We have nothing to hide," said Hersh, whose group counts about eight members, most over 50 and many who are Quakers.

Has there been a rash of Quakers making napalm?

Gotta watch 'dem Quakers who knows what there putting in them oats. I'll let you in on a little secret. The government is wise to them subversive pacifist Quakers. As we speak the President's mother has infiltrated their front Oat organization as there spokesperson.

[TJones]

Really?

From http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/bro...mostemailedlink

"We have nothing to hide," said Hersh, whose group counts about eight members, most over 50 and many who are Quakers.

Has there been a rash of Quakers making napalm?

They could throw a carving chizel at you in any given moment. The Quakers must be stopped !!! Just look at that big rimmed black hat those guys where, remember Mr.Fuji, in those James Bond films. C'mon man, wake up !

Seriously, the Gov. probably looked at them for about 5 secs. and went ho-hum, and moved on. If you were organizing rallies against the Gov. I guarantee you are getting looked at . NO MATTER WHO IS IN THE WHITE HOUSE. Do you deny that ?

(edit) probably no rash of Napalm, because they know they are being watched, or at least they think they might be.

Edited December 19, 2005 by TJones

[west20th]

(edit) probably no rash of Napalm, because they know they are being watched, or at least they think they might be.

Yep. The USSR kept their population in line because they feared they were being watched. We all know what a wonderful place that was.