Washington Post: Bush authorized domestic spying...

[Paul McEnery]

Okay, but how do you jibe this with your redefinition of "Conservative" as meaning "Authoritarian?" More specifically what is your rationale for doing so? (You've explained the liberal/conservative-liberal part fine enough.)
:evilsmile Spite, of course. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

But seriously: because the neofascist alliance of nationalist, corporate, military, and religious interests has co-opted the term. I can't hear the word Conservative anymore without thinking of nutballs like Coulter, dirtbags like Limbaugh, or skeeves like DeLay.

Liberal turned into a caricature because of Gingrich and talk radio. I think that's a damn shame. But so too did Conservative. Same damn people debasing the language in order to debase the country.

[cactusmaac]

You're right. It is harsh. If Paul doesn't mind, I'll amend it a bit.

Liberalism is about the search for progressive movement and a constant evolution of ideas, behaviors, and more. Conservatism (as opposed to conservative liberalism) is a deliberate choice to keep things the way they are or bring people and society back to earlier days where a civilization becomes stagnant by trusting itself to focus on what it considers to be core family values among other things.

That's a bit wordy. How about liberals want forward movement, conservatives don't?

Or from a different perspective: Conservatives prefer to go with what history and human experience have proven to work, while liberals will adopt any dumb-ass idea as long as it appeals to their ego.

[Paul McEnery]

Or from a different perspective: Conservatives prefer to go with what history and human experience have proven to work, while liberals will adopt any dumb-ass idea as long as it appeals to their ego.
I have no problem with that as an answer. :D

Again, the big problem is the distinction between conservative temperament and the neofascist alliance that has, in America, co-opted the term Conservatism.

Sort of like how no reasonable English person would want to be associated with Ann Widdecombe. :D

[Noah Johnson]

Or from a different perspective: Conservatives prefer to go with what history and human experience have proven to work, while liberals will adopt any dumb-ass idea as long as it appeals to their ego.
Well, something to that. We can be overenthusiastic sometimes, no denying it.

However, you're conveniently ignoring the fact that the modern American version of conservatism is demonstrably devoted to things that history and human experience have proven NOT to work.

I understand and respect that there are decent, respectable, level-headed conservatives with actual principles. But the cabal currently running my country ain't them.

[BlairH]

I understand and respect that there are decent, respectable, level-headed conservatives with actual principles.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is the man who said this earlier:

And really, that is the problem with the modern right wing. You have principles

So you like the conservatives with principles but not the conservatives with principles. I think I get it :)

[Adam Crocker]

Ladies and gentlemen, this is the man who said this earlier:

So you like the conservatives with principles but not the conservatives with principles. I think I get it :)

Hahahahahaha!

[phoenixrising]

I'm actually applled that anyone is defending this domestic syping program. It isn't a matter of opinion or politics. This isn't "I think it's wrong, you think it's right." There is in fact a very scientific and proven answer to this: It is illegal. Period. There is not a law on the books that makes this a legal action.

There are three branches of government for a reason. Just because the current president has somehow made a large percentage of the nation believe the judicial branch exists only to agree with his policies - the Constitution does not.

[Noah Johnson]

Ladies and gentlemen, this is the man who said this earlier:



So you like the conservatives with principles but not the conservatives with principles. I think I get it :)
Heh. I was wondering if anyone would notice that. Yeah, awkward phrasing there on my part. I trust the distinction being drawn is obvious, though, right?

[Samurai]

Guess what? This domestic spying by the NSA is nothing new at all, and the news media knew it!

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/12/18/221452.shtml

Clinton NSA Eavesdropped on U.S. Calls

During the 1990's under President Clinton, the National Security Agency monitored millions of private phone calls placed by U.S. citizens and citizens of other countries under a super secret program code-named Echelon.

On Friday, the New York Times suggested that the Bush administration has instituted "a major shift in American intelligence-gathering practices" when it "secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without [obtaining] court-approved warrants."

But in fact, the NSA had been monitoring private domestic telephone conversations on a much larger scale throughout the 1990s - all of it done without a court order, let alone a catalyst like the 9/11 attacks.

In February 2000, for instance, CBS "60 Minutes" correspondent Steve Kroft introduced a report on the Clinton-era spy program by noting:

"If you made a phone call today or sent an e-mail to a friend, there's a good chance what you said or wrote was captured and screened by the country's largest intelligence agency. The top-secret Global Surveillance Network is called Echelon, and it's run by the National Security Agency."

NSA computers, said Kroft, "capture virtually every electronic conversation around the world."

Echelon expert Mike Frost, who spent 20 years as a spy for the Canadian equivalent of the National Security Agency, told "60 Minutes" that the agency was monitoring "everything from data transfers to cell phones to portable phones to baby monitors to ATMs."

Mr. Frost detailed activities at one unidentified NSA installation, telling "60 Minutes" that agency operators "can listen in to just about anything" - while Echelon computers screen phone calls for key words that might indicate a terrorist threat.

The "60 Minutes" report also spotlighted Echelon critic, then-Rep. Bob Barr, who complained that the project as it was being implemented under Clinton "engages in the interception of literally millions of communications involving United States citizens."

One Echelon operator working in Britain told "60 Minutes" that the NSA had even monitored and tape recorded the conversations of the late Sen. Strom Thurmond.

Still, the Times repeatedly insisted on Friday that NSA surveillance under Bush had been unprecedented, at one point citing anonymously an alleged former national security official who claimed: "This is really a sea change. It's almost a mainstay of this country that the NSA only does foreign searches."

[Samurai]

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/12/19/114807.shtml

Clinton Used NSA for Economic Espionage

During the 1990s, President Bill Clinton ordered the National Security Agency to use its super-secret Echelon surveillance program to monitor the personal telephone calls and private email of employees who worked for foreign companies in a bid to boost U.S. trade, NewsMax.com has learned.

In 2000, former Clinton CIA director James Woolsey set off a firestorm of protest in Europe when he told the French newspaper Le Figaro that he was ordered by Clinton in 1993 to transform Echelon into a tool for gathering economic intelligence.

"We have a triple and limited objective," the former intelligence chief told the French paper. "To look out for companies which are breaking US or UN sanctions; to trace 'dual' technologies, i.e., for civil and military use, and to track corruption in international business."

As NewsMax reported exclusively on Sunday, Echelon had been used by the Clinton administration to monitor millions of personal phone calls, private emails and even ATM transactions inside the U.S. - all without a court order.

The massive invasion of privacy was justified by Echelon's defenders as an indispensable national security tool in the war on terror.

But Clinton officials also utilized the program in ways that had nothing to do with national security - such as conducting economic espionage against foreign businesses.

In his comments to Le Figaro, Woolsey defended the program, declaring flatly: "Spying on Europe is justified."

"I can tell you that five years ago, several European countries were giving substantial bribes to export business more easily. I hope that's no longer the case."

During hearings in 2000 on the surveillance flap, Woolsey told Congress that in 1993 alone, U.S. firms obtained contracts worth $6.5 billion with the help of timely intelligence information.

"We collect intelligence on those efforts to bribe foreign companies and foreign governments into awarding an airport contract to a European firm rather than an American firm," Woolsey said in a 1994 speech, in quotes picked up by the New York Post.

Predictably, European officials were outraged by what they regarded as a massive abuse of the NSA's spying capacity.

"[This is] an intolerable attack against individual liberties, competition, and the security of states," complained Martin Bangemann, then-European commissioner for industry.

But the complaints went unheeded in Washington.

In 1996, President Clinton signed the Economic Espionage Act, which, according to the Christian Science Monitor, authorized intelligence gathering on foreign businesses.

"The Clinton administration has attached special importance to economic intelligence, setting up the National Economic Council [NEC] in parallel to the National Security Council," the Monitor reported in 1999.

"The NEC routinely seeks information from the NSA and the CIA," the paper continued, citing anonymous officials. "And the NSA, as the biggest and wealthiest communications interception agency in the world, is best placed to trawl electronic communications and use what comes up for US commercial advantage."

[Calybos]

So if it's been done before, THAT makes it okay?

Sorry, that doesn't wash. The Japanese internment camps were wrong; suspension of habeas corpus was wrong; jailing newspapermen was wrong; and today, illegal search & seizure without a warrant is wrong and should be fought with every means at our disposal.

"We got away with it before..." did that argument even work on your parents?

[phoenixrising]

So if it's been done before, THAT makes it okay?

Sorry, that doesn't wash. The Japanese internment camps were wrong; suspension of habeas corpus was wrong; jailing newspapermen was wrong; and today, illegal search & seizure without a warrant is wrong and should be fought with every means at our disposal.

"We got away with it before..." did that argument even work on your parents?

I wouldn't get too fired up about it. Newsmax isn't even close to being a reliable source for political information. It has had numrous stories in the past proven to be total shams.

Buuuut, if it is proven to be true, it certainly doesn't work as a justification. I'm sure Newsmax's conservative editors see it as a way to divert attention and blame away from Bush...but it really just tells anyone with half a brain that they have even more of a right be outraged. It doesn't matter what party did it first, it's still wrong.

[macul]

I swear, Anthony, sometimes you just don't listen.



There has been a huge con in this country run by the neo-fascists proclaiming the merger of religious and corporatist values. They've stolen the word conservative to conceal their true nature. And they've smeared the word liberal to drive people of a conservative nature into their camp.

People who believe in the list above are liberals. You have a conservative temperament, but your political beliefs mark you as a classic liberal.

I haven't gone by Anthony since the 3rd grade.

Anyway, your messages are often scattered, at best, paul. What about my other beliefs? Gun control? Welfare? Taxes? Do those define my outlook as a conservative or liberal?

[Wesley Dodds]

Moving on from Echelon (perhaps the topic for a new thread?), Jonathan Alter in Newsweek is reporting that Bush tried to kill this story by summoning the editor and publisher of the New York Times into his office for a talk (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10536559/site/newsweek/):

No wonder Bush was so desperate that The New York Times not publish its story on the National Security Agency eavesdropping on American citizens without a warrant, in what lawyers outside the administration say is a clear violation of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. I learned this week that on December 6, Bush summoned Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger and executive editor Bill Keller to the Oval Office in a futile attempt to talk them out of running the story. The Times will not comment on the meeting, but one can only imagine the president’s desperation.

[K'Nort]

1. Even if it's 100% no-dispute illegal, people can still usefully talk about whether they consider it right or wrong. We have silly laws all the time.

2. Upon further reflection and although I certainly understand the co-opting, if people choose to define themselves with a particular word, it is disrespectful to keep applying a completely different definition to it when speaking to them.

3. I don't understand the repeated confusion over 'how can conservatives believe/value this, that, or the other thing and still support this administration?' Some of them don't support this administration. It's annoying that that seems so impossible because we're all so stupid and fascist and such. Also, there's a reason that term neo-con is out there. Because it's a subset. Not only that, but a subset in opposition to significant other portions of the right.

[west3man]

1. Even if it's 100% no-dispute illegal, people can still usefully talk about whether they consider it right or wrong. We have silly laws all the time.

2. Upon further reflection and although I certainly understand the co-opting, if people choose to define themselves with a particular word, it is disrespectful to keep applying a completely different definition to it when speaking to them.

3. I don't understand the repeated confusion over 'how can conservatives believe/value this, that, or the other thing and still support this administration?' Some of them don't support this administration. It's annoying that that seems so impossible because we're all so stupid and fascist and such. Also, there's a reason that term neo-con is out there. Because it's a subset. Not only that, but a subset in opposition to significant other portions of the right.
Damned good post, if you don't mind my saying so.

[Alex]

3. I don't understand the repeated confusion over 'how can conservatives believe/value this, that, or the other thing and still support this administration?' Some of them don't support this administration. It's annoying that that seems so impossible because we're all so stupid and fascist and such. Also, there's a reason that term neo-con is out there. Because it's a subset. Not only that, but a subset in opposition to significant other portions of the right.
Word.
Ever since Bush dropped social security reform i've been against the admistration, i just haven't been for the opposition.
This admistration has caused me to hate all politicians that are currently in the public eye.

[Sam]

I wouldn't get too fired up about it. Newsmax isn't even close to being a reliable source for political information. It has had numrous stories in the past proven to be total shams.

No, the Echelon system is real. All of the governments who used it (the US and various close allies) denied its existence for a while, until the Belgian government acknolwedged they'd been using it for years(*) back in the 90s and the cat was pretty much out of the bag.

Come to that, everyone involved in the Echelon program probably ought to be put on trial too, lord knows it's an illegal violation of privacy that makes this business look like a tea-party. But that doesn't make this business OK.

As Richard Nixon's counsel has just put it, Bush is "the first President to admit to an impeachable offense."

(*) As an off topic aside, I sort of suspect nobody lets the Belgians in on their conspiracies anymore. First they completely disclose their UFO info to the public, then they let everyone in on the Echelon system...

[Alex]

I wouldn't get too fired up about it. Newsmax isn't even close to being a reliable source for political information. It has had numrous stories in the past proven to be total shams.

Pho, while i agree with you about newsmax, that isn't the best way to go about attacking them, as a few other high profile news sources (NYT) have had multiple stories that were proven to be shams.

[Samurai]

1. Even if it's 100% no-dispute illegal, people can still usefully talk about whether they consider it right or wrong. We have silly laws all the time.

2. Upon further reflection and although I certainly understand the co-opting, if people choose to define themselves with a particular word, it is disrespectful to keep applying a completely different definition to it when speaking to them.

3. I don't understand the repeated confusion over 'how can conservatives believe/value this, that, or the other thing and still support this administration?' Some of them don't support this administration. It's annoying that that seems so impossible because we're all so stupid and fascist and such. Also, there's a reason that term neo-con is out there. Because it's a subset. Not only that, but a subset in opposition to significant other portions of the right.
The funny thing is, many of us conservatives disagree with Bush on a whole variety of issues, and we all keep saying so (every time we're accused of following in complete 100% lockstep with everything Bush says or does, a favorite smear of some around here). But while Bush may not be the ideal conservative, if not Bush, then who else did we have to vote for? The only other choices were a) John Kerry, b) wasting your vote on a 3rd party candidate as a form of protest, or c) not voting at all. Sorry, but none of those choices appealed to me... at all. That leaves voting for the person that I agree with on at least some issues: Bush. And defending those issues while also being willing to point out when he does something I disagree with (not vetoing pork spending, not closing the borders, etc). And hoping that next election someone who is even closer to my viewpoints gets the nomination.

[K'Nort]

Echelon is definitely real.

[Alex]

The funny thing is, many of us conservatives disagree with Bush on a whole variety of issues, and we all keep saying so (every time we're accused of following in complete 100% lockstep with everything Bush says or does, a favorite smear of some around here). But while Bush may not be the ideal conservative, if not Bush, then who else did we have to vote for? The only other choices were a) John Kerry, b) wasting your vote on a 3rd party candidate as a form of protest, or c) not voting at all. Sorry, but none of those choices appealed to me... at all. That leaves voting for the person that I agree with on at least some issues: Bush. And defending those issues while also being willing to point out when he does something I disagree with (not vetoing pork spending, not closing the borders, etc). And hoping that next election someone who is even closer to my viewpoints gets the nomination.
But the thing is, bush is doing a lot of what he promised in the election, and therefor, you don't need to keep defending him.
As i pointed out, social security reform didn't happen, that was a big reason i voted for him...possibly the biggest, so why should i have to continue to defend him.
How can i, as a conservative, defend a guy who isn't acting like a conservative?
This doesn't mean i support the democrats, far from it, i think they are equaly as bad, and in many cases worse, but it doesn't mean i have to support him.

[Samurai]

Pho, while i agree with you about newsmax, that isn't the best way to go about attacking them, as a few other high profile news sources (NYT) have had multiple stories that were proven to be shams.
She obviously didn't even read the articles, because it is only quoting from a 60 Minutes broadcast from back in Feb 2000 by Steve Kroft. It isn't really a "Newsmax" story at all. If she doesn't like Newsmax, how about all these other sources on the same story?

http://fly.hiwaay.net/~pspoole/echres.html
http://cryptome.org/echelon-60min.htm
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/02/24/60minutes/main164651.shtml

... or just do a google search for "steve kroft 60 minutes feb 2000 echelon" to find dozens more...

And the point was that the hysterical claims by the NY Times that this is completely unprecidented are wrong, and everyone knows it. If a few hundred taps by Bush's order is so highly illegal, why wasn't Clinton prosecuted for the millions of taps he ordered? Maybe, just maybe, because it isn't really illegal, just covert? Or is it only bad when Bush does it?

[Wesley Dodds]

Perhaps because Echelon was founded after WW2 to spy on the Soviet Union? So, that means Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan and both Bushes would have to be in the dock with vile Clinton. Perhaps that's why Echelon isn't an election issue, because both parties do it?

Come to think of it, it's weird to raise Echelon to defend Bush, for two reasons: first of all, Echelon is still going on under Bush, so Bush is doing everything Clinton did. Second, the Bush Administration proposed the Total Information Awareness program. Echelon spies on some people; TIA would have spied on everyone.

But this is just a distraction -- Bush broke the law to spy on Americans. Clinton didn't. Sorry, Samurai, but this dog won't hunt.

[Noah Johnson]

3. I don't understand the repeated confusion over 'how can conservatives believe/value this, that, or the other thing and still support this administration?' Some of them don't support this administration. It's annoying that that seems so impossible because we're all so stupid and fascist and such. Also, there's a reason that term neo-con is out there. Because it's a subset. Not only that, but a subset in opposition to significant other portions of the right.
You're right, and that's a good point. There are a lot of conservatives that don't support this criminal bunch of morons, and I don't mean to lump those guys in with the ones opposed to the principles of this nation.

Here, a classic short essay on that particular subject: http://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/2004/12/i-miss-republicans.html

[phoenixrising]

Pho, while i agree with you about newsmax, that isn't the best way to go about attacking them, as a few other high profile news sources (NYT) have had multiple stories that were proven to be shams.

Of course, those are actual news organizations that make mistakes in reporting/editing/hiring idiots...this is a conservative website designed to plant (occasionally) false stories to make conservative political figures look good. It's a different story.


1. Even if it's 100% no-dispute illegal, people can still usefully talk about whether they consider it right or wrong. We have silly laws all the time.

Americans can agree or disagree with this domestic spying policy, but no one can argue its legality and no one can say "they should be allowed to do it" unless they are prepared to say they're willing to change the Constitution for it to happen. That's all I'm sayin'.

And while Echelon is real (that part I didn't dispute - just the details regarding it, which are, in fact, trumped up) - it certainly doesn't work as any sort of defense for this.

Edit: But I can see why it looks as if I doubted its existence. Poor wording.

She obviously didn't even read the articles, because it is only quoting from a 60 Minutes broadcast from back in Feb 2000 by Steve Kroft. It isn't really a "Newsmax" story at all. If she doesn't like Newsmax, how about all these other sources on the same story?

http://fly.hiwaay.net/~pspoole/echres.html
http://cryptome.org/echelon-60min.htm
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/02/24/60minutes/main164651.shtml

... or just do a google search for "steve kroft 60 minutes feb 2000 echelon" to find dozens more...

And the point was that the hysterical claims by the NY Times that this is completely unprecidented are wrong, and everyone knows it. If a few hundred taps by Bush's order is so highly illegal, why wasn't Clinton prosecuted for the millions of taps he ordered? Maybe, just maybe, because it isn't really illegal, just covert? Or is it only bad when Bush does it?

I never said Echolon itself wasn't real...it's been around for decades and it is taught in every foregin affairs basic course. I disputed the argument that you fallaciously make that claims it is the same sort of policy and that it's Clinton's fault.

And you obviously didn't read my post when I said I don't care who puts it in practice. Wrong is wrong. If you want to spy on someone, do it legally.

[phoenixrising]

3. I don't understand the repeated confusion over 'how can conservatives believe/value this, that, or the other thing and still support this administration?' Some of them don't support this administration. It's annoying that that seems so impossible because we're all so stupid and fascist and such. Also, there's a reason that term neo-con is out there. Because it's a subset. Not only that, but a subset in opposition to significant other portions of the right.

Oh, it isn't conservatives making excuses for something that is wrong. It's not even Republicans. It's Bush "Fans" who have to support the team - no matter what or how many times he screws up (just like sports!). It happens with every scandal.

Edit: I actually just got an email from one such "fan" who called for Sen. Feingold to be tried for treason for calling Bush out on this. Ridiculous.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

I was watching Court TV today and saw Bush give his angry pissed off reply. Swearing that whoever leaked this to the press would be fired. It was amazing...like watching a train derail.

More and more it appears the Adminstration is just imploding before our eyes. People will look back and wonder how and why he's stayed so long.

[Wesley Dodds]

Swearing that whoever leaked this to the press would be fired.

Well, that's certainly ironic.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

Well, that's certainly ironic.


Thats what made me laugh. He's more concerned with someone nailin his ass on this than he was with someone leaking CIA Opratives names out.

[Alex]

I was watching Court TV today and saw Bush give his angry pissed off reply. Swearing that whoever leaked this to the press would be fired. It was amazing...like watching a train derail.

More and more it appears the Adminstration is just imploding before our eyes. People will look back and wonder how and why he's stayed so long.
This is how someone who addmittedly hates bush would want to see it.
His supporters see it as him finaly showing balls.
I'm not a huge fan of the guy now, and i've been incredibly pleased with how he's been acting in front of the news lately.
The democrats have been bitching and whining about every single thing he has done or said, claimed victory at everything bad that has happened too him, and when there is good news, say, about the economy, or iraq, they completly ignore it.
This is understandable when you are the opposition party, but if you honestly believe that the president getting angry as the opposition party continues to flounder about, still inable to come up with a unified message about anything, is somehow a good thing, then you're going to be sorely dissapointed in the coming months.
If you want to see the adminstration destroy itself, that's wonderful for you, but who do you think will be able to take their place with the state of the political field right now?

[Alex]

Oh, it isn't conservatives making excuses for something that is wrong. It's not even Republicans. It's Bush "Fans" who have to support the team - no matter what or how many times he screws up (just like sports!). It happens with every scandal.

Edit: I actually just got an email from one such "fan" who called for Sen. Feingold to be tried for treason for calling Bush out on this. Ridiculous.
Or, as i call them, the insane religious zealots rove brought into the party which is slowly ripping it apart.
It's kinda like whats going on with the democrats, but no one wants to talk about it because they are to busy calling Bush an idiot.

[Corrina]

Why does President Bush hate our freedom?

[Alex]

Why does President Bush hate our freedom?
I know im horribly upset that i've been restricted in what i can say since he became president.

[Wesley Dodds]

This is how someone who addmittedly hates bush would want to see it.
His supporters see it as him finaly showing balls.
I'm not a huge fan of the guy now, and i've been incredibly pleased with how he's been acting in front of the news lately.
The democrats have been bitching and whining about every single thing he has done or said, claimed victory at everything bad that has happened too him, and when there is good news, say, about the economy, or iraq, they completly ignore it.
This is understandable when you are the opposition party, but if you honestly believe that the president getting angry as the opposition party continues to flounder about, still inable to come up with a unified message about anything, is somehow a good thing, then you're going to be sorely dissapointed in the coming months.
If you want to see the adminstration destroy itself, that's wonderful for you, but who do you think will be able to take their place with the state of the political field right now?

I think the charge of ignoring good things is unjustified -- we acknowledge good things, like the recent Iraqi election. There's not much to argue about there.

I also think it's a good idea he's standing up for his policies. One of the things I don't like about this Administration is the way they dress radical policies up in the language of conservatism. If Bush thinks he doesn't have to follow the rule of law, fine, let him make the case for that. The public discourse will be more honest.

As for a unified message among the Democrats -- the reason there isn't one is, I think, that there's no unified left. There's a conservative movement; there's no comparable liberal movement. Conservatives of all stripes are working together, from fundamentalists to libertarians. Liberals haven't even managed to get environmentalists and civil libertarians together, let alone unifying the left. One of things we really need to learn is the quid pro quo that exists on the right -- horse-trading between factions to get most of what you want if not all of it.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

This is how someone who addmittedly hates bush would want to see it.
His supporters see it as him finaly showing balls.
I'm not a huge fan of the guy now, and i've been incredibly pleased with how he's been acting in front of the news lately.
The democrats have been bitching and whining about every single thing he has done or said, claimed victory at everything bad that has happened too him, and when there is good news, say, about the economy, or iraq, they completly ignore it.
This is understandable when you are the opposition party, but if you honestly believe that the president getting angry as the opposition party continues to flounder about, still inable to come up with a unified message about anything, is somehow a good thing, then you're going to be sorely dissapointed in the coming months.
If you want to see the adminstration destroy itself, that's wonderful for you, but who do you think will be able to take their place with the state of the political field right now?


Whats funny is some are asking Congress to get involved and investigate whethor Bush should be tried for breaking laws. Some think that due to where were at he shouldn't.

Theres good news about Iraq ? Ohh the Election or paper Democracy that won't last....sure. I'm happy the voted. But once we roll out how long will it last ?

Do I wanna watch the current Adminstration implode ? No but its Bush's doing. Its his fuck ups man. He continues to flaunt this power and when it blows up in his face he acts angry. That we all should shut up and let him have it.

This is why we live in a Democracy. And Bush has got his balls handed to him as usual.

[Alex]

I think the charge of ignoring good things is unjustified -- we acknowledge good things, like the recent Iraqi election. There's not much to argue about there.

I also think it's a good idea he's standing up for his policies. One of the things I don't like about this Administration is the way they dress radical policies up in the language of conservatism. If Bush thinks he doesn't have to follow the rule of law, fine, let him make the case for that. The public discourse will be more honest.

As for a unified message among the Democrats -- the reason there isn't one is, I think, that there's no unified left. There's a conservative movement; there's no comparable liberal movement. Conservatives of all stripes are working together, from fundamentalists to libertarians. Liberals haven't even managed to get environmentalists and civil libertarians together, let alone unifying the left. One of things we really need to learn is the quid pro quo that exists on the right -- horse-trading between factions to get most of what you want if not all of it.
Wait a minute, bush ISN'T standing up for his policies, thats my entire friggen problem with him.
You have to understand wesley, in america, the left is not the democrats.
Thats why we name lefty democrats, and their aren't many of them. The democrats weren't the left originaly, and the modern left, who were last unified by clinton, are certainly not leftists.
In the last election, the left wasn't voting for kerry and the democrats, they were voting against Bush.
The biggest sign that the left isn't what the democrats are about, is looking at the democratic primaries. Dean crashed and burned, and was immedietly supplanted by a pro war democrat (Or, a democrat who was running through the primaries as a pro war democrat)
And it's generaly an accepted notion that you run in the primaries to appease the base, republicans become more conservative...and the democrats became more conservative.
I don't know if you miss that because you live in australia, or you are being mislead by the boards (including the republicans who paint the dems as leftists) but the vast majority of them (As Smash can attest too) are no leftist.

Edit: An as an aside, among the base, the right is no longer unified.
If you look at bush's poll numbers, you need to consider somethings about real conservatives.
1. We understand the economy is fine.
2. We follow the war news, we don't not support a president because of that.
So what is the sticking point if less then 40% of the country (Or whatever it is now, i understand his numbers are going up but they are still low) is against him?
It's him not being a real conservative, and therefor pissing off the real conservative base, the small government, old school republican people.
We don't have anyone speaking for us, and it is splitting us, but as i said, it isn't being followed as much as the dems split, because the republicans are still in power.
If the democrats get a huge win in 06, then mark my words, there will be stories all over about the split in the republican party.

[Adam Crocker]

This is understandable when you are the opposition party, but if you honestly believe that the president getting angry as the opposition party continues to flounder about, still inable to come up with a unified message about anything, is somehow a good thing, then you're going to be sorely dissapointed in the coming months.
If you want to see the adminstration destroy itself, that's wonderful for you, but who do you think will be able to take their place with the state of the political field right now?

Alex, this is possibly the most cogent thing you said. So I respond with, damn right. If the Democrats continue to remain this ineffective as an opposition then people are going to have to throw in their lot with building up other parties instead.

[Alex]

Alex, this is possibly the most cogent thing you said. So I respond with, damn right. If the Democrats continue to remain this ineffective as an opposition then people are going to have to throw in their lot with building up other parties instead.
Losing my support for Bush lead me to my original love, politics.
Looking at things with an unbiased eye does wonders for my clarity.

[Wesley Dodds]

Wait a minute, bush ISN'T standing up for his policies, thats my entire friggen problem with him.
You have to understand wesley, in america, the left is not the democrats.
Thats why we name lefty democrats, and their aren't many of them. The democrats weren't the left originaly, and the modern left, who were last unified by clinton, are certainly not leftists.
In the last election, the left wasn't voting for kerry and the democrats, they were voting against Bush.
The biggest sign that the left isn't what the democrats are about, is looking at the democratic primaries. Dean crashed and burned, and was immedietly supplanted by a pro war democrat (Or, a democrat who was running through the primaries as a pro war democrat)
And it's generaly an accepted notion that you run in the primaries to appease the base, republicans become more conservative...and the democrats became more conservative.
I don't know if you miss that because you live in australia, or you are being mislead by the boards (including the republicans who paint the dems as leftists) but the vast majority of them (As Smash can attest too) are no leftist.

I don't want to get bogged down in a language game -- I use the term left to mean liberals. Left in the sense of "I want the state to run the economy" is anachronistic.

I think the reason the Democrats went with Kerry instead of Dean is that they were trying to run towards the centre -- it was such an important election that they went with a moderate. Actually, percieved moderate is probably a better way of putting it, because Dean is actually closer to the centre than Kerry. But everything that year was seen through the prism of the Iraqi War -- Dean was against it, so he was seen as the mouthpiece of the anti-war movement.

I accept your point that the Democrats are a coalition party, but liberals are the most important part of that coalition -- if the Democrats run to the right, the Republicans just move further right. Liberals (avoiding the term "left") are still the Democrats' base.

[phoenixrising]

Or, as i call them, the insane religious zealots rove brought into the party which is slowly ripping it apart.
It's kinda like whats going on with the democrats, but no one wants to talk about it because they are to busy calling Bush an idiot.

Heh. I don't think anyone even knows what's going on with the Democrats to point to any one problem. I follow this crap for a living and I can't tell what's going on with the Democrats as a party.

[Wesley Dodds]

Heh. I don't think anyone even knows what's going on with the Democrats to point to any one problem. I follow this crap for a living and I can't tell what's going on with the Democrats as a party.

I think they're just watching the Republicans throw away the decades of work it took for them to get all this power, frankly.

[Dr. Hfuhruhurr]

I find it remarkable in a thread about how the President admitted to conduct that violates federal law that so many waste so much time whining about what's wrong with the Democrats. Yes, the Dems should be more unified and should speak more effectively about the horrendous, miguided and illegal policies of the Bush administration, but the real tragedy is the lack of any significant voices on the right, save perhaps for John McCain, that take Bush to task in any measurable way for said policies.

Let's leave aside the fact that so-called conservatives have abandoned their "smaller government" mantra in favor of pork-barrel spending and increased government interference in the lives of Americans in a multitude of areas.

But when an administration comes out in favor of exceptions to the ban on torture, for designating American citizens "enemy combatants" and stating that the administration has the right to detain such citizens indefinitely without charge or trial and now for wiretapping American citizens without even a resort to the rubber-stamp court for approval of such methods and there is not only a paucity of voices from the right condemning such actions, but worse, rationalization and, perhaps even worse, applause from many on the right, all in the name of the "War on Terror," that is the true tragedy.

Have Republicans become so enamored with power that they have left their principles behind? It certainly seems that way. For example, tonight I heard a man call in on a talk radio show and state that he was a strong supporter of President Bush. He went on to admit that the President had no justification under the law for illegally wiretapping American citizens, but that he was sure that "the feds weren't wiretapping Bob talking about the next cookout in Cleveland."

That is tragic. That an American citizen can justify admittedly illegal activity, just so long as the victim is an American citizen with a name like Mohammed or Achmed.

We read the history books and wonder how a man like FDR could possibly have approved of the internment of American citizens of Japanese descent. Wonder no longer.

I'm really not interested in the diagnoses of the problems of the Democrats by Republicans. You go worry about Tom Delay and Jack Ambramoff and Duke Cunningham and Scooter Libby and Bill Frist and Karl Rove. Have a little backbone and stand up and speak out when the Bush administration acts illegally. Speak up for the principles of less government intrusion, lower government spending and fiscal conservatism in general. Keep your own house in order before you think to give your wise counsel to the Democrats. Frankly, we didn't ask for it and we don't need it from the likes of you.

[Alex]

I accept your point that the Democrats are a coalition party, but liberals are the most important part of that coalition -- if the Democrats run to the right, the Republicans just move further right. Liberals (avoiding the term "left") are the most important part of that coalition.
But liberals in america...liberals as i assume you see them (And i think we've had problems with that in the past, as it just isn't the same where you live) aren't the biggest voting block.
If polls are true, America is made up mainly of moderates, who when they describe their views, sound like fiscall conservatives (who don't exsist in american politics far as i can see).
If liberals are the most important part of the democratic party, it doesn't explain why so few democrats are liberals, or why Clinton was the most successful democrat president in my lifetime. (Well, he was the only democrat president in my life time, but i'm young).
Now, i will grant you that the liberals may be the most important part of their party in the future, ifthey can decide on a direction for the party.
But right now, they may be scared too, because due to newt gingrich, liberal in america means higher taxes, hippies, and micheal moore, which scares off a huge part of the voting public.
On the flip side, due to micheal moore, various liberal groups like moveon.org, and a slew of horrible bands, and the daily show, Conservative now means Religious Zealot, Hate the poor, Racist.
...
....
For a small, Alex Minor Tells You The Perfect Situation Report, i propose what needs to happen before my country experiences a meaninful change.
There need to be two very charismatic, very popular politicians to stand up, one republican, one democrat.
They need to spearhead a change in terms, The Republican is a real conservative, he beleives in a responsible finacialy and smaller government.
The democrat points out that liberal does not equal communist, and is not anti military, they each throw off the negative labels attached to the ideology their party supposedly supports.
That would be the ideal.
The only way i see this happening, is the 08 election, because Bush is gone, and the Republicans have to find a new face, and the democrats have to find someone who can run on a campaign that isn't "Bush Sucks".

[Alex]

I find it remarkable in a thread about how the President admitted to conduct that violates federal law that so many waste so much time whining about what's wrong with the Democrats. Yes, the Dems should be more unified and should speak more effectively about the horrendous, miguided and illegal policies of the Bush administration, but the real tragedy is the lack of any significant voices on the right, save perhaps for John McCain, that take Bush to task in any measurable way for said policies.

Actually, its more of a talk about the two parties overall, and how the republicans are screwing me over, and how the democrats are screwing themselves over.
...
Yes, this could be put in another thread, but it began here.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

I find it remarkable in a thread about how the President admitted to conduct that violates federal law that so many waste so much time whining about what's wrong with the Democrats. Yes, the Dems should be more unified and should speak more effectively about the horrendous, miguided and illegal policies of the Bush administration, but the real tragedy is the lack of any significant voices on the right, save perhaps for John McCain, that take Bush to task in any measurable way for said policies.

Let's leave aside the fact that so-called conservatives have abandoned their "smaller government" mantra in favor of pork-barrel spending and increased government interference in the lives of Americans in a multitude of areas.

But when an administration comes out in favor of exceptions to the ban on torture, for designating American citizens "enemy combatants" and stating that the administration has the right to detain such citizens indefinitely without charge or trial and now for wiretapping American citizens without even a resort to the rubber-stamp court for approval of such methods and there is not only a paucity of voices from the right condemning such actions, but worse, rationalization and, perhaps even worse, applause from many on the right, all in the name of the "War on Terror," that is the true tragedy.

Have Republicans become so enamored with power that they have left their principles behind? It certainly seems that way. For example, tonight I heard a man call in on a talk radio show and state that he was a strong supporter of President Bush. He went on to admit that the President had no justification under the law for illegally wiretapping American citizens, but that he was sure that "the feds weren't wiretapping Bob talking about the next cookout in Cleveland."

That is tragic. That an American citizen can justify admittedly illegal activity, just so long as the victim is an American citizen with a name like Mohammed or Achmed.

We read the history books and wonder how a man like FDR could possibly have approved of the internment of American citizens of Japanese descent. Wonder no longer.

I'm really not interested in the diagnoses of the problems of the Democrats by Republicans. You go worry about Tom Delay and Jack Ambramoff and Duke Cunningham and Scooter Libby and Bill Frist and Karl Rove. Have a little backbone and stand up and speak out when the Bush administration acts illegally. Speak up for the principles of less government intrusion, lower government spending and fiscal conservatism in general. Keep your own house in order before you think to give your wise counsel to the Democrats. Frankly, we didn't ask for it and we don't need it from the likes of you.


I'm gonna have to agree. This is horrible to watch some blast the Democrats...for what ? For the lies,treason,and general dishonor the Republicans in this Adminstration have done ? Its just like some kinda wild dream where the person in charge can keep fucking up and the general atmosphere of his supporters are to start askin " What about the people who oppose him in the Office ? "

I'm glad the woman on Court TV was pretty clear: " I don't support left or right here. But he cleary broke the Law. Its right in the Constitution and he did it. No amount of anger and saying he needed to do it justifies it. A law was broken." ( Female Newscaster to someone who accused her and Court TV being on the Left. )

[Alex]

I'm gonna have to agree. This is horrible to watch some blast the Democrats...for what ? For the lies,treason,and general dishonor the Republicans in this Adminstration have done ? Its just like some kinda wild dream where the person in charge can keep fucking up and the general atmosphere of his supporters are to start askin " What about the people who oppose him in the Office ? "

When i brought it up with you, i didn't defend what bush did, and i haven't defended the republicans in general, i defended his right to get angry.
I brought up the dems because they are the alternative, ie: if you want bush gone, do you really want him replaced with them.
And then it began the whole discussion of the parties and where they are heading thing.

[Dr. Hfuhruhurr]

When i brought it up with you, i didn't defend what bush did, and i haven't defended the republicans in general, i defended his right to get angry.
I brought up the dems because they are the alternative, ie: if you want bush gone, do you really want him replaced with them.
And then it began the whole discussion of the parties and where they are heading thing.

Well, OK, let's talk about that, then. First you say that Bush is right to get angry because Democrats are "whining" about the fact that he broke a federal law. In the next breath, you criticize the Dems for being an ineffective opposition party.

Just what would you have the Dems do in this situation? You criticize the Dems for just being "anti-Bush" and not standing for anything. However, in this instance, the number one responsibility of members of both parties is to stand up and denounce the President's admitted illegal acts. There really is no other sound position.

You think Bush is showing his "balls" by standing up and admitting what he did. I think he's showing his arrogance. Worse, by defending him, just what principle do you think he's "standing up" for? Defying the law?

[SUPERECWFAN1]

When i brought it up with you, i didn't defend what bush did, and i haven't defended the republicans in general, i defended his right to get angry.
I brought up the dems because they are the alternative, ie: if you want bush gone, do you really want him replaced with them.
And then it began the whole discussion of the parties and where they are heading thing.

Why would Bush be angry ? That he got caught and his balls are being roasted by the media and even people in Congress at the moment ? Sorry Alex if i offended you.


Odds are we'll see who the Democrats put up there in 2008. If they use this Adminstrations currents problems in 2008 they have a great shot at winning.

[Alex]

Well, OK, let's talk about that, then. First you say that Bush is right to get angry because Democrats are "whining" about the fact that he broke a federal law. In the next breath, you criticize the Dems for being an ineffective opposition party.

Just what would you have the Dems do in this situation? You criticize the Dems for just being "anti-Bush" and not standing for anything. However, in this instance, the number one responsibility of members of both parties is to stand up and denounce the President's admitted illegal acts. There really is no other sound position.

You think Bush is showing his "balls" by standing up and admitting what he did. I think he's showing his arrogance. Worse, by defending him, just what principle do you think he's "standing up" for? Defying the law?
All the dems aren't though, the same dems who complaign about everythign else are complaining about this.
I do think they should attack him on this, and the president seems to think harm was done to the country by it being revealed, so yeah, i get why he's angry. That's good, it's an actual debate, as opposed to democrats attack, bush ignores.
Im happy he got angry because this is the first time he has actually answered them.
As for them not standing up for anything, they still aren't, a large group of them, though not all, are opposing this thing, and that is a good thing, but they still don't have any ideas about anything else.
I'm defending his right to respond, im not defending what he did because i've seen too sides speak and haven't seen a clear sign on why it's illegal in this case, and wasn't in cases when previous presidents did the same.

[Alex]

Odds are we'll see who the Democrats put up there in 2008. If they use this Adminstrations currents problems in 2008 they have a great shot at winning.
I hate you ecw, i want to answer this, but i don't want to be responsible for further derailing the thread.
Since it's all been my fault so far.

[Dr. Hfuhruhurr]

All the dems aren't though, the same dems who complaign about everythign else are complaining about this.
I do think they should attack him on this, and the president seems to think harm was done to the country by it being revealed, so yeah, i get why he's angry. That's good, it's an actual debate, as opposed to democrats attack, bush ignores.
Im happy he got angry because this is the first time he has actually answered them.
As for them not standing up for anything, they still aren't, a large group of them, though not all, are opposing this thing, and that is a good thing, but they still don't have any ideas about anything else.
I'm defending his right to respond, im not defending what he did because i've seen too sides speak and haven't seen a clear sign on why it's illegal in this case, and wasn't in cases when previous presidents did the same.

The previous President who did the same was Nixon. The law was passed after the abuses surrounding the Watergate and associated scandals.

What Democrat isn't standing up and speaking out on this? Joe Lieberman? That guy is so compromised that I'd be surprised if he remains a Democrat much longer. Every Dem of note is condemning this, as they should.

It's painting with too broad a brush to say the Dems don't have any ideas. They may be ideas that you don't agree with, but there are several different proposals for how to deal with Iraq by several different Dems. They don't all agree, but I don't see that as a bad thing. There is more debate among Dems about the invasion and how to resolve it than there ever has been among the Republicans. That's good for winning elections, but not so good for determining policy, as we can see by the course of the invasion.

And Bush responding with anger isn't a response and it isn't a debate. His opinion is that he's justified because he's President, and little beyond that.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

I hate you ecw, i want to answer this, but i don't want to be responsible for further derailing the thread.
Since it's all been my fault so far.

I can smell the Hillary Clinton fear! ;)

[Dr. Hfuhruhurr]

I can smell the Hillary Clinton fear! ;)

Uh, that's coming from me.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

Uh, that's coming from me.


Imagine her and John Edwards ...BOOOOO!!! :eek:

[Wesley Dodds]

I'd like to see a President Hillary Clinton, but only because I think it would be damn funny to watch the right go through what I have for the last few years.

[Alex]

The previous President who did the same was Nixon. The law was passed after the abuses surrounding the Watergate and associated scandals.

What Democrat isn't standing up and speaking out on this? Joe Lieberman? That guy is so compromised that I'd be surprised if he remains a Democrat much longer. Every Dem of note is condemning this, as they should.


And Bush responding with anger isn't a response and it isn't a debate. His opinion is that he's justified because he's President, and little beyond that.
I accidently deleted your quote while trying to copy and paste bits, so excuse the lose of the quote bars doc.
"
What Democrat isn't standing up and speaking out on this? Joe Lieberman? That guy is so compromised that I'd be surprised if he remains a Democrat much longer. Every Dem of note is condemning this, as they should.

It's painting with too broad a brush to say the Dems don't have any ideas. They may be ideas that you don't agree with, but there are several different proposals for how to deal with Iraq by several different Dems. They don't all agree, but I don't see that as a bad thing. There is more debate among Dems about the invasion and how to resolve it than there ever has been among the Republicans. That's good for winning elections, but not so good for determining policy, as we can see by the course of the invasion.

And Bush responding with anger isn't a response and it isn't a debate. His opinion is that he's justified because he's President, and little beyond that."
"What Democrat isn't standing up and speaking out on this? Joe Lieberman? That guy is so compromised that I'd be surprised if he remains a Democrat much longer. Every Dem of note is condemning this, as they should."
And they need some high profile republicans to balance them, because the democrats of note are the same democrats who are on tv criticzing him constantly.
Lieberman is fairly important as he's seen a moderate dem (And i agree, the guy is basicly a republican).
It hurts them because it doesn't hold the interest of the american public, since they are so used to hearing them.
"It's painting with too broad a brush to say the Dems don't have any ideas. They may be ideas that you don't agree with, but there are several different proposals for how to deal with Iraq by several different Dems. They don't all agree, but I don't see that as a bad thing. There is more debate among Dems about the invasion and how to resolve it than there ever has been among the Republicans. That's good for winning elections, but not so good for determining policy, as we can see by the course of the invasion."
They need to agree on one thing, or they can't bring anyone to their side and get it too a vote.
If they all have different ideas and can't come up with one, no movement can be made. And thats on the war, theres no plan for energy, or the economy in general. And i get that the war being a big topic, other issues have slipped away, but those other issues will be important in the future, particularly if things go better after the recent election and troop numbers start to decline.
Debate is well and good, but eventualy, debate within a party needs to lead to an agreement about how they handle it, until then, it's just talk, and talk isn't doign anything.
And when you consider their star player, Hilarly, is still trying to stay pro war, it causes them a problem. Especialy leading into a president election where she is a frontrunner.

[Alex]

I can smell the Hillary Clinton fear! ;)
..
Ok, ill play.
If hilarly clinton run, hilarly who is a pro war democrat, she can only attack bush so much.
AND, if she runs, and her campaign is too attack the admistration, what happens if the Republicans run John Mccain, who has been vocal at points in his dissagreements on bush.
She will effectivly be running a battle against a guy who has distenced himself so much from the president, that people will be confused what she is talking about.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

I'd like to see a President Hillary Clinton, but only because I think it would be damn funny to watch the right go through what I have for the last few years.


I'd personally piss my pants if this happens. They have started the Press for her as being a close pontential threat to be the 1st woman to win Office.

In USA Today they had her picture at a speech and behind it: Can Hillary become President in 2008 ? The picture looked errie. Like some kinda thing you'd see in the future as she stood by people behind a poduim. It looked....Presidential.

[MJC]

I'd like to see a President Hillary Clinton, but only because I think it would be damn funny to watch the right go through what I have for the last few years.

Nah, she'd probably just pander to the right (of course, they'd hate her anyway).

[Dr. Hfuhruhurr]

(snip -- it just got too confusing)
Lieberman is fairly important as he's seen a moderate dem (And i agree, the guy is basicly a republican).
It hurts them because it doesn't hold the interest of the american public, since they are so used to hearing them.
"It's painting with too broad a brush to say the Dems don't have any ideas. They may be ideas that you don't agree with, but there are several different proposals for how to deal with Iraq by several different Dems. They don't all agree, but I don't see that as a bad thing. There is more debate among Dems about the invasion and how to resolve it than there ever has been among the Republicans. That's good for winning elections, but not so good for determining policy, as we can see by the course of the invasion."
They need to agree on one thing, or they can't bring anyone to their side and get it too a vote.
If they all have different ideas and can't come up with one, no movement can be made. And thats on the war, theres no plan for energy, or the economy in general. And i get that the war being a big topic, other issues have slipped away, but those other issues will be important in the future, particularly if things go better after the recent election and troop numbers start to decline.
Debate is well and good, but eventualy, debate within a party needs to lead to an agreement about how they handle it, until then, it's just talk, and talk isn't doign anything.
And when you consider their star player, Hilarly, is still trying to stay pro war, it causes them a problem. Especialy leading into a president election where she is a frontrunner.

Well, I don't know about that. There is basic agreement among most Dems that we should set some benchmarks for withdrawing troops. The difference betweeen, say, Feingold and Murtha is basically one of timing. Hillary's position is confounding and I doubt without googling it i could honestly say what it is. Basically, she's kind of aping Bush's "stay the course" strategy -- if you can call it that -- and tweaking it around the edges. Lieberman is off in his own little world, but he's largely irrelevent in the party. The only people who pay attention to what he says are on Fox News or in the White House.

Besides, it's pretty hard to lead or to be unified when the party doesn't control a house of Congress or the White House. It's inevitable that differences are going to emerge, especially when at least 4 or 5 senators or former senators are going to run in 08. It doesn't bother me that there's some disharmony on the Dem side with regard to Iraq, because the American public largely agree withe the broad Dem view.

Yes, for the interim elections, the Dems will have to close ranks a bit on policy, but not as much as one might think. Most of those elections will be far more about local issues. The big one is 08. There's plenty of time to shake things up before then, however.

[Paradox]

Harry Angel needs a candidate to back:

I am a hardcore Democrat and plan to vote for that party even if they nominate a goat for President.

I'd vote for this one!

http://img529.imageshack.us/img529/8220/58264030bc.jpg

H.A.E.D.U.S. in 2008!

[Corrina]

The Dems are insane if they run Hillary Clinton.

I'd say go for a Mark Warner/Elizabeth Edwards ticket.

[Dennis K]

Lieberman is off in his own little world, but he's largely irrelevent in the party. The only people who pay attention to what he says are on Fox News or in the White House.

He's Joelirious!

[JeffreyWKramer]

If you want to see the adminstration destroy itself, that's wonderful for you, but who do you think will be able to take their place with the state of the political field right now?

It almost doesn't matter, so long as whomever takes over is someone other than Al Quaeda. Given as poor a job as the current administration is doing, a group of drunken chimps likely wouldn't do any worse job.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Heh. I don't think anyone even knows what's going on with the Democrats to point to any one problem. I follow this crap for a living and I can't tell what's going on with the Democrats as a party.
I can. They're by and large a bunch of incompetent, greedy bastards who mostly don't have any real principles about much of anything. There are the occasional exceptions, but for every one who seems reasonably competent and sincere - Frank or Feingold, for example - there's a counterbalancing lunatic like Lieberman.

[Winslow]

It almost doesn't matter, so long as whomever takes over is someone other than Al Quaeda. Given as poor a job as the current administration is doing, a group of drunken chimps likely wouldn't do any worse job.


http://www.drunkard.com/issues/01-05/images/chimps-color-.jpg

*trying to fill the void left by Stonegold*

[JeffreyWKramer]

*trying to fill the void left by Stonegold*

Where is SG? Is he taking a leave?

He didn't get permabanned, did he?

Sorry, I haven't been around much of late. I don't think I was on at all last weekend.

[Winslow]

Where is SG? Is he taking a leave?

He didn't get permabanned, did he?

Sorry, I haven't been around much of late. I don't think I was on at all last weekend.

He's banned again - I don't know why - speculation is infringment in a political thread regarding Brian's sticky thingy about political threads. And I don't think it's permanent, but don't know for sure.

[Dennis K]

He's banned again - I don't know why - speculation is infringment in a political thread regarding Brian's sticky thingy about political threads. And I don't think it's permanent, but don't know for sure.


Geez, you thought he would have learned his lesson a couple of weeks ago.

[Harry Angel]

I'd vote for this one!

http://img529.imageshack.us/img529/8220/58264030bc.jpg

H.A.E.D.U.S. in 2008!


http://blogs.warwick.ac.uk/images/capblog/2005/03/03/goat.jpg


Dox, I'd like to introduce you to Sam.

Sam is running for President in 2008 and wants your vote.

If elected, Sam promises an end to the war in Iraq, tighter fiscal policy, and a cleaner enviroment.

Especially the last part, since he will personally eat as much garbage and tin as you let him get near.

He's smarter then Dean and prettier then Hiliary, so remember Sam in 2008.

[JeffreyWKramer]

He's banned again - I don't know why - speculation is infringment in a political thread regarding Brian's sticky thingy about political threads. And I don't think it's permanent, but don't know for sure.

No wonder the board sucks more than usual right now.

[Sabrinaset]

Well, I don't know about that. There is basic agreement among most Dems that we should set some benchmarks for withdrawing troops. The difference betweeen, say, Feingold and Murtha is basically one of timing. Hillary's position is confounding and I doubt without googling it i could honestly say what it is. Basically, she's kind of aping Bush's "stay the course" strategy -- if you can call it that -- and tweaking it around the edges...

I dunno, it looks to me like Hillary is aping Bill's triangulation strategy. The problem is that Hillary has not a fraction of the charisma and political savvy that Bill has. Bill could pull it off blindfolded, Hillary...doubtful at her best.

Actually, I'm looking forward to Hillary being President. Considering what happened with her when she was simply First Lady, just with the way she handled Health Care and the Rose Law Files, or even her staffer Patrick Halley hiring "goon squads" to intimidate and harass hecklers ... she's looking to be Richard Nixon with Cellulite :) I'd say it would be a great time to be a conservative if she becomes President. I mean, if you think Bush is polarizing...

[Sabrinaset]

He's banned again - I don't know why - speculation is infringment in a political thread regarding Brian's sticky thingy about political threads. And I don't think it's permanent, but don't know for sure.

I just looked him up, and nothing *says* he's banned...then again, you've got posters calling people asses and idiots here, and nothing happens to them, so who knows what the policy is anymore. What did he get banned for the first time? He seems like a pretty nice guy to me.

[JeffreyWKramer]

I just looked him up, and nothing *says* he's banned...then again, you've got posters calling people asses and idiots here, and nothing happens to them, so who knows what the policy is anymore.

If you scroll back a few pages, you might notice that several of the participants on this thread got bannings.

[BlairH]

If you scroll back a few pages, you might notice that several of the participants on this thread got bannings.
Or the sticky at the top of the page. Maccul, Samurai and Noah Johnstone by the looks of things.

[K'Nort]

It was a 4-day ban on the 16th so it's probably over now.

[K'Nort]

Or the sticky at the top of the thread. Maccul, Samurai and Noah Johnstone by the looks of things.

And Paul.

.....

[Mike Smash!]

she's looking to be Richard Nixon with Cellulite :)Um, Richard Nixon DID have cellulite.

[Sabrinaset]

Um, Richard Nixon DID have cellulite.

NOT gunna ask how you knew :)

Okay, Richard Nixon in drag then.

And no J. Edgar Hoover jokes either!

[Brian M.]

I don't know if this has been brought up or not but I was doing some listening to talk radio and I found out that Bush did not do anything illegal by authorizing this.

In 1978 under Carter FISA was passed. FISA is the Foreign Intelligence Survillance Accords. Under this accord two articles where included. The title to the first was called "Electronic Survillance without Court Warrant". It stated that in a matter of national security the AG (Attorney General) could authorize the electronic survillance with the authorization from a court. The President goes to the AG and tells him what he wants to do and the AG can authorize the President.

The 2nd Article dealt with Electronic Survillance during a Time of War. It basically says the samething expect that you need a declaration of war from Congress.

Now you can be picky and say that the President never got a formal declaration of war. But I say to those who say that what were the 3 resolutions that were passed before the Iraq war, before the Afghan invasion that stated the President could basically go anywhere needed, with whatever he needed based on what he thought was best? Those 3 resolutions were basically a declaration of war.

Even if you don't think the 2nd article I talked about was met you still have the first one. This is the samething that Clinton was doing in the early 90's after the first attack on the WTC.

So for those who talking about Bush commited an illegal act, that he should be impeached, that America just does whatever it wants to it's own people, your wrong. Bush has stated clearly that the NSA only spied on international communications that involved people of National Security interest. It was not done on calls from say LA to Houston. LA to Pakistan, Houston to Iraq yes.

[phoenixrising]

Bush has stated clearly that the NSA only spied on international communications that involved people of National Security interest. It was not done on calls from say LA to Houston. LA to Pakistan, Houston to Iraq yes.

And we have no reason to believe it. How am I supposed to know the government isn't listening in to my interview phone calls because they fear the media so damn much? Or my personal calls to smear me or coerce me at some future date? You know why I have a right to mistrust that? Because a judge didn't get to sit down and look at my record (or lack therof) and say, "You know, guys, she's just a girl who reads comic books, you don't need to spy on her."

[Mike Smith]

Would it be alright to spy on Bush, without warrant, just in case, I don't know...he was trying to work underhanded oil deals with the Saudis? It would make me feel safer. Heck, put a few wiretaps on Cheney too, and release all findings to the public. It should be legal.

[Sabrinaset]

I know people are spying on my phone calls. I can hear them snoring when my best friend and I discuss coronary artery bypass grafting.

[Iangould]

Now you can be picky and say that the President never got a formal declaration of war. But I say to those who say that what were the 3 resolutions that were passed before the Iraq war, before the Afghan invasion that stated the President could basically go anywhere needed, with whatever he needed based on what he thought was best? Those 3 resolutions were basically a declaration of war.

As Commander in Chief during time of war the President gets a lot of additional power.

The check on that additional power is that it's Congress that decides when to declare war and thereby grant those powers to the President.

Arguing that they kinda-sorta almost made such a declaration is pretty weak.

As to the first head of power you mention - the FISA Court wasn't asked to authorise the wire-taps if they had been none of this discussion would be happening.

[Paradox]

Harry Angel offers:

http://blogs.warwick.ac.uk/images/capblog/2005/03/03/goat.jpg


Dox, I'd like to introduce you to Sam.

Sam is running for President in 2008 and wants your vote.

If elected, Sam promises an end to the war in Iraq, tighter fiscal policy, and a cleaner enviroment.

Especially the last part, since he will personally eat as much garbage and tin as you let him get near.

He's smarter then Dean and prettier then Hiliary, so remember Sam in 2008.

Wellllll...I'm with him on the issues.






But it'd be much cooler if he was a superhero sidekick. ;)

[Alex Scott]

In 1978 under Carter FISA was passed. FISA is the Foreign Intelligence Survillance Accords. Under this accord two articles where included. The title to the first was called "Electronic Survillance without Court Warrant". It stated that in a matter of national security the AG (Attorney General) could authorize the electronic survillance with the authorization from a court. The President goes to the AG and tells him what he wants to do and the AG can authorize the President.If it's really that easy, why bother with an FISA court in the first place?

You definitely didn't get the whole story. I assume you're referring to the "emergency orders" subsection. FISA, in the event of an emergency, does allow the Attorney General to authorize eavesdropping without a warrant. . . IF he applies for approval from a judge within 72 hours. And if he doesn't get it, the surveillance gets terminated, and the intelligence gathered at that point becomes inadmissable as evidence in a trial.

Read about it here. (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001805----000-.html) Scroll down to (f)(2).
The 2nd Article dealt with Electronic Survillance during a Time of War. It basically says the samething expect that you need a declaration of war from Congress.
Again, not the whole story. FISA does allow the Pres and AG to do this after a declaration of war by Congress. But only in the fifteen days after that declaration. (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001811----000-.html) Even if the authorization to invade Afghanistan does count as a declaration of war, that was four years ago. I think the time limit's passed by now.
Bush has stated clearly that the NSA only spied on international communications that involved people of National Security interest. It was not done on calls from say LA to Houston. LA to Pakistan, Houston to Iraq yes.Except that this did involve domestic calls (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/21/politics/21nsa.html?hp&ex=1135227600&en=4ef661fe7d71febe&ei=5094&partner=homepage).

[SUPERECWFAN1]

It almost doesn't matter, so long as whomever takes over is someone other than Al Quaeda. Given as poor a job as the current administration is doing, a group of drunken chimps likely wouldn't do any worse job.


Come on now...Bush as Charlton Heston yellin: " Get your hands off me , ya damn Dirty Ape ! " would be a classic. This after spying on these advanced monkeys by tapping thier phones and listening to them!

[Phoney Bone]

Would it be alright to spy on Bush, without warrant, just in case, I don't know...he was trying to work underhanded oil deals with the Saudis? It would make me feel safer. Heck, put a few wiretaps on Cheney too, and release all findings to the public. It should be legal.

As long as we apply the same standard to other presidents who approved domestic spying without warrants.

Like Clinton and Carter.

Sure, I'm all for it.

[Corrina]

Except that this did involve domestic calls (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/21/politics/21nsa.html?hp&ex=1135227600&en=4ef661fe7d71febe&ei=5094&partner=homepage).

"Apparently accidently"

Uh. Huh. :rolls eyes:

[JolietJake]

Check out George Will's editorial in today's Washington Post. (I'd provide a link but the Post requires a registration process that I don't want to circumvent). Anyway, George basically makes the point that if Bush had simply asked Congress for the authority to do this kind of thing in the days following 9/11 they likely would have given it to him (statutorily if not constitutionally). It struck me as a bad sign for the President when an arch-conservative like George Will thinks he's out-of-bounds.

[Dr. Hfuhruhurr]

As long as we apply the same standard to other presidents who approved domestic spying without warrants.

Like Clinton and Carter.

Sure, I'm all for it.

From what I understand, both Clinton and Carter sought and received judicial approval in their respective cases. If you've found something that says different, I'd love to see it, as I've not found a definitive source on the matter.

[Ray R.]

And we have no reason to believe it. How am I supposed to know the government isn't listening in to my interview phone calls because they fear the media so damn much? Or my personal calls to smear me or coerce me at some future date? You know why I have a right to mistrust that? Because a judge didn't get to sit down and look at my record (or lack therof) and say, "You know, guys, she's just a girl who reads comic books, you don't need to spy on her."


Well, the fact that the Department of Defense can list a bunch of Quakers meeting over coffee and donuts as a "threat" speaks volumes as to what might constitute a threat to the Pentagon or White House.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10454316/

What gets said here or at other message boards, on blogs, etc., could invariably constitute a "threat" depending on the observer's point of view. I know I've personally said very negative things about the administration here at CBR, and about the worthless liar we call a president in particular. Perhaps that justifies wiretapping my phones?

Yet another slippery slope in the Waterworld of the Bush administration.

[Dreadstar]

" Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep
It starts when you're always afraid
You step out of line, the man come and take you away "

[Ray R.]

" Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep
It starts when you're always afraid
You step out of line, the man come and take you away "


Yeah, no need to be paranoid about the curtailing of civil liberties these days.

Only the guilty need to worry about infringements of civil liberties by the executive branch acting above the law.

Expecting proper application of due process and the Fourth Amendment is for paranoid nutbags.

[Paradox]

I'm not sure you're getting that quote (or maybe Dread isn't...or me).

I always took that part of the song as being about how the Government, through its actions, MAKES us justifiably paranoid.

Maybe that's just me, though.

[Dreadstar]

Maybe that's just me, though.

Nope. You got the gist of the lyric.


On the other hand, while I decry lost liberties in the most vociferous libertarian manner, I honestly do believe in the system enough to believe that the misapplication toward an innocent would cleared up. I'd rather it not be misapplied in the first place, but I'm not in fear of it.

[Paradox]

I agree with that, Dread. It just takes "eternal vigilance" (sp?). Long as we keep catchin' 'em, we can put 'em down.

Sometimes it takes a while, though.

...everybody look what's goin' down...

[Ray R.]

I'm not sure you're getting that quote (or maybe Dread isn't...or me).

I always took that part of the song as being about how the Government, through its actions, MAKES us justifiably paranoid.

Maybe that's just me, though.

I would think anyone who lived through the "Saturday Night Massacre" with Nixon would feel rightly justified in feeling paranoid, as it's been as close as we've come to a president willfully disregarding the other two branches of government.

If that's the meaning of the song, my apologies.....

My point remains the same, though. I spent half of my sleepless nights last week doing a brief dealing with calling American citizens on U.S. soil "enemy combatants," and I'm getting more and more outright disturbed at what rights the government is capriciously deciding to curtail in the name of some undefined, undisciplined, overly broad spectre of "security."

Wire-tapping U.S. citizens without even informing a FISA judge? It's blatantly illegal......and along with the Patriot Act, indeterminate detainment, rendition, and Pentagon e-mail filtering programs and "enemies" lists, if you're not paranoid, you're a blind fool.

[Paradox]

Ray_Rivard sees it, now:

I would think anyone who lived through the "Saturday Night Massacre" with Nixon would feel rightly justified in feeling paranoid, as it's been as close as we've come to a president willfully disregarding the other two branches of government.

If that's the meaning of the song, my apologies.....

My point remains the same, though. I spent half of my sleepless nights last week doing a brief dealing with calling American citizens on U.S. soil "enemy combatants," and I'm getting more and more outright disturbed at what rights the government is capriciously deciding to curtail in the name of some undefined, undisciplined, overly broad spectre of "security."

Wire-tapping U.S. citizens without even informing a FISA judge? It's blatantly illegal......and along with the Patriot Act, indeterminate detainment, rendition, and Pentagon e-mail filtering programs and "enemies" lists, if you're not paranoid, you're a blind fool.

ONE OF US! ONE OF US! Yer part of the solution, AG.

Screw you, Alex. Hippies RULE! :D

Not that Alex ever met a real hippy, which is a mindset. Just these pathetic, wannabe neo-hippies

[Ray R.]

Nope. You got the gist of the lyric.


On the other hand, while I decry lost liberties in the most vociferous libertarian manner, I honestly do believe in the system enough to believe that the misapplication toward an innocent would cleared up. I'd rather it not be misapplied in the first place, but I'm not in fear of it.

Lucky you. I assume you don't have an Arabic-sounding last name, or get confused with someone else on the "no-fly" list, or get detained for no other reason other than the book you were carrying in your backpack.

"An innocent." You're about five thousand or so innocents off. But those of us working pro bono in the legal system to bring some of their cases to the Courts of Appeals and Supreme Court should get around to all the First, Fourth, and Eighth Amendment and other constitutional violations inflicted on innocent American citizens in the name of "security" by the turn of the next century.

[Dreadstar]

Lucky you. I assume you don't have an Arabic-sounding last name, or get confused with someone else on the "no-fly" list, or get detained for no other reason other than the book you were carrying in your backpack.
I can't comment on profiliing. I have a brother by the name of David Nelson whose name is the same as another David Nelson on the "no-fly" list. He gets detained all the time, and has YET to miss a single flight. THIS is what I'm talking about. THIS is the point I'm making. He's innocent, and gets it cleared up. Would he rather not have a need for a "no-fly" list? Certainly. But since it's there, he has faith that his innocence will be cleared up. So far, and after dozens of flights, his faith has not been misplaced. And I know better than to taunt an airport security man with a copy of something like The Anarchist's Cookbook, to be honest.

"An innocent." You're about five thousand or so innocents off. But those of us working pro bono in the legal system to bring some of their cases to the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court should get around to all the First, Fourth, and Eighth Amendment and other constitutional violations inflicted on innocent American citizens in the name of "security" by the turn of the next century.

I'm sorry that it'll take so long, the courts are packed, I guess.

So, of all those innocent people you're defending pro bono, do you think you'll be unable to clear them? I have faith that if I were at number 5001, I would be.

[Mike Smith]

As long as we apply the same standard to other presidents who approved domestic spying without warrants.

Like Clinton and Carter.

Sure, I'm all for it.

I agree, but think "ex post facto" may apply since this is testing the extent and interpretation of the Constitution with excessive and in my opinion, abusive, exuctutive priviledge. It's a gray area that borders more on illegal than explicit powers, in my opinion, that begs from concise definition. Bush may have very well crossed a clear line, I'm not sure. It would be nice for Congress to set a definite limit on domestic spying, with the highest punishment being any president henceforth found in violoation must be tried for impeachment and loss of office.

edit *Is it fact or 'deceive the public w/ rhetoric' that Clinton/Carter were actually in possible violation or pushing extent of the law?

[Alex Scott]

As long as we apply the same standard to other presidents who approved domestic spying without warrants.

Like Clinton and Carter.

Sure, I'm all for it.
Are you talking about the blatant lie Drudge posted on his website?

Here's why it's bunk (http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/20/drudge-fact-check/):

Clinton, February 9, 1995: “The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order”
Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) [50 U.S.C. 1822(a)] of the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance] Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.
Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: “Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order.”
1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order, but only if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section.
Both authorizations explicitly call for the Attorney General to comply with the FISA law.

[Dr. Hfuhruhurr]

So, Dread, how does your brother ever get on a plane?

[Dreadstar]

So, Dread, how does your brother ever get on a plane?

He waves his hand and says: "I'm not the David Nelson you're looking for," of course. The force is strong with that one.

[Dr. Hfuhruhurr]

He waves his hand and says: "I'm not the David Nelson you're looking for," of course. The force is strong with that one.

You're not taking the bait this time, are you?

[Dreadstar]

You're not taking the bait this time, are you?

What bait?

If the question is serious, I'd have to say: "The answer is self-evident, figure it out for yourself."

[Dr. Hfuhruhurr]

What bait?

If the question is serious, I'd have to say: "The answer is self-evident, figure it out for yourself."

Fine. Ruin all my fun.

[Dreadstar]

Fine. Ruin all my fun.

OK, he gets on a plane by rendering himself to a simple 2-dimensions.

[Ray R.]

I can't comment on profiliing. I have a brother by the name of David Nelson whose name is the same as another David Nelson on the "no-fly" list. He gets detained all the time, and has YET to miss a single flight. THIS is what I'm talking about. THIS is the point I'm making. He's innocent, and gets it cleared up. Would he rather not have a need for a "no-fly" list? Certainly. But since it's there, he has faith that his innocence will be cleared up. So far, and after dozens of flights, his faith has not been misplaced. And I know better than to taunt an airport security man with a copy of something like The Anarchist's Cookbook, to be honest.

Frankly, you're undermining any argument you're trying to make here, Dread. You're saying it's okay that an innocent person is being detained for no probable cause besides having a common name like David Nelson? The mere fact that he hasn't missed a plane is reason to sit back and accept the imposition on his time, his privacy (I'm sure they go through his bags pretty thoroughly -- from toothpaste to underwear), and on his right to travel on a privately-owned, commercially-run enterprise without search and possible seizure by the federal government.

And you know what, if I want to bring the "Anarchist's Cookbook" to read on a plane, then that doesn't constitute a taunt, it constitutes free speech. Literature doesn't equal a bomb. I guess if I bring a book that calls President Bush a war criminal, or a war-mongering imbecile, or a Saudi boot-licker, then that also justifies "detainment" if the "detainer" finds the "detainee"'s choice of reading material a "threat" -- real, implied or imagined. Now bringing on pornography (which I've seen done on planes plenty of times), or publications depicting vicious and graphic acts of violence (like, say, the latest issue of a D.C. or Marvel comic book) that other patrons might take offense to, that's okay. But don't bring on a book that criticizes the war......


I'm sorry that it'll take so long, the courts are packed, I guess.

So, of all those innocent people you're defending pro bono, do you think you'll be unable to clear them? I have faith that if I were at number 5001, I would be.

And it's not about having to try to clear every innocent person. It's about screwing with innocent persons in the first place. Erosion of civil liberties for undefined, unspecified concepts of "security" undermine our democratic system. I'll take my chances with terrorists here in Washington, D.C., like I have already for the last fifteen years, with smart cops (and I know a few around here) and smart coordination efforts, not by seizing library borrowing histories, and Barnes and Nobles bookbuying records, and by wiretapping people without a warrant.

Whether one innocent gets detained for years without the benefit of due process or one person gets executed for acting freaked out on a skyway or one person gets their name on an FBI and DOD "watchlist" because they showed up in Fort Lauderdale to protest what they considered to be an unjust war, it's wrong. And it's un-American.

We have the right to free speech and the exercise of it, and the right to free assembly, and the right to due process, which includes a warrant committed on the basis of probable cause. I'm not EVER willing to sacrifice these or any other constitutionally protected freedoms, because I'm supposed to be afraid of some brown-skinned fundamentalist boogeyman, used as a strawman by an administration that has from day one sought to consolidate executive power.....

[west3man]

Frankly, you're undermining any argument you're trying to make here, Dread. You're saying it's okay that an innocent person is being detained for no probable cause besides having a common name like David Nelson? The mere fact that he hasn't missed a plane is reason to sit back and accept the imposition on his time, his privacy (I'm sure they go through his bags pretty thoroughly -- from toothpaste to underwear), and on his right to travel on a privately-owned, commercially-run enterprise without search and possible seizure by the federal government.
As long as they've got a good reason to give him a closer look, and I think a shared name is a good reason, but don't go out of their way to give him a hard time, then release him AS SOON AS they discover he's innocent, I think it's all good... especially if this hasn't resulted in him missing any flights.

That gives me little reason to believe he's been mistreated, so I'm cool with it. Unfortunate for Dread's brother, though.


To be clear: I'm only talking about "No-Fly" lists. If I had the same name as someone on the list, but was treated the way I describe above, I think I'd still be okay with the list.

[Dreadstar]

Different strokes Ray. I'd rather they not do it, but I'm not going to worry a year off my life for them doing it. If I'm a fool, I hope to live my next 50 years the same foolish way I lived my first 50. Sue me, it just doesn't bother me because I have faith that I, like my brother, will be exonerated by my innocence via the system. Fight it if you must, especially if it's illegal, or an infringement. I'll back you up. But fear it? Nah...

It's really a much less stress-inducing outlook to have on the matter.

[Dreadstar]

As long as they've got a good reason to give him a closer look, and I think a shared name is a good reason, but don't go out of their way to give him a hard time, then release him AS SOON AS they discover he's innocent, I think it's all good... especially if this hasn't resulted in him missing any flights.

That gives me little reason to believe he's been mistreated, so I'm cool with it. Unfortunate for Dread's brother, though.

The first time it happened to him was at O'Hare. He almost missed his plane, because he and the airport security guy weren't understanding each other as well as they should. Once he proved who he was (or rather wasn't), the security called down and had the plane held for him. He also gave Dave a friendly warning that he'd probably have this happen again in the days of Homeland Security post 9/11. Then he told him the right things to tell the next security guy, and that it might not be a bad idea to show up even earlier than usual.

All of with Dave does. He's never once been mistreated, except for a surly bastard that was going to intentionally fuck him because he was having a bad day, until his airport superior showed up and kicked the security guy's ass.

To be honest, I think Dave gets a kick out of it.

[Dr. Hfuhruhurr]

Kerry Calls Eavesdropping Defense 'Lame'

By GLEN JOHNSON, Associated Press Writer Wed Dec 21, 7:33 AM ET

BOSTON - Domestic spying authorized by the White House "doesn't uphold our Constitution" and President Bush's defense of the practice is "lame," Sen.
John Kerry said Tuesday.

The Massachusetts Democrat also said the alleged White House leak of a
CIA agent's identity was more serious than the media's disclosure of the spying program.

Bush said Monday it was "a shameful act" for someone to have leaked details of the spying program that he authorized shortly after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

The program allows the National Security Agency to eavesdrop — without warrants — on international calls and e-mails of Americans and others inside the U.S. with suspected ties to al-Qaida.

Kerry, talking with reporters after addressing ironworkers at a local labor hall, contrasted the media's disclosure of the spy program with the White House leak involving Valerie Plame.

Her identity as a CIA analyst was exposed in July 2003 after her husband, former ambassador Joe Wilson, challenged an administration justification for the Iraq war.

"The leak in the White House was an effort to destroy somebody and his family and attack them for telling the truth," the senator said.

"The leak that took place in this case is a leak that — I'm not excusing it — is to tell the truth about something that violates the rights of Americans and doesn't uphold our Constitution," Kerry said.

Bush has said Congress gave him the power to authorize the spying under a mandate to protect the country "by all means necessary."

Kerry called the explanation "lame" and said "there is no wording whatsoever in the law that permits what he engaged in."

The Republican National Committee batted away the criticism.

"While President Bush remains focused on defending Americans against those intent on doing us harm, John Kerry remains focused on attacking President Bush," RNC spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt said.

Kerry was later quoted as saying that Bush was a "neo maxi zoomed dweebie," and that Cheney was "evil, like, totally."

[Winslow]

Kerry was later quoted as saying that Bush was a "neo maxi zoomed dweebie," and that Cheney was "evil, like, totally."

When asked about Bush's defense that he consulted with the judiciary, Kerry responded, "Oh, gag me with a spoon!"

[Mike Smith]

When asked about Bush's defense that he consulted with the judiciary, Kerry responded, "Oh, gag me with a spoon!"

So, Kerry in all honesty is an 80's valley girl at heart?

[Dr. Hfuhruhurr]

So, Kerry in all honesty is an 80's valley girl at heart?

Yes. And he thinks that Joe Biden is "bitchin'."

[PatrickG]

WWhat do you think about thwarting these invasive security efforts by arranging for large numbers of people to legally change their name to John Doe in protest or something?

Disable the "no fly" lists and invasive meaures by creating a name shared by half a million or more.

[Ray R.]

Kerry was later quoted as saying that Bush was a "neo maxi zoomed dweebie," and that Cheney was "evil, like, totally."

I always thought ball sack enlargement took years, rather than the one year since the 2004 election. At one point, I had wondered if the Kerry scrotum had completely shriveled up and dropped off.....

John, go give a two and a half hour lecture at the Kennedy School of Government on constitutional aspects of gerrymandering and leave the soundbites to the professionals, please.

[Mike Smash!]

How embarrassing is it for John Kerry to call you lame? That's like Carrot Top calling you annoying.

[Noah Johnson]

Hmmm. Part of me is thinking Congress ought to sit down and pass a resolution clearly saying that Bush does NOT have the powers he claims to have, possibly including a fourth-grade level explanation of the concept of separation of powers, since Bush appears to have cut class that day.

The other part of me is thinking that might just legitimize the existing lawbreaking, allowing Bush's apologists to say "Well, obviously he never broke the law, since Congress had to pass a law rescinding the authority everyone knew they gave him."

[phoenixrising]

As long as we apply the same standard to other presidents who approved domestic spying without warrants.

Like Clinton and Carter.

Sure, I'm all for it.

You have no idea how many morons have sent me a link to Drudge's site of late saying how our "liberal" newspaper is "protecting" Clinton by not mentioning a policy that's actually fairly well known and has been around longer than I have been living.

I wish I were allowed to email them all back and say, "Do some goddamn research before you start sending me hate mail! And Clinton hasn't been president in five years! And we tried to ruin his life too!"

[phoenixrising]

The other part of me is thinking that might just legitimize the existing lawbreaking, allowing Bush's apologists to say "Well, obviously he never broke the law, since Congress had to pass a law rescinding the authority everyone knew they gave him."

It wouldn't shock me. Our token conservative columnist argued today that if Russ Feingold wants to be more than "just a joke", he'd push a bill through Congress to change the law so that what Bush did wouldn't be illegal. He actually makes the argument that Congress should have changed the law so the president wouldn't have had to break it. They forced his hand, those bastards.

I guess they should have made breaking and entering legal for Nixon's henchmen too.

[K'Nort]

My assumption, without reading all the news detail and statute detail because I just don't have time right now, is that there are regulations of various types that authorize different kinds of surveillance but the Administration has been doing a sort not actually covered by any of those.

[Wesley Dodds]

And Clinton hasn't been president in five years! And we tried to ruin his life too!"

Don't tell me -- you broke TravelGate.

[Sabrinaset]

It wouldn't shock me. Our token conservative columnist argued today

Uhm, don't you think that the fact that you have a "token" conservative might go quite a way towards explaining why people think there's a liberal bias in the media?

Do