Gonzo is Gone-zo

[George Gervin's Afro]

Continue such things and you will be deemed unreliable and put on my INGNORE list.

Shouldn't a person debate with factual intent? It's one thing to be wrong, but what you are doing cons utes a lie!

f*ck you...


Now that I have calmed down... I could easily spend my time finding websites/blogs/news sources..etc.. it's common sense... So which tsp pogram is it? we have multiple ones and it seems as though congress didn't know anything about it.. so did he lie? misspeak? foget?..which is it?

[Yonivore]

f*ck you...

You can't spell either. There's no asterisk in .

[exstatic]

perjury -> trial -> conviction -> pardon

Doesn't any of this look familiar? If it doesn't, it will soon.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

This guy's a bigger disgrace to the race than Clandestino.

[Nbadan]

Tom Daschle, one of the gang of 8, must be lying too...

Daschle: Gonzales Trying to "Rewrite History" by Blaming Congress for Ashcroft Spying Crisis
By Spencer Ackerman - July 24, 2007, 6:05 PM

Tom Daschle, the former Senate Democratic leader who received briefings on the Bush administration's warrantless surveillance programs, says Alberto Gonzales isn't telling the truth about what Senate and House leaders were told in March 2004 about the program's utility and legality.

In testimony today to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Gonzales attempted to give "context" for his infamous hospital trip to a convalescent John Ashcroft on March 10, 2004, after acting attorney general James Comey refused to authorize the surveillance program. It was only after a briefing for the so-called "Gang of Eight" bipartisan congressional leaders demanded that the program continue, Gonzales said, that he and then-White House chief of staff went to "inform" Ashcroft of the Gang's wishes.

Daschle was one of that Gang of Eight. In a statement e-mailed to TPMmuckraker, he all but calls Gonzales a liar.

"I have no recollection of such a meeting and believe that it didn't occur. I am quite certain that at no time did we encourage the AG or anyone else to take such actions. This appears to be another attempt to rewrite history just as they have attempted to do with the war resolution."

Daschle's statement bolsters one that his former Gang of Eight colleague, Senate intelligence committee chairman Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), gave to Dan Eggen of the Washington Post: Gonzales is "once again is making something up to protect himself," Rockefeller

TMC

[Yonivore]

Tom Daschle, one of the gang of 8, must be lying too...

Was his mouth moving?

[Yonivore]

Since the NSA Surveillance program is back in the news, this makes it a good time to review the sad history of how Democratic partisanship has damaged this program, and thereby impaired our national security.

The NSA program was set up shortly after September 11, 2001. The Justice Department issued an opinion that the program was legal, and authorized it to begin. Those authorizations continued for a period of years. The Republican and Democratic leaders of both the House and the Senate, and the senior members of the intelligence committees of both chambers, were aware of the program and approved of it.

Then, in late 2005, the New York Times, acting on information leaked from intelligence sources, exposed the program to al Qaeda and our other terrorist enemies. This changed the political calculus for the Democrats. They now saw an opportunity to use the program to attack the Bush administration, and did so. They took no responsibility for their former approval of the program, nor did they acknowledge that the program was consistent with multiple Federal Court decisions and had been certified as legal by the Department of Justice.

As a concession to the Democrats, the administration agreed, at the beginning of this year, to put the program under the jurisdiction of the FISA court. (Previously, the policy had been to obtain FISA orders when possible, but to rely on the President's cons utional authority to carry out warrantless surveillance for national security purposes where time constraints or other factors made it impractical to obtain such an order.) Today, the Wall Street Journal brings us up to date on what has been happening as a result:

This [agreeing to use FISA for foreign intelligence matters] has turned out to be an enormous mistake that has unilaterally disarmed one of our best intelligence weapons in the war on terror. To understand why, keep in mind that we live in a world of fiber optics and packet-switching. A wiretap today doesn't mean the FBI must install a bug on Abdul Terrorist's phone in Peshawar. Information now follows the path of least resistance, wherever that may lead. And because the U.S. has among the world's most efficient networks, hundreds of millions of foreign calls are routed through the U.S.

That's right: If an al Qaeda operative in Quetta calls a fellow jihadi in Peshawar, that call may well travel through a U.S. network. This ought to be a big U.S. advantage in our "asymmetrical" conflict with terrorists. But it also means that, for the purposes of FISA, a foreign call that is routed through U.S. networks becomes a domestic call. So thanks to the obligation to abide by an outdated FISA statute, U.S. intelligence is now struggling even to tap the communications of foreign-based terrorists. If this makes you furious, it gets worse.

Our understanding is that some FISA judges have been open to expediting warrants, as well as granting retroactive approval. But there are 11 judges in the FISA rotation, and some of them have been demanding that intelligence officials get permission in advance for wiretaps. This means missed opportunities and less effective intelligence. And it shows once again why the decisions of unaccountable judges shouldn't be allowed to supplant those of an elected Commander in Chief.

When the program began, certain U.S. telecom companies also cooperated with the National Security Agency. But they were sued once the program was exposed, and so some have ceased cooperating for fear of damaging liability claims. We found all of this hard to believe when we first heard it, but we've since confirmed the details with other high-level sources.

Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell more or less admitted the problem last week, albeit obliquely, when he told the Senate that "we're actually missing a significant portion of what we should be getting." That's understating things. Our sources say the surveillance program is now at most one-third as effective as it once was.

The administration has introduced legislation to modernize FISA and to give immunity to telecom companies who cooperate in terrorist surveillance, but the Democrats have blocked the legislation.

This is an infuriating story, and one that highlights the situation we currently face in Washington, where one party consistently puts its own political interests ahead of the national security of the United States.

[boutons_]

[George Gervin's Afro]

Since the NSA Surveillance program is back in the news, this makes it a good time to review the sad history of how Democratic partisanship has damaged this program, and thereby impaired our national security.

The NSA program was set up shortly after September 11, 2001. The Justice Department issued an opinion that the program was legal, and authorized it to begin. Those authorizations continued for a period of years. The Republican and Democratic leaders of both the House and the Senate, and the senior members of the intelligence committees of both chambers, were aware of the program and approved of it.

Then, in late 2005, the New York Times, acting on information leaked from intelligence sources, exposed the program to al Qaeda and our other terrorist enemies. This changed the political calculus for the Democrats. They now saw an opportunity to use the program to attack the Bush administration, and did so. They took no responsibility for their former approval of the program, nor did they acknowledge that the program was consistent with multiple Federal Court decisions and had been certified as legal by the Department of Justice.

As a concession to the Democrats, the administration agreed, at the beginning of this year, to put the program under the jurisdiction of the FISA court. (Previously, the policy had been to obtain FISA orders when possible, but to rely on the President's cons utional authority to carry out warrantless surveillance for national security purposes where time constraints or other factors made it impractical to obtain such an order.) Today, the Wall Street Journal brings us up to date on what has been happening as a result:


The administration has introduced legislation to modernize FISA and to give immunity to telecom companies who cooperate in terrorist surveillance, but the Democrats have blocked the legislation.

This is an infuriating story, and one that highlights the situation we currently face in Washington, where one party consistently puts its own political interests ahead of the national security of the United States.

you can still tap the lines at the time of the calls.. you can get a warrant after the fact... sheesh

[Yonivore]

you can still tap the lines at the time of the calls.. you can get a warrant after the fact... sheesh

Your poor reading skills caused you to, again, overlook an important bit of information.

But there are 11 judges in the FISA rotation, and some of them have been demanding that intelligence officials get permission in advance for wiretaps.

[Yonivore]

Today Tony Snow told the White House press corps that what Attorney General Roberto Gonzales told the Senate Judiciary Committee was correct: there was no disagreement in the Justice Department about the "terrorist surveillance program" which President Bush described to the American people in 2005. There was controversy, but that was over a different set of intelligence activities:

The terrorist surveillance program, as it has been labeled -- it was not so labeled at the time -- was a program of doing surveillance on communications of al Qaeda or suspected al Qaeda members internationally -- internationally into the United States. The legal basis of that was accepted by the Department of Justice, and it was not a matter of controversy. To the extent that there were controversies on -- there are many different things that involve the gathering or use of intelligence; some of those may, in fact, themselves have been subjects of controversy, there were controversies about those. It is also the case that whatever controversy had been raised by the then acting Attorney General had been resolved. And that is something that he has said publicly.

That seems pretty simple, but what is striking about the transcript of the press gaggle is the dim-wittedness of the reporters. It is hard to understand how well-paid professionals (I assume) can fail to follow such a simple point. One reporter went so far as to say that Snow was "contradicting himself" by drawing a distinction between the "terrorist surveillance program" and other intelligence activities. It's an interesting window into the thinking, or lack thereof, of the White House press corps.

In fairness to the journalists, however, they didn't go as wild as the Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee when they interrogated Gonzales earlier this week. That transcript is here. It's hard sometimes to tell the Democratic Senators from the protesters. If the Senators went any wilder, they'd be raising their shirts in exchange for beads.

Worst of all was Chuck Schumer, who made a show of pretending to misunderstand the basic facts that Gonzales told him. Given the anti-Gonzales tone of the press coverage, it is interesting to read what the Attorney General actually had to say. Here, he describes the hospital interview with then-Attorney General John Ashcroft, and what led up to it:

The consensus in the room from the congressional leadership is that we should continue the activities, at least for now, despite the objections of Mr. Comey.

There was also consensus that it would be very, very difficult to obtain legislation without compromising this program, but that we should look for a way ahead.

It is for this reason that within a matter of hours Andy Card and I went to the hospital. We felt it important that the attorney general knew about the views and the recommendations of the congressional leadership, that as a former member of Congress and as someone who had authorized these activities for over two years that it might be important for him to hear this information.

That was the reason that Mr. Card and I went to the hospital.

Obviously, we were concerned about the condition of General Ashcroft. We obviously knew he had been ill and had surgery. And we never had any intent to ask anything of him if we did not feel that he was competent.

When we got there, I will just say that Mr. Ashcroft did most of the talking. We were there maybe five minutes -- five to six minutes.

Mr. Ashcroft talked about the legal issues in a lucid form, as I've heard him talk about legal issues in the White House. But at the end of his description of the legal issues, he said, "I'm not making this decision. The deputy attorney general is."

And so Andy Card and I thanked him. We told him that we would continue working with the deputy attorney general and we left.

And so I just wanted to put in context for this committee and the American people why Mr. Card and I went. It's because we had an emergency meeting in the White House Situation Room, where the congressional leadership had told us, "Continue going forward with this very important intelligence activity."

Gonzales could see that some of the Senators were confused, and he offered to explain to them where the controversy resided, and why it was different from the "terrorist surveillance program" that President Bush had publicly disclosed. Of course, this would have to be done in closed session, since it involved disclosure of classified information:

Going back to the question about your credibility on whether there was dissent within the administration as to the terrorist surveillance program, was there any distinction between the terrorist surveillance program in existence on March 10th, when you and the chief of staff went to see Attorney General Ashcroft, contrasted with the terrorist surveillance program which President Bush made public in December of 2005?

Senator, this is a question that I should answer in a classified setting, quite frankly, because now you're asking me to hint or talk -- to hint about our operational activities. And I'd be happy to answer that question, but in a classified setting.

The Senators declined Gonzales's invitation. That tells you everything you need to know: they are not interested in learning the truth, but only in seeking political advantage. Finally, we have this colloquy between Schumer and Pat Leahy, who are sputtering over Gonzales's testimony that the controversial program was something other than the TSP:

But, Mr. Chairman, if I might, now what the attorney general is saying the way this is clarified is that Jim Comey was not talking about the program the president...

I'm going to ask for a review of the transcript, both of what Mr. Comey said...

Everyone knows that's not true.

... and what Mr. Gonzales said. There's a discrepancy here in sworn testimony. We're going to have to ask who's telling the truth, who's not.

Actually, Schumer and Leahy were wrong. There is no discrepancy between what Gonzales said and what Comey testified to.

Although Mr. Comey declined to say specifically what the business was that sent Mr. Gonzales to the bedside of Mr. Ashcroft in George Washington University Hospital, where he lay critically ill with pancrea is, it was clear that the subject was the National Security Agency’s secret domestic surveillance program.

If, in fact, the NSA Surveillance program had already been copped to by the President -- after the New York Times published it's existence, based on leaks -- why would Comey decline to say that's what they were talking about?

At the time, both the Times and I just assumed it was the NSA Program we've all come to know and love but, it now appears that may not be the case at all.

Maybe a special prosecutor should be appointed to investigate Schumer and Leahy.

[Wild Cobra]

You know what I see as absolutely un-American about this ordeal...

Gonzales’s testimony is purposely being taken to disagree with an FBI agents testimony. You know it's a clear witch-hunt and the basis for a drum-head trial when they are bow investigating Gonzales for perjury, and not the FBI agent. Isn't it possible that a discrepancy is on his part?

You liberal idiots should note this... Isn't it clear that the demonrats aren't concerned about the truth? They just want to use legal tools for destruction. They are Lawful-Evil!

You liberals want the evil types running our country?

[boutons_]

"investigating Gonzales for perjury"

Gonzalez has created a climate of distrust around himself (contributing to the long-established, total absence of credibility around this Exec) with his obscure, misleading, self-contradicting, don't-remember, etc, etc testimonies that has really pissed off both the Dems and Repug lawmakers. And is the fault of "evil" Congress?

Have you noted the condemning silence of Congressional Repugs?
NONE of them are defending Gonzalez.

[xrayzebra]

"investigating Gonzales for perjury"

Gonzalez has created a climate of distrust around himself (contributing to the long-established, total absence of credibility around this Exec) with his obscure, misleading, self-contradicting, don't-remember, etc, etc testimonies that has really pissed off both the Dems and Repug lawmakers. And is the fault of "evil" Congress?

Have you noted the condemning silence of Congressional Repugs?
NONE of them are defending Gonzalez.

No boutons you are wrong as two left feet. It is the
dimm-o-craps who are creating a climate of distrust in
this country in every way they can. Their only agenda is
to gain power by destroying every vestige of any
resistance to their agenda. You folks who support their
efforts will rue the day. You most assuredly will. Mark
my word. When the very fabric of this country has been
ripped and torn to shreds by the extremist of the
dimm-o-craptic party and they have regained absolute
power then they may, just may, I am not sure that will
even satisfy their appe e, because the dimm-o-craps
are made up of so many factions of extremist that they
in fighting may destroy in toto the country as a nation.

[Yonivore]

What I find completely laughable in all this is that Congress isn't even conducting their cons utional duties. They've failed to legislate, they've insinuated themselves into the Executive through hearing and investigations that have no legislative or oversight purpose -- other than to discover if they can find something, they don't know what, over which they can impeach someone (hopefully the president)

Now, in another extracons utional move, you've got Chuckie Schumer talking about abrogating yet another responsibility -- one they hope to ins ute without the customary ratification process normally required to amend our guiding do ent.

Senator Charles Shumer announced today that democrats will oppose the Cons ution.

The Politico reported:

New York Sen. Charles E. Schumer, a powerful member of the Democratic leadership, said Friday the Senate should not confirm another U.S. Supreme Court nominee under President Bush “except in extraordinary cir stances.”

“We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer told the American Cons ution Society convention in Washington. “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.”

Schumer’s assertion comes as Democrats and liberal advocacy groups are increasingly complaining that the Supreme Court with Bush’s nominees – Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel A. Alito – has moved quicker than expected to overturn legal precedents.

Here we have Schumer announcing that democrats will change Article 2 Section 2 of the Cons ution and take over the responsibility of appointing justices to the Supreme Court.

And, Congressional democrats wonder why they have the lowest approval ratings on record?

With all the rhetoric from the left about how Bush is trashing the cons ution, without so much as one shred of evidence, it would seem they would be equally outraged by an overt attempt to do the same by Democrats. Oh wait, what the am I saying!?!

[boutons_]

Gonzo's bull ting before Congress is more than just the TSA stuff:



With Gonzales Under Fire, FBI Violation Gains Notice
Senator Says '04 Case Adds to Concerns About Candor

By John Solomon
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, July 28, 2007; A03

Two weeks before President Bush won reelection in 2004, the FBI sent a rare report to its overseers: One of its agents had engaged in a willful and intentional violation of a law by improperly collecting financial records during a national security investigation.

The FBI concluded that the actions of the rookie agent amounted to "intelligence activities that . . . may be unlawful or contrary to executive order or presidential directive," according to a declassified memo from Oct. 21, 2004.

The incident was deemed serious enough for the bureau to notify both the President's Intelligence Oversight Board and the Justice Department, and to consider punishing the agent.

The violation was the only one after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that the FBI has specifically flagged as intentional. But it has attracted fresh attention because Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales testified six months later that no "verified case of civil liberties abuse" had occurred since the USA Patriot Act was enacted.

Gonzales told senators this week that his use of the word "abuse" was meant to narrowly refer only to intentional violations. "My view and the views of other leadership in the department is, in fact, when we're talking about abuses of the Patriot Act, we're talking about intentional, deliberate misuse of the Patriot Act," he testified Tuesday in explaining his 2005 remarks.

Gonzales was not the attorney general in October 2004, when Justice Department officials were informed about the FBI agent's intentional violation. But Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) said yesterday that the existence of the notification has added to concerns that Gonzales has not been fully candid in his testimony.

"Oversight by Congress to minimize abuse of government's power relies on full and honest answers from government officials," particularly with regard to Patriot Act matters, Leahy said in a statement. "Time and again this Attorney General has not met that obligation."

The issue of what Gonzales knew of FBI violations and when arose this month, when The Washington Post reported that the FBI had sent him at least half a dozen reports of legal or procedural violations before he gave his 2005 testimony.

In total, the FBI has told the White House and the Justice Department about a few hundred instances since 2001 in which its agents violated procedures or laws designed to protect the civil liberties and privacy of Americans. Most of the problems involved paperwork mistakes, the inadvertent collection of phone data for the wrong person or the collection of data past a legal deadline, officials have said.

Officials said the 2004 violation stands out because it is the sole occasion on which the FBI itself concluded that an agent intentionally violated safeguards on the use of national security letters, investigative tools that allow agents to gather phone, computer or bank records without court approval or a grand jury subpoena.

When the use of the letters was expanded by the Patriot Act, Congress decided that the tools could be used to gather the full credit reports of Americans in investigations related only to terrorism. In addition, agents seeking financial records are required to obtain the written approval of a senior supervisor with special authority for national security letters.

In the October 2004 case, the bureau concluded that a young agent acted on her own in gathering financial records without the approval of a high-ranking official, violating both bureau policy and the Right to Financial Privacy Act. The act blocks bank records from being accessed by government agencies without proper legal authority.

"In this instance the conduct . . . was wilful and intentional even though she did not realize that she had acted in contravention of the RFPA and Bureau policy," the October 2004 report said. "It should also be noted that SA [name redacted] was at the time a probationary agent."

"This matter has been referred to the FBI's Office of Professional Responsibility for such actions as may be appropriate," FBI Deputy Counsel Julie Thomas wrote to the presidential board charged with civilian oversight of the legality of U.S. intelligence activities. The bureau said yesterday that the agent was subsequently disciplined.

Details of what the investigation involved and which do ents were gathered were redacted from the copy of the memo that the bureau released publicly.

"The fact that the FBI considers this intentional and willful behavior speaks volumes," said Marcia Hofmann, a lawyer at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which helped win the release this summer of FBI do ents related to national security letters. "This is not a situation where a civil liberty group is putting that label on the conduct. It is the FBI itself, and I think the attorney general should have taken that very seriously."

The Justice Department said it stands by what Gonzales said in his initial testimony. "The Justice Department has routinely provided Congress with reports of intelligence collection mistakes and errors, and thus the Attorney General's testimony could not fairly be understood as a representation that such mistakes had not occurred since the passage of the Patriot Act," spokesman Dean Boyd said in a statement.

White House press secretary Tony Snow, responding to calls from some lawmakers for Gonzales to step down, reaffirmed yesterday that Bush still supports him. Although some lawmakers have said Gonzales misled them in testimony about another matter -- the administration's warrantless surveillance program -- Snow said Gonzales testified truthfully about that and "tried to be very accurate.

A White House spokeswoman, Dana Perino, accused Democrats of being on a "crusade" to destroy the attorney general.

( just as the Repugs did to the Clinton's in the 1990's)

Meanwhile, an internal Justice Department inquiry is looking into whether anyone involved in past abuses of national security letters or related tools called "exigent cir stances" letters should be held criminally or administratively liable.

Its Office of Professional Responsibility is reviewing whether lawyers in the FBI's national security law office -- who are responsible for ensuring that agents comply with the law -- failed to perform their job.

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

You dubya suckers carry on with your blind trust in this Exec. Nobody has any grounds not believe every syllable these assholes utter.

[xrayzebra]

You are right boutons, and we don't believe every syllable the
administration utter. Nor do we believe every syllable the
dimm-o-craps utter. But taken on a whole, the Republicans are
much more truthful than the dimm-o-craps. And the Republicans
are doing something to protect the country rather than declaring
our surrender to our enemy and wanting a terrorist bill of rights.
You know like the wonderful world of the New York Times
intelligence apparatus that gives our secrets to our enemies
via leaks from the dimm-o-craptic party

[Yonivore]

Yesterday's New York Times filled in the blanks on Alberto Gonzales's testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. As has already been discussed, Gonzales testified that he had visited John Ashcroft in the hospital to try to resolve a legal dispute that had developed over an intelligence program, but -- as he testified -- that the program in question was not the "terrorist surveillance program" that had been confirmed by President Bush, i.e., the interception of international communications where one participant is associated with al Qaeda. About that program, Gonzales said there had been no serious legal question.

This testimony was met with incredulity by the Senators. "Do you expect us to believe that?" Arlen Spector asked. Committee members Schumer and Leahy flatly accused Gonzales of lying, and called for a special prosecutor to carry out a perjury investigation. One thing I could never understand was why anyone cares: what difference would it make if Gonzales's hospital visit related to the "terrorist surveillance program," or to some other intelligence activity? And what reason would Gonzales have to lie about that fact?

Well, yesterday, the Times confirms that Gonzales told the truth. The legal dispute that broke out in 2004 was about the NSA's "data mining" project, in which databases of telephone records were reviewed for patterns suggestive of terrorist cells:

A 2004 dispute over the National Security Agency’s secret surveillance program that led top Justice Department officials to threaten resignation involved computer searches through massive electronic databases, according to current and former officials briefed on the program.
It is not known precisely why searching the databases, or data mining, raised such a furious legal debate. But such databases contain records of the phone calls and e-mail messages of millions of Americans, and their examination by the government would raise privacy issues.

What's comical about the Times' reporting is that the paper can't bring itself to acknowledge that this means Gonzales has been vindicated:

If the dispute chiefly involved data mining, rather than eavesdropping, Mr. Gonzales’ defenders may maintain that his narrowly crafted answers, while legalistic, were technically correct.

First, this paragraph of "analysis" is contradicted by the reporting contained in the same article, which doesn't say that the dispute was "chiefly" about data mining. It says it was about data mining, period. Further, there is nothing "narrowly crafted," "legalistic" or "technically correct" about Gonzales's testimony. It was truthful and fully accurate. He said that the legal controversy did not involve the program that was confirmed by President Bush, in which international communications where one party was associated with al Qaeda were intercepted. That is exactly what the Times reported today. The controversy involved a completely different program, which has been rumored but which the administration has never publicly confirmed. Yet the Times cannot bring itself to admit that Gonzales has been vindicated, and the Senators who called for a perjury investigation have been made to look foolish.

The Times adds to the anti-Gonzales tone of its article by mixing in a little false reporting. The paper says:

Mr. Gonzales defended the surveillance in an appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee in February 2006, saying there had been no internal dispute about its legality. He told the senators: “There has not been any serious disagreement about the program that the president has confirmed. There have been disagreements about other matters regarding operations, which I cannot get into.”

Mr. Gonzales’s 2006 testimony went unchallenged publicly until May of this year, when James B. Comey, the former deputy attorney general, described the March 2004 confrontation to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Comey had refused to sign a reauthorization for the N.S.A. program when he was standing in for Mr. Ashcroft, who was hospitalized for gall bladder surgery.

In fact, James Comey's testimony did not contradict Gonzales's. As I have pointed out repeatedly, Comey refused to identify the program over which there was a legal disagreement that led to the hospital visit. He did not, contrary to the Times's assertion, challenge or contradict Gonzales's testimony that "[t]here has not been any serious disagreement about the program that the president has confirmed. There have been disagreements about other matters regarding operations, which I cannot get into.”

The fact is that the Senators who ridiculed Gonzales, questioned his credibility and called for a perjury investigation were wrong -- particularly in light of the fact he offered to go into closed session and explain the difference to them. They owe the Attorney General an apology.

[boutons_]

[peewee's lovechild]

You liberals want the evil types running our country?

Is that the same as having people with corrupt ties to the oil industry lead our country to a war with a country that has large amounts of oil deposits??

I think the evil types are already running our country.
Most of us want to change that.

[peewee's lovechild]

No boutons you are wrong as two left feet. It is the
dimm-o-craps who are creating a climate of distrust in
this country in every way they can. Their only agenda is
to gain power by destroying every vestige of any
resistance to their agenda. You folks who support their
efforts will rue the day. You most assuredly will. Mark
my word. When the very fabric of this country has been
ripped and torn to shreds by the extremist of the
dimm-o-craptic party and they have regained absolute
power then they may, just may, I am not sure that will
even satisfy their appe e, because the dimm-o-craps
are made up of so many factions of extremist that they
in fighting may destroy in toto the country as a nation.

This comment makes so much sense because our country went through 8 years of Democratic leadership under Bill Clinton and our society was ripped to shreds and the country had to start all over again and the extremists took over and all was lost and . . . . . . . .

[peewee's lovechild]

You are right boutons, and we don't believe every syllable the administration utter. Nor do we believe every syllable the
dimm-o-craps utter. But taken on a whole, the Republicans are
much more truthful than the dimm-o-craps.

That implies that they do lie, and that you accept that they lie.
So, basically you're defending liars.
What's the point in that?

And the Republicans are doing something to protect the country rather than declaring our surrender to our enemy and wanting a terrorist bill of rights.
You know like the wonderful world of the New York Times
intelligence apparatus that gives our secrets to our enemies
via leaks from the dimm-o-craptic party

You are an absolute, paranoid idiot if you think the Dems, or any other party for that matter, are actually trying to get any type of enemy to come over here and wipe us out.

If you truly believe that, then maybe you should think about moving to a "safe" country where everyone gets along and political parties are always cordial with each other.

[George Gervin's Afro]

That implies that they do lie, and that you accept that they lie.
So, basically you're defending liars.
What's the point in that?



You are an absolute, paranoid idiot if you think the Dems, or any other party for that matter, are actually trying to get any type of enemy to come over here and wipe us out.

If you truly believe that, then maybe you should think about moving to a "safe" country where everyone gets along and political parties are always cordial with each other.

He believes everyword he writes...he fears the 'dimmo-crap-tic' party more than the terrorists..

[peewee's lovechild]

I know who I trust and it damn well isn't a bunch of
's in Congress who want us to lose a war, our
freedom and and bunch of dumbass whimps like you
boutons who have already given up on us winning
anything. And never even consider what the alternatives
to us not winning. What a dumb, short memory you
have. Not even considering 9/11 two, just consider
the other attacks on us. BEFORE BUSH! You stupid,
stupid, silly people.

Paranoia will destroy 'ya!!!

There's a little war we fought that you should read up on. It was known as "Vietnam". We went, fought, killed, got killed, spent money, spent lives, aaaaaaaaaaaand then we came home. We didn't win, we didn't lose (we could never call it that) . . . it was a bit of a stalemate.

But, our country didn't die. Our society didn't implode. We did look like asses, but that didn't kill our country.

What we did lose was credibility. We regained some, especially when the Iron Curtain fell, but it seems that we have lost it all over again. But now, with the Gonzalez allegations and other recent occurances that are traced to the current administration, it's a loss of credibility within our own country.

That will all soon be resolved with the new elections.

The American society has already spoken by making a change in Congress, now we have to see what our society says about the direction of our country.

[peewee's lovechild]

He believes everyword he writes...he fears the 'dimmo-crap-tic' party more than the terrorists..

That is pretty damn sad.