Bush broke the law

[RobinsontoDuncan]

Yahoo News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060105/ap_on_go_pr_wh/domestic_spying_congress_6;_ylt=AnnJ.eEu53BLHELQlO QIBdrB4FkB;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl)



By KATHERINE SHRADER, Associated Press Writer 2 hours, 45 minutes ago


WASHINGTON - The top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee told
President Bush Wednesday that the White House broke the law by withholding information from the full congressional oversight committees about a new domestic surveillance program.
ADVERTISEMENT

In a letter to Bush, Rep. Jane Harman (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., said the National Security Act requires the heads of the various intelligence agencies to keep the entire House and Senate intelligence committees "fully and currently informed of the intelligence activities of the United States."

Only in the case of a highly classified covert action can the president choose to inform a narrower group of Congress members about his decision, Harman said. That action is defined in the law as an operation to influence political, economic or military conditions of another country.

"The NSA program does not qualify as a 'covert action,'" Harman wrote.

Bush and his senior national security aides have said that appropriate members of Congress were briefed more than a dozen times about the National Security Agency's domestic surveillance operations, which Bush first approved the month after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

The highly classified sessions are known to include the "Gang of Eight," which is made up of the top Republican and Democrat in the House and Senate and on the House and Senate Intelligence Committees.

"We believe that Congress was briefed appropriately," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said Wednesday in response to Harman's letter.

Responding in writing to Harman, House Intelligence Chairman Peter Hoekstra, R-Mich., said Harman had never previously raised concerns about the number of people briefed on the program.

"In the past, you have been fully supportive of this program and the practice by which we have overseen it," he wrote. "I find your position now completely incongruent."

Many details about the scope of electronic surveillance program remain unknown. However, Bush and his aides have asserted the monitoring — without court warrants — is narrowly targeted to eavesdrop on calls and e-mails of people who are inside the United States and suspected of communicating with al-Qaida or its affiliates.

Vice President
Dick Cheney said Wednesday that the program helped to prevent possible terrorist attacks against the American people: "This program is critical to the national security of United States."

Democrats who have been briefed on the program have raised serious concerns about its legality, but not called for its immediate halt. Republicans and Democrats alike have called for hearings this year.

[Ocotillo]

Bush lied.

Bush broke the law.

Dog bites man.

[boutons_]

dubya/dickhead's blood is in the water. dickhead pushed too far his agenda (of the unspoken justifcations for the war) of expanding exec power without limit.

There are just too many constitutional/legal scholars and judiciary who see dickhead's secret surveillance as illegal.

The Repug WH has been 5 years of unmitigated disasters, lying, super secrecy, incompetence, destruction of the federal govt.

Impeach both of the motherfuckers.

============================

Surveillance Court Is Seeking Answers

Judges Were Unaware of Eavesdropping

By Carol D. Leonnig

Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, January 5, 2006; A02

The members of a secret federal court that oversees government surveillance in espionage and terrorism cases are scheduled to receive a classified briefing Monday from top Justice Department and intelligence officials about a controversial warrantless-eavesdropping program, according to sources familiar with the arrangements.

Several judges on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court said they want to hear directly from administration officials why President Bush believed he had the authority to order, without the court's permission, wiretapping of some phone calls and e-mails after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Of serious concern to several judges is whether any information gleaned from intercepts by the National Security Agency was later used to gain their permission for wiretaps without the source being disclosed.

The court is made up of 11 judges who, on a rotating basis, hear government applications for surveillance warrants. But only the presiding judge, currently Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, was notified of the government eavesdropping program. One judge, James Robertson, who also serves on the federal bench in Washington, resigned his seat on the surveillance court in protest shortly after the wiretapping was revealed by the New York Times in mid-December.

Kollar-Kotelly began pressing for a closed government briefing for the remaining members of the court on Dec. 19, the day she learned of Robertson's concerns. Other judges wanted to know, as Robertson had, whether the administration had misled their court about its sources of information on possible terrorism suspects.

Kollar-Kotelly had privately raised concerns in 2004 about the risk that the government could taint the integrity of the court's work by using information it gained via wiretapping to obtain warrants from judges under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

On Friday, an attorney for Seifullah Chapman, one of the men convicted as part of the "Virginia jihad network," formally asked federal prosecutors in Virginia to determine whether warrantless NSA wiretaps were used to gain information about his client. Chapman, who is serving a 65-year sentence for conspiring to provide material support to a foreign terrorist group, was the subject of a secret FISA warrant.

"My feeling is they are a very professional organization. They would be equally concerned that my client's rights are protected, and they'll want to find out themselves," said John Zwerling, Chapman's attorney.

Some judges who spoke on the condition of anonymity yesterday said they want to know whether warrants they signed were tainted by the NSA program. Depending on the answers, the judges said they could demand some proof that wiretap applications were not improperly obtained. Defense attorneys could have a valid argument to suppress evidence against their clients, some judges said, if information about them was gained through warrantless eavesdropping that was not revealed to the defense.

Yesterday, Rep. Jane Harman (Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the House intelligence committee, sent a letter to Bush charging that the limited nature of congressional briefings on the monitoring program violated the National Security Act. The White House informed the chairmen of the House and Senate intelligence oversight committees and the two ranking Democrats about the program.

The National Security Act requires the president to keep all members of the two committees fully informed of intelligence activities with the exception of those conducted covertly overseas. "In my view, failure to provide briefings to the full congressional intelligence committees is a continuing violation of the National Security Act," Harman wrote.

Staff writer Dafna Linzer contributed to this report.

© 2006 The Washington Post Company

[Vashner]

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/1/d/democratic_crybaby_seal.jpg

Yall need bottle? Babby like warm milk??

Yea CIA is just a baby Milk plant.. not 007 agents that kill people with wires, poison and little pen guns...

Pussies should get the fuck out of america... since ya'll fucking pussies want to get rid of or disclose every classifed program.

Hope to see the person that leaked this get the lethal injection like they deserve.

Treason...

[SA210]

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/1/d/democratic_crybaby_seal.jpg

Yall need bottle? Babby like warm milk??
Pussies should get the fuck out of america... since ya'll fucking pussies want to get rid of or disclose every classifed program.Hope to see the person that leaked this get the lethal injection like they deserve.Treason...http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b381/livindeadboi/JB/republican_seal_cuffs.jpg

[RobinsontoDuncan]

I really cant believe there are people who can defend this... tell me is there a reason for this blind loyalty to bush?

What has he done right that has made him so endared to you?

[SA210]

I really cant believe there are people who can defend this... tell me is there a reason for this blind loyalty to bush?

What has he done right that has made him so endared to you?There's no other answer they can give other than "You're questioning shows your against the troops."

They're lost, greedy, very ignorant, and selfish.

[Ocotillo]

http://images.dailykos.com/images/user/3/stickerequation.jpg

[SA210]

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b381/livindeadboi/bush_bookupsidedown.jpg

[boutons_]

http://www.creators.com/0101/LK/LK0104g.gif

[smeagol]

Pussies should get the fuck out of america... since ya'll fucking pussies want to get rid of or disclose every classifed program.
This is exactly the kind of rethoric that makes people like you look like idiots.

[RobinsontoDuncan]

Rhetorically they look like idiots, but have a look around, this is a nation of idiots.

They sound good because to the average dumb, biggoted american they look like kick ass cowboys with cool boots.... and that makes them great leaders.

[SA210]

Rhetorically they look like idiots, but have a look around, this is a nation of idiots.Oh, ok, well if u put it that way.

[xrayzebra]

Maybe Clinton didn't just get a head job after all, that would call for his impeachment. You know like searching YOUR home without warrants.




Artifices of impeachment
By Debra Saunders

Jan 5, 2006


The Left -- from The Nation's Katrina vanden Heuvel to Newsweek's Jonathan Alter -- has pulled out the impeachment card and is brandishing it as the weapon that will drive George W. Bush from the White House. This could be more than talk. Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer is consulting with legal eagles as she explores the idea.

I must say, I am tickled at their efforts. I supported impeaching the perjury-prone President Clinton, but preferred censure to removing him from office. I also saw the damage to Republicans who pushed to chase Clinton out of office.

But the Bush-haters won't heed history, not when they see an opportunity to relive the glory days of Watergate: Republicans evil; Democrats uncorrupted; reporters respected. As Alter wrote after the story broke that President Bush authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on international calls in efforts to uncover possible agents of al Qaeda, "Similar abuse of power was part of the impeachment charge brought against Richard Nixon in 1974."

Angry leftists are so hysterical that they cannot distinguish between government agents eavesdropping on a president's political enemies, and the data mining of international phone calls in an earnest effort to thwart another Sept. 11 terrorist attack. They don't see that Bush, rather then trying to hide his role in the effort, signed off on the program more than 30 times.

Warrantless wiretaps? Victoria Toensing, a former deputy assistant attorney general in the Reagan administration, called CNN recently to note that the Clinton administration authorized the warrantless search of the house of CIA employee Aldrich Ames.

But the Dems didn't talk of impeachment then.

George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley offers the best argument for impeachment -- not because he is persuasive, but because he is consistent. Turley said he supported the impeachment, conviction and removal of Clinton, and is advocating likewise for Bush, as the Bush wiretaps constitute "a clear and undeniable crime." (He ignores lawyers and judges who see the issue either as far from settled, or come down in Bush's favor.)

Turley added that what the Bushies did "wasn't necessary." The administration could have won warrants from the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act court. Out of tens of thousands of eavesdropping requests since 1979, Alter reported, FISA rejected only four.

Toensing countered that it was necessary. FISA's turndown rate is low because government lawyers don't push for warrants unless they know they'll win.

Don't forget that the feds wouldn't even ask for a warrant to tap the laptop computer of Zacarias Moussaoui, the French citizen who later pleaded guilty to conspiring with the Sept. 11 hijackers. Turley says they should have sought a warrant. Toensing says officials knew they would lose because they could not establish Moussaoui was an "agent of a foreign power."

Turley also argues that if Bush had problems with the FISA law, then he should have gone to Congress to change it. But to do so, Toensing noted, officials would have had to reveal their surveillance methods.

Turley's best argument: If the president can circumvent FISA, then "he can circumvent any federal law."

Are we at war? I asked him. "That's a good question." Then, after deriding Congress for passing war resolutions -- not declarations of war -- Turley said, "As a constitutional matter, no."

As a practical matter, though, the answer is yes -- as any soldier in Iraq or Afghanistan can tell you. I respect Turley, but in the real world, it makes sense to monitor international communications to prevent another attack -- in America or against Americans abroad.

Instead, Washington delivers lowball partisan politics. Too many Democrats support Bush when polls support Bush -- the war, the Patriot Act -- then turn on his policies when they think they can get away with it. They don't think about the impact on U.S. soldiers on foreign soil.

This whole NSA story reinforces the fact that Bush is willing to be unpopular, risk the White House even, to get the job done, while too many of his Democratic critics will walk over anyone to stand up for their lack of principles.



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

Find this story at: http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/debrasaunders/2006/01/05/181093.html

[ChumpDumper]

So you like Clinton now?

[xrayzebra]

So you like Clinton now?


Nope, still don't like him. Don't like his wife(?) either. Both are
crooked as a snake. Just point out that Clinton really did violate
a U.S. citizens rights, he authorized someone to go into his home
and search without a warrant. He also obtained 500 citizens, all
republicans, if I recall correctly, FBI files. Oh, by someone, who knows
who hired him, never found out did we. Also, wasn't it clinton who
cleared out the WH travel office of career employees and put his own
bunch in there?

[SA210]

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b381/livindeadboi/bush_mantra.jpg

[xrayzebra]

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b381/livindeadboi/bush_mantra.jpg

So your boy, Clinton, never did anything wrong?

SA210=stuck under a bridge

[SA210]

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b381/livindeadboi/bush_mantra.jpg

[xrayzebra]

your really do know how to prove a point. You really are stuck under
the bridge. You and boutons are going to run out of web space you
keep posting all the "pretty" pictures. :lol :elephant :elephant :elephant

[SA210]

^^^^ and still I ask, what have you brought to the table that changes the fact that Bush is a liar and ppl are dead for it and he should be impeached?

[ChumpDumper]

Nope, still don't like him. Don't like his wife(?) either. Both are
crooked as a snake. Just point out that Clinton really did violate
a U.S. citizens rights, he authorized someone to go into his home
and search without a warrant. He also obtained 500 citizens, all
republicans, if I recall correctly, FBI files. Oh, by someone, who knows
who hired him, never found out did we. Also, wasn't it clinton who
cleared out the WH travel office of career employees and put his own
bunch in there?Well, you're the idiots who impeached him for a blowjob -- seems you should've gotten your shit together a little better. Too bad for you.

[xrayzebra]

^^^^ and still I ask, what have you brought to the table that changes the fact that Bush is a liar and ppl are dead for it and he should be impeached?

Told you more than once. Bush isn't a liar. Lets use a little example of
a really terrible thing that happened day before yesterday. How come
the media ran with a story that 12 miners were alive. That was the best
information they had at the time and everyone-----repeat-----everyone
was saying they were alive. It was wrong information, but they acted on
it. Now apply that to Clinton/Bush administrations. All the information they
had, and everyone, including the European countries were saying, that
Saddam had WMD. It was logical, since, you know, he did use
WMD on more than one occasion. Also he would not let inspectors into
all areas to verify he didn't have them. Bush didn't lie. I know you wont
accept that fact, because it doesn't fit your little outlook on life, but it
is a fact. And before you forget it again we lost a few thousand people
in the WTC bombing. And Iraq was supporting terrorist, that is a fact,
whether you will admit it or not.

[ChumpDumper]

And before you forget it again we lost a few thousand people
in the WTC bombing.More attempted linkage.

Weak.

[SA210]

Told you more than once. Bush isn't a liar. Lets use a little example of
a really terrible thing that happened day before yesterday. How come
the media ran with a story that 12 miners were alive. That was the best
information they had at the time and everyone-----repeat-----everyone
was saying they were alive. It was wrong information, but they acted on
it. Now apply that to Clinton/Bush administrations. All the information they
had, and everyone, including the European countries were saying, that
Saddam had WMD. It was logical, since, you know, he did use
WMD on more than one occasion. Also he would not let inspectors into
all areas to verify he didn't have them. Bush didn't lie. I know you wont
accept that fact, because it doesn't fit your little outlook on life, but it
is a fact. And before you forget it again we lost a few thousand people
in the WTC bombing. And Iraq was supporting terrorist, that is a fact,
whether you will admit it or not.

These are Dubyas words. Is he lying then or is he lying now? Was he for a court order for wiretaps before he was against it? :lol I know I know, i'm stuck under a bridge. :lol

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



Next.

[xrayzebra]

These are Dubyas words. Is he lying then or is he lying now? Was he for a court order for wiretaps before he was against it? :lol I know I know, i'm stuck under a bridge. :lol

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



Next.

I give you an argument and you repeat the same old crap.

Court orders are required on "domestic" wire taps. They are also
required for a pen register (you know what that is?) The listening
he was doing was on "international" calls. Maybe from a phone
in the US and maybe not. But you don't need a court order to
listen in on international calls. Those are facts.

[FromWayDowntown]

I give you an argument and you repeat the same old crap.

Court orders are required on "domestic" wire taps. They are also
required for a pen register (you know what that is?) The listening
he was doing was on "international" calls. Maybe from a phone
in the US and maybe not. But you don't need a court order to
listen in on international calls. Those are facts.

That is NOT a fact. If you bug a phone in the United States, you have to have a warrant. Period. It doesn't matter that you're "only" listening to calls coming in from overseas -- though I have to say that I'm hard-pressed to understand how one could bug a phone to listen in only on international calls; there may be some technology there that I'm not familiar with, but it would seem to me that a tap will hear all calls, regardless of their source. As long as the White House was eavesdropping domestically, it HAD to have a warrant to comply with the 4th Amendment and the laws that Congress has enacted to aid the Executive in obtaining warrants. Then again, the Constitution continues to be a trifiling issue for this White House, so I can see why all of the parrots are repeating this "Bush broke no law" mantra. Say anything enough and you'll eventually begin to believe it.

[SA210]

That is NOT a fact. If you bug a phone in the United States, you have to have a warrant. Period. It doesn't matter that you're "only" listening to calls coming in from overseas -- though I have to say that I'm hard-pressed to understand how one could bug a phone to listen in only on international calls; there may be some technology there that I'm not familiar with, but it would seem to me that a tap will hear all calls, regardless of their source. As long as the White House was eavesdropping domestically, it HAD to have a warrant to comply with the 4th Amendment and the laws that Congress has enacted to aid the Executive in obtaining warrants. Then again, the Constitution continues to be a trifiling issue for this White House, so I can see why all of the parrots are repeating this "Bush broke no law" mantra. Say anything enough and you'll eventually begin to believe it.


Xray=OWNED

[xrayzebra]

That is NOT a fact. If you bug a phone in the United States, you have to have a warrant. Period. It doesn't matter that you're "only" listening to calls coming in from overseas -- though I have to say that I'm hard-pressed to understand how one could bug a phone to listen in only on international calls; there may be some technology there that I'm not familiar with, but it would seem to me that a tap will hear all calls, regardless of their source. As long as the White House was eavesdropping domestically, it HAD to have a warrant to comply with the 4th Amendment and the laws that Congress has enacted to aid the Executive in obtaining warrants. Then again, the Constitution continues to be a trifiling issue for this White House, so I can see why all of the parrots are repeating this "Bush broke no law" mantra. Say anything enough and you'll eventually begin to believe it.

They were not bugging a telephone in the US, they were monitoring the
international frequencies used in satellite communications. Calls
coming into/out of the US. No person is actually involved. The computer
uses a program that listens for certain words/phrases and earmarks
them for someone to actually listen to them. We and other governments
do it all over the world. More than likely the monitoring was not even
done in the US but some overseas listening post.

[boutons_]

"how one could bug a phone to listen in only on international calls;"

I not an expert on telephony or the state of telephone networks, but I'm pretty sure ALL voice is now digitized, and 1000s of conversations travel over a single strand of fiber, domesticaly or crossing oceans, travelling over the same pipes as computer traffic, which is, of course, digital.

What I understood was that the commercial telephone/data network operators were cooperating with the feds in allowing them to vacuum all data right out of the main network switches, essentially a fishing expedition, sucking in everything, and probably storing as much of it as possible, but it would be huge, many terabytes per day or hour.

We are not talking about the feds not/getting a warrant to drive over to your local branch exchange and placing a "bug" on the 2 telephone wires that go to your house.

[RobinsontoDuncan]

Um I'm gonna call bullshit on xray's international calls theory, they issue is that Bush is using wiretaps on american citizens, domestic wiretaps, wiretaps that the administration has admited have been used for suspected terrorists and applied without hesitation on all calls comming in and out of the "suspects" phone.

And as for the inteligence, bush knew that the intellegence was unrealiable...because the breifs he had all had very large, boldface disclaimers.

THIS IS JUST SPECULATION: NOT A CERTAINITY

[SA210]

^^^ yes, but Xrays only response, much like Gtown's is to call you a traitor and tell u to get out of America because your against the troops, or he'll ignore it, go away, then come back tomorrow spewing the same garbage pretentding this all never took place.

[IceColdBrewski]

I really cant believe there are people who can defend this... tell me is there a reason for this blind loyalty to bush?


http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/images/911Report_Ch9_img4.jpg

[Oh, Gee!!]

didn't you pick USC over TX?

[SA210]

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/images/911Report_Ch9_img4.jpg


Oh yea, that's why he won the election.

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b381/livindeadboi/bush_wake_up.jpg

[Ocotillo]

"Give me liberty or give me death." - Patrick Henry

"Here's my liberty, spare me death." - Bush apologists

[ChumpDumper]

I thought it was "Give me WMDs or give me a link to Osama or, hell give me any reason to invade Iraq. I'll buy the ribbons."

[SA210]

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b381/livindeadboi/bush_thepetgoat.jpg

[xrayzebra]

^^^ yes, but Xrays only response, much like Gtown's is to call you a traitor and tell u to get out of America because your against the troops, or he'll ignore it, go away, then come back tomorrow spewing the same garbage pretentding this all never took place.

Who the hell did I call a traitor? You silly, silly person. I will call you what
you are, a silly twerp who has no sense of reasoning. You and your buddies
live in you dream world. You are so lucky you have some people of reason
protecting your rear end.

[SA210]

Well, Bush sure ain't protecting it.

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b381/livindeadboi/bush_codpiece.jpg

[xrayzebra]

Well, Bush sure ain't protecting it.

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b381/livindeadboi/bush_codpiece.jpg

Another silly editorial cartoon, posted by the the same silly person:
SA210=stuck under a bridge

[SA210]

Hey Xray, your post doesn't change the fact that it was just a Photo opportunity for Bush and staged.

Xray=Disgruntled selfish man

[RobinsontoDuncan]

^^

ha ha he answers your insults to him that were a response to what i wrote.... then he completelty ignores my post... wow he proved you right!

[SA210]

:lol

[RobinsontoDuncan]

bump til he answers my post

[Yonivore]

Well, you're the idiots who impeached him for a blowjob -- seems you should've gotten your shit together a little better. Too bad for you.
You're the idiot who doesn't know what perjury, suborning perjury, and obstruction of justice are. But, if you consider these lesser crimes than receiving a blowjob -- fine -- he was impeached for receiving a blowjob.

[Yonivore]

"Give me liberty or give me death." - Patrick Henry

"Here's my liberty, spare me death." - Bush apologists
Name one liberty you've lost since President Bush was inaugurated on January 21, 2001.

"If Al Qaeda calls you, I want to know what you're talking about. I think that's reasonable." -- President Bush.

[Trainwreck2100]

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b381/livindeadboi/bush_mantra.jpg


What happened to blaming the Arabs????

[boutons_]

Mantras 1, 2, 3 should be "9/11".

And no "national security" mantra, the ancient catchall, coverall "reason" for any old thing they want to do illegally or secretly. This one goes way back, at least to Nixon.

[Ocotillo]

Name one liberty you've lost since President Bush was inaugurated on January 21, 2001.

"If Al Qaeda calls you, I want to know what you're talking about. I think that's reasonable." -- President Bush.

Bush claims he can listen to my calls without a warrant. If the calls are from al qaeda, FISA courts will grant him a warrant. When the executive branch is spying on our citizens without a check and balance, someone's liberty is being infringed upon. When one American's liberty is infringed upon, all of our liberty is infringed upon.

Bush's statements don't wash. The constitutional protections we have are to protect against what Bush is doing. If I am communicating with the enemy, any court will grant a warrant. Without the warrant, we have no idea who they are spying on and why.

[Ocotillo]

Why do you hate what America stands for Yoni?

[SA210]

Why is Yoni against the troops?

[RobinsontoDuncan]

why don't conservatives give a rats ass about our bill of rights?

[ChumpDumper]

You're the idiot who doesn't know what perjury, suborning perjury, and obstruction of justice are.I didn't see a conviction. Seems like all that other stuff would've been real nice in an impeachment and would have stuck better than lying about a blowjob.

[SA210]

Coming Soon to a News Channel near You

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b381/livindeadboi/JB/rove_arrested.jpg

[implacable44]

There's no other answer they can give other than "You're questioning shows your against the troops."

They're lost, greedy, very ignorant, and selfish.

yes -- we all are - or is there another possibility ? Maybe we understand - maybe you would actually believe that if we just stick to isolationism and leave the terrorists alone - that everyone in the world will leave us alone. There will be no terrorist action against the USA - no hate for us or our society - IF we would only isolate and continue our movement towards a secular - socialist society then we will be fine.

I for one do not believe that garbage. It is funny to note that all of these folks whining about NSA wiretaps - the Boxers etc.. all knew about this when it happened - they were consulted and advised -- and they were okay with it. why ? because they understood -- they knew --- they recognized -- it was shortly after 9/11 -- do you remember that day ??? do you remember how you felt ? - well maybe not you in particular but the nation as a whole. I do - I still do. Bush lied -- blah blah - well then so did clinton and chirach and putin and every other intelligence agency in the world - led on by that most corrupt of all organizations the UN.

[implacable44]

I didn't see a conviction. Seems like all that other stuff would've been real nice in an impeachment and would have stuck better than lying about a blowjob.

oh yeah -- was that the only error of william jefferson and his husband ?

[ChumpDumper]

oh yeah -- was that the only error of william jefferson and his husband ?Those were the charges -- if they had something more substantial, they had their chance to make the charges.

[SA210]

it was shortly after 9/11 -- do you remember that day ??? do you remember how you felt ? .

Yes, I do.

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b381/livindeadboi/bush_9-12-04.jpg

[implacable44]

Those were the charges -- if they had something more substantial, they had their chance to make the charges.

whitewater?

[ChumpDumper]

whitewater?Was that included in the charges?

[implacable44]

Yes, I do.

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b381/livindeadboi/bush_9-12-04.jpg

actually you might want to find a picture from a few years earlier with William Jefferson in it after they tried to sink the Cole --

[implacable44]

Was that included in the charges?

Well don't reduce it to just oral sex and perjury and then attempt to minimize the effects. If Clinton had any balls we would have resolved this after the Cole and not had to worry about 9/11.

[ChumpDumper]

Well don't reduce it to just oral sex and perjury and then attempt to minimize the effects.Why wouldn't I? He wasn't convicted.

[SA210]

Let's focus on how Bush didn't have one meeting on Bin Laden until after Sept. 11, even after he got the CIA briefing that warned him.

or let's talk about the seven minutes Your president spent after learning both planes hit and America was under attack.


The mark of TRUE leader. :tu
http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b381/livindeadboi/bush_wake_up.jpg

[implacable44]

Why wouldn't I? He wasn't convicted.

oh yeah -- has bush ?

[ChumpDumper]

oh yeah -- has bush ?Plenty of time for that, though I doubt it would happen.

[implacable44]

Let's focus on how Bush didn't have one meeting on Bin Laden until after Sept. 11, even after he got the CIA briefing that warned him.

or let's talk about the seven minutes Your president spent after learning both planes hit and America was under attack.


The mark of TRUE leader. :tu
http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b381/livindeadboi/bush_wake_up.jpg

Why would he have ? -according to his predecessor - he was not a priority?

the 7 minutes?? is this you Michael Moore?

[implacable44]

Plenty of time for that, though I doubt it would happen.


well then I guess he will be guilty of far less that William Clinton

[ChumpDumper]

well then I guess he will be guilty of far less that William Clinton0 = 0

[implacable44]

0 = 0

well no - he perjured himself that is known. and he cheated on his wife - that is known.

[ChumpDumper]

well no - he perjured himself that is known. and he cheated on his wife - that is known.And he was convicted of what?

[implacable44]

And he was convicted of what?

in which court?

[ChumpDumper]

in which court?Of law.

[implacable44]

Of law.

I mean like the same one that is the title of this thread? or moral law? public opinion ?

He admitted to having contact with that woman - which -- well since he admitted it is similar in effect to a conviction - then when he admitted it - well didn't he become a liar ?

[SA210]

Why would he have ? -according to his predecessor - he was not a priority?
So much not a priority, that Clinton had meetings on Bin Laden every week, FACT. He just didn't catch him. More than what Dubya can say.



he was not a priority?
Better ask this guy. And this is AFTER 9/11 :lol what a moron Bush is.
http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b381/livindeadboi/bush_binladen.jpg



the 7 minutes?? is this you Michael Moore?
Does this comment change the fact that it happened? I don't think so.
http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b381/livindeadboi/bush_wake_up.jpg

[ChumpDumper]

well since he admitted it is similar in effect to a convictionSince it's not a crime, no.

Look, the whole blowjob impeachment was a last gasp by neocons who couldn't pin anything else on Clinton they had spent millions of dollars investigating like Whitewater. Everyone saw that it failed to reach the level of high crimes and midemeanors and the trial was a miserable failure for Bill's opponents.

As for Bush? He's either a liar or has tremendously bad judgment. I'll believe either one at this point.

[SA210]

I say Liar and has tremendously bad judgment.

[implacable44]

So much not a priority, that Clinton had meetings on Bin Laden every week, FACT. He just didn't catch him. More than what Dubya can say.


WELL IF HE WAS so important to Clinton - then why wasn't he given any importance at all in the papers Clinton gave to Bush ? What got lost ? Maybe he pardoned him along with all those other criminals he pardoned when he left office ????

Better ask this guy. And this is AFTER 9/11 :lol what a moron Bush is.
http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b381/livindeadboi/bush_binladen.jpg

He might pick both of them - being that Clinton let him try to sink the Cole and blow up the WTC without any reciprocation.

Does this comment change the fact that it happened? I don't think so.
http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b381/livindeadboi/bush_wake_up.jpg


who cares? what would you have done ?

[implacable44]

Since it's not a crime, no.

Look, the whole blowjob impeachment was a last gasp by neocons who couldn't pin anything else on Clinton they had spent millions of dollars investigating like Whitewater. Everyone saw that it failed to reach the level of high crimes and midemeanors and the trial was a miserable failure for Bill's opponents.

As for Bush? He's either a liar or has tremendously bad judgment. I'll believe either one at this point.


Your choice. I just thank the Lord everyday he was in the White house on 9/11 instead of Al Gore or William Jefferson.

[smeagol]

Both Clinton and Bush are liars.

What else is new?

[implacable44]

Both Clinton and Bush are liars.

What else is new?

and they both apparently have bad judgment - see Lewinsky .....and hillary

[SA210]

who cares? what would you have done ?
:lmao That's your rebuttal? I'm not the President, but I know Clinton would've gotten his butt up. As much as You hate him, it's true.

I thought Bush set a record for not reacting to a crisis when I saw his seven minutes lost in space, He proved me wrong when he stayed on vacation for four days.


http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b381/livindeadboi/bush_hurricane_cake.jpg

[ChumpDumper]

Your choice. I just thank the Lord everyday he was in the White house on 9/11 instead of Al Gore or William Jefferson.Sure didn't help the victims that day either way, did it?

[implacable44]

:lmao That's your rebuttal? I'm not the President, but I know Clinton would've gotten his butt up. As much as You hate him, it's true.

I thought Bush set a record for not reacting to a crisis when I saw his seven minutes lost in space, He proved me wrong when he stayed on vacation for four days.


http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b381/livindeadboi/bush_hurricane_cake.jpg


you mean he would have gotten up from the desk - kicked monica out and done.......nothing just like after '93 and just like the Cole ?

[implacable44]

Sure didn't help the victims that day either way, did it?


It helped the nation. You can think what you want about him Chump - I think a different way. You aren't gooing to change my thought process nor am I going to affect yours. It is good to discuss and entertaining but we see the world in different ways.

[SA210]

It is good to discuss and entertaining but we see the world in different ways.
http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b381/livindeadboi/JB/cheney_grab.jpg

[implacable44]

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b381/livindeadboi/JB/cheney_grab.jpg


exactly -- that is what all us conservatives want - world domination - the empire.

[SA210]

At least one of u is honest, somewhat.

[implacable44]

At least one of u is honest, somewhat.


no you got it all figured out rocky -- all conservatives want the world to be subject to us - which should fit right in with your socialist - liberal plans because then we will take care of your lazy, slothful nature and make sure you really are a victim like you pretend to be and that is why you need to government to take care of you. see - just conform brother and we will both get what we want

[SA210]

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b381/livindeadboi/bush_iraqass.jpg

[implacable44]

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b381/livindeadboi/bush_iraqass.jpg


thats it man - get on board.

[SA210]

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b381/livindeadboi/bush_great_in_uniform.jpg

[implacable44]

exactly -- only minorities - and don't forget how he blew up those levies to kill more minorities -- oh but that backfired and more white folks died.

[SA210]

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b381/livindeadboi/bush_enduringvacation.jpg

[implacable44]

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b381/livindeadboi/bush_enduringvacation.jpg

State of LA. - Has a governor and a mayor responsible for it's people - both dropped the ball and both know blame the feds - had bush stepped in immediately - they ( and you) would have been all over him for grandstanding and usurping authority over the states - See how the Hurricane was handled in Texas ? The governor.

[implacable44]

ouch I just stubbed my toe - It is the governments fault that I stubbed my toe and someone must pay.

[Oh, Gee!!]

State of LA. - Has a governor and a mayor responsible for it's people - both dropped the ball and both know blame the feds - had bush stepped in immediately - they ( and you) would have been all over him for grandstanding and usurping authority over the states - See how the Hurricane was handled in Texas ? The governor.


you didn't credit your source.

[SA210]

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b381/livindeadboi/bush_femacalled.jpg

[boutons_]

heavens! Congress is finding their check-and-balances balls?

==============================


January 6, 2006
Report Questions Legal Basis for Bush's Spying Program
By ERIC LICHTBLAU
and SCOTT SHANE

WASHINGTON, Jan. 6 - President Bush's rationale for authorizing eavesdropping on American citizens without warrants rests on questionable legal ground and "may represent an exercise of presidential power at its lowest ebb," according to a formal Congressional analysis released today.

The analysis, conducted by the Congressional Research Service, an independent research arm of Congress, is the first formal assessment of a question that has gripped Washington for the last three weeks: Did President Bush act within the law when he ordered the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans?

While the Congressional report reached no bottom-line conclusions on whether the program is legal or not, it concluded that the legal rationale appears somewhat dubious. The legal rationale "does not seem to be as well-grounded" as the Bush administration's lawyers have suggested, and Congress did not appear to have intended to authorize warrantless wiretaps when it gave President Bush the authority to wage war against Al Qaeda in the days after the Sept. 11 attacks, the report concluded.

Bush administration lawyers quickly took issue with the report's conclusions, arguing that President Bush acted within his constitutional and statutory powers in approving the N.S.A. program.

"The president has made clear that he will use his constitutional and statutory authorities to protect the American people from further terrorist attacks," said Brian Roehrkasse, a spokesman for the Justice Department.

(Bullshit. The warrantless domestic spying is part of dickhead's anti-Consititutional, Executive-branch power-grab agenda. )

"As the attorney general has stated numerous times, the National Security Agency activities described by the president were conducted in accordance with the law and provide a critical tool in the war on terror that saves lives and protects civil liberties at the same time," Mr. Roehrkasse said.

But many Democrats and some Republicans said they found the doubts raised by Congressional report persuasive, pointing to it as another indication that President Bush may have overextended his authority in fighting terrorism.

Thomas H. Kean, the former chairman of the Sept. 11 commission, said he too doubts the legality of the program. Weighing in for the first time on the controversy, he said in an interview that the commission was never told of the operation and that he has strong doubts about whether it is authorized under the law.

Federal law under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, created in 1978, "gives very broad powers to the president and, except in very rare circumstances, in my view ought to be used," said Mr. Kean, a Republican and former governor of New Jersey. "We live by a system of checks and balances, and I think we ought to continue to live by a system of checks and balances."

Opinions on the N.S.A. domestic spying issue have broken down largely, though not exclusively, along partisan lines, causing public rifts between the top Republicans and Democrats on both the House and Senate Intelligence Committees.

But the analyses of the Congressional Research Service, part of the Library of Congress, are generally seen as objective and without partisan taint, said Eleanor Hill, who served as a Congressional staffer for 17 years and was staff director of the joint Congressional inquiry into the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

"My experience is that they're well respected in the Senate and House," said Ms. Hill, now a Washington lawyer in private practice. "I don't remember anybody attacking them for being partisan. They're more academic in approach."

* Copyright 2006The New York Times Company