Join the Discussion

Comments So Far: 149

• 100%

  samsara151 year, 7 months ago

  We can only hope that the new Congress will show some teeth and put brakes on the White House. This nation needs to return to rule of law, and exercise some sort of control over the imperial Presidency. Promises made by the White House obviously cannot be trusted, so the administration requires constant and strict Congressional oversight to prevent abuses.

  Reply

  42 Replies

  • 100%

    capecoralM1 year, 7 months ago

    "Mr. Bush's aides don't try very hard to hide it. The day the shift on domestic wiretapping was announced,"

    The misleading and border-line deceptive practice by those opposed to Bush conducting data mining of calls originating overseas are on full display in this op-ed. The FISA court has nothing to do with domestic surveillance. Period. FISA by the name alone "Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act" deals with espionage by foreign elements. They Dem's threw temper tantrums and labeled it "domestic wiretapping" for political gain only. And for the most part have been successful at misrepresenting the facts of the NSA data mining program. FISA court and the DOJ have crafted a "order" as the Democrat's and some Republicans requested. The program is now under FISA court order. It is as if they believe that by being in the majority in the house and by 1 vote in the senate that Muslim extremist will now stop their pursuit of murdering Americans.

    Reply

    41 Replies

    • 100%

      jeffery11 year, 7 months ago

      Why do you bother posting anything? The editorial is correct, the only thing lacking are footnotes. But, since you insist on posting try providing any evidence to support you nonsense.

      That Bush has changed his tune proves he knows he was wrong otherwise he wouldn't have changed. For all your crap about "loving America" I find it interesting that you work so hard to destroy our constitution to create a right-wing authoritarian state. Try moving to Myanmar, they need people like you there.

      Reply
    • 0%

      MonkeyBiz1 year, 7 months ago

      First off, Bush's program (per their own explaination) is directed at calls between the US and overseas, thus the "domestic" part of it. Few Americans would complain about intercepting data purely from overseas. Secondly, the NSA data mining is based on the TIA program developed by DARPA, and included in the data that is mined are every phone call that YOU and I have made, domestically or internationally. It also includes credit card info, car rental info, bank records and any other data base that they want. The brave exception to this was Google's refusal to turn over user info to them and the Librarian's fight to keep Library records from them.

      YOU are mis-representing the facts.

      Reply

      21 Replies

      • 83%

        mcarpentry1 year, 7 months ago

        monkeybiz,

        Bush was not the only president doing illegal wire taps, better check history and see our wonderful SLICK WILLY was doing the same thing. No mention of that though, is there. Once again Bush is always at fault in the liberals eyes.

        Reply

        10 Replies

        • lovermanComment removed: User banned.
        • 0%

          MonkeyBiz1 year, 7 months ago

          mcarpentry

          So you're saying that its OK because someone else did it first? Next time I get a ticket I'll try that one.

          If Clinton was doing illegal wiretaps (though I have never heard that before), then he deserved to be roundly critized and even impeached. Our constitution is not just a liberal propaganda tool. Though reading some of these posts and watching the Bush Adminisration, you would think that perhaps some believe that it is only that.

          Reply

          5 Replies

          • 0%

            deathray1 year, 7 months ago

            Remember that the first President to be caught sanctioning illegal wiretaps was Richard M. Nixon, and had he not resigned, he would surely have been impeached for doing so.

            Reply
          • 0%

            RedstateLib1 year, 7 months ago

            I would love to see evidence of Clinton ordering illegal wiretaps. After all the investigations and tax dollers wasted I cannot believe they impeached him for lying about a BJ when they could have impeached him for abuse of power. Not goin to buy it, no, no, wouldn't be prudent.

            Reply

            3 Replies

            • 100%

              bigG1 year, 7 months ago

              It amazes me that the "Far Wrong" always tries to cover for this President's bad decision making and alleged abuses by claiming that "Willie did it first".

              Reminds me of my brother and myself when we were children. We got our asses whooped anyway.

              Reply

              1 Reply

              • 0%

                SamMyam1 year, 7 months ago

                So what you're saying is that some of these kids' booty should be burning? :-)

                Reply
            • 100%

              SamMyam1 year, 7 months ago

              Good point.

              And,as people have pointed out, if Clinton was out to skirt the law on Fisa, why would his admin have actually requested *increased* oversight by FISA?

              Reply
        • 100%

          jeffery11 year, 7 months ago

          You better check your history. The Clinton administration did not do the same thing, which is why there is no mention of it in the editorial.

          On July 14, 1994, Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee that the executive branch has "inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches." Physical searches were not covered by FISA at that time and Gorelick testified that FISA should be amended to include them, which it has.

          Reply

          1 Reply

          • 0%

            SamMyam1 year, 7 months ago

            Damn that Clinton Admin, asking for *more* oversight upon itself instead of less...

            Reply
        • 71%

          moortiez1 year, 7 months ago

          CThie difference, Me carpentry, is that clinton GOT APPROVAL from the fisa court, whereas bush IGNORED the fisa court. Get your facts straight. In any case, I would object to the practice of WARRENTLESS wiretapping no matter who does it. Clinton GOT the warrants. Just more ignorant wingnut BS.

          Reply
      • 0%

        capecoralM1 year, 7 months ago

        I would argue that you do not know what data mining algorithms utilized in this program "look for". Stating that you do is misleading. Perhaps it has roots in the programs you site but in fact you do not know, nor do I. If you are a terrorist calling on someone in the US or calling home for funding or instructions you probably have something to worry about. If you are calling your mother or best friend I suspect you have not been "wiretapped" and had your conversation recorded for the heck of it. This program does not involve the NSA listening to or recording conversations. But the spy agency is using data to analyze calling patterns in an effort to detect terrorist activity.

        http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/nsa/dojnsa11906

        Reply

        9 Replies

        • 0%

          MonkeyBiz1 year, 7 months ago

          CapecoralM

          You are correct in arguing that I do not know the specific algorithms utilized, they are top secret. However, there is not much doubt (the admiral that was in charge of the NSA has publicly confirmed it), that the program mines data from EVERY phone call made in the US. They do not record conversations of every call, only the originating and recieving phone numbers. If their algorithms detect that the call may be terrorist related, then the calls are recorded and analyzed. But phone calls are not the only things in the data base. They have been collecting data bases from every where that one exists in the US, Credit card info, library info, airline info, the list goes on and on. There is only one known data mining program with the capacity to mine all that data, and it was originated by DARPA and called "Total Information Awareness" (although there are some commercial programs that are catching up).

          Reply

          3 Replies

          • 0%

            MonkeyBiz1 year, 7 months ago

            to continue...

            I am not OK with the government having a record of every thing from my banking transactions to what I buy or rent, I am also not comfortable with them having a list of every call that has been made to or from my telephone. That seems to be a violation of the unreasonable search and seizure clause, not to mention a violation of my privacy.

            If I am a suspected terrorist, go to court and get a warrant, if not, stay the hell out of my business.

            Reply

            2 Replies

            • 0%

              bigG1 year, 7 months ago

              I'll wager CapeCoral would be pitching a fit if the Dems were in charge and doing this very same thing. I, like you, have a problem with government intrusion( as would any true conservative).

              Reply

              1 Reply

              • 100%

                SamMyam1 year, 7 months ago

                absolutely.

                And the whole "you don't know what algorithms are used" argument is a red herring, used to intimidate someone, to make them feel "technically incompetent" to judge what the government is doing. It's an attempt to derail the argument, hijack it and take it down a fruitless sidetrack. It's a simple issue, and the techie BS is completely beside the point. Take that from a techie who worked for the DOD for 11 years.

                Reply
        • 100%

          BravoSierra1 year, 7 months ago

          The initial claim that the algorithms are so secret that hundrends of NSA employees and the employees of companies like SAIC that NSA outsources to could know them but a Federal Judge especially investigated and cleared for oversite on top secret warrants couldn't know what was going on was and is ludicrous. What is being done is not as important as the abuse of Executive power and this idiotic claim that no one in the Judicial Branch could be trusted enough to review the program...lol.

          Reply
        • 100%

          BravoSierra1 year, 7 months ago

          I've done the statistical analysis on hundreds of millions of transactions for many international companies. I always laugh when I find the randomly assigned ID numbers correlate with the target behaviors more than the predictor variables do. There is as good a chance that this "brass instrument" data dredging is finding misleading, spurious relationships there is that it is finding terrorists who are intentionally masking their patterns...lol.

          Reply
        • 0%

          BravoSierra1 year, 7 months ago

          The odds are that they are trying to hide that they'e ******ed away billions on the technology when it doesn't work more than that they are trying to hide the algorithms...lol. They probably have so many false positives that they don't have enough human resources to check all the leads.

          Reply

          2 Replies

          • 0%

            MonkeyBiz1 year, 7 months ago

            BravoSierra

            You have nailed it! Simple statistics prove your point (see my post below).

            Reply
          • 0%

            SamMyam1 year, 7 months ago

            very likely true.

            Reply
    • 0%

      ybdogsct1 year, 7 months ago

      CAPECORALM WROTE:

      "The misleading and border-line deceptive practice by those opposed to Bush"

      Actually Bush admitted that many of the calls targeted by this program involved calls between the U.S. and a foreign country, so in a sense it does fall under FISA jurisdiction.

      http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/50C36.txt

      FISA applies to "(2) any person who - (C) knowingly engages in sabotage or international terrorism, or activities that are in preparation therefor, for or on behalf of a foreign power;"

      http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2006/01/ag012406.html

      AG Antonio Gonzales claims: "This program...is focused on international communications. The terrorist surveillance program is firmly grounded in the President's constitutional authorities." Apparently, Gonzales believes that when Congress authorized the president to "use all necessary and appropriate force" in the Authorization for Military Force against Iraq that included violating FISA.

      Reply
    • 0%

      jeffery11 year, 7 months ago

      You're wrong again. Are you that much of an ideologue and Bush apologist that you just can't stop yourself? The Democrats did not throw a tempter tantrum for political gain because the program spied on U.S. citizens without a warrant. That is why the program was found to be unconstitutional. From the judges decision on the program's unconstitutionality:

      "Plaintiffs are a group of persons and organizations who, according to their affidavits, are defined by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (hereinafter "FISA") as "U.S. persons."

      The Democrats and the editorial are correct. This administration must be forced to play by the rules of the constitution and the existing laws. It is absolutley amazing that you right-wing ideologues claim to fight for America at the same time you work to destroy the constitution so that you can create a right-wing authoritarian state. It's obvious that you a want to do what the terrorists cannot.

      Reply

      15 Replies

      • 0%

        capecoralM1 year, 7 months ago

        I would disagree with your assessment of the ruling as would many other scholars with more expertise than I. for example "Regardless of what your position is on the merits of the issue, there's no question that it's a poorly reasoned decision," said Bobby Chesney, a national security law specialist at Wake Forest University who takes a moderate stance on the legal debate over the NSA program. "The opinion kind of reads like an outline of possible grounds to strike down the program, without analysis to fill it in." and ,even Disingenuous Constitutional Scholar Glenn Greenwald was forced to admit that the Fourth Amendment ruling was "without much reasoning or even explicit arguments," and the First Amendment ruling was also made "without all that much reasoning." and "This is not the most scholarly opinion ever. It has argumentative holes in it in several important places."

        http://www.mied.uscourts.gov/eGov/taylorpdf/06 10204.pdf

        Reply

        14 Replies

        • 100%

          jeffery11 year, 7 months ago

          I read the decision. What other people think apparently doesn't matter though because Bush has changed his position. the only way to truly know whether the decision was poorly reasoned was to have it appealed and it won't be apparently.

          The real problem with the arguemnt that the decision was poorly reasoned is that if it was appealed then a higher court would reach the same conclusion, that his program was unconstitutional and illegal, with better reasoning. The administration seemed to read the writing on the wall.

          The nature of law is that it is a game and open to interpretation. The problem is that the right seems to want a unitary Executive that is unencumbered by the Legislature and Judiciary. This is not what many conservatives or liberal want. The Bush administration is going to lose most of their authoritarian arguments now that the Democrats are in power allowing the moderate to liberal Republicans to take power from the extreme right-wing.

          Reply

          13 Replies

          • 0%

            capecoralM1 year, 7 months ago

            I don't think President Bush "Changed" his position in the sense that you are presenting the decision. The program is still in effect and so no matter your position the order is broad enough to meet the needs of the NSA according to the DOJ statement. I seriously doubt that you calling your mother or best friend are of much interest to the NSA unless of course they are located in a highly known terrorist populated area code. This was a political issue presented by Democrat's to have an effect on elections. It was presented as a "Domestic wiretapping program" o lead people to believe that "Big Brother" was watching. I see it as a tool that the government is using to prevent foreign or domestic Muslim extremist from conducting military operations. As you are fully aware the congress "Intelligence committee" knew all about the program before the "TOP Secret" program was leaked. The act of leaking was in itself espionage IMO

            Reply

            12 Replies

            • 0%

              jeffery11 year, 7 months ago

              As for any DOJ statement, I discount it immediately simply because under Gonzales it is a right-wing farse. Gonzales does not believe that an American has a right to habeas corpus, which is a good indication as to how little he thinks of our constitution or its ideals.

              It was domestic insofar as they tapped conversations that involved American citizens without obtaining the required warrant in the time permitted by FISA. This is not an overstatement.

              It doesn't surprise me that you see no problem with the administration refusing to follow the law. There was absolutely no reason for the administration to not follow the law except to promote the unitary Executive. The government could have started suveillance and then gone to the FISC to get approval. There was no time constraint problem.

              The trouble with the right-wing is that they see that the ends justify the means and that our constitution and laws are impediments to their agenda. The administration must be forced to comply.

              Reply

              3 Replies

              • 100%

                capecoralM1 year, 7 months ago

                "It doesn't surprise me that you see no problem with the administration refusing to follow the law."

                That is a rather broad statement without a single bases for making it. You assume because I interpet the case law differntly than you do in this matter that I am taking that position. I find it a bit telling of your belief system. If someone does not agree with you they are a right wing neocon? Great debating form you exhibit there.

                Lets be clear I may or may not be a democrat but you don't know, so don't assume you do. The simple fact that you do not know, nor do I, what or what is not being collected under the NSA program is the issue. The fact that the NSA program is now under the FISA court order is something we do know. We do know a statement was made that a special court order was used to meet the needs of the NSA. We also know that someone committed espionage or an act of treason for leaking the top secret program to the enemies of the United States and our allies.

                Reply
              • 0%

                capecoralM1 year, 7 months ago

                You dismiss a legal document because it was prepared by a Republican. That seems a bit extreme to me. Are you saying because someone is not of your particular political persuasion that their viewpoint is invalid or hold no merit. I find that to be extremely intolerant in the exchange of ideas. Is that truly your position?

                Reply

                1 Reply

                • 0%

                  BravoSierra1 year, 7 months ago

                  Many of us dismiss the legal documents prepared by this administration because when you look at their arguements they are blatantly in violation of the Constitution of the United States.

                  Reply
            • 100%

              MonkeyBiz1 year, 7 months ago

              Some tool. Even if the data mining has a 99% success rate and your mother and best friend don't interest the NSA, consider that if there are 1000 terrorists in the US, ten of them will probably get past the NSA program, and three million innocent people will be terror suspects (see Scientific American, 12 Sept. 2003). So by your logic, the three million who get their phones tapped are what? Constitutional collateral damage?

              As to what is, or what is not being collected is well known. The 2004 funding authorization bill for intelligence agencies included giving the government authority to demand records from businesses without approval from a judge. The news is full of instances where some businesses refused to turn over their data to the government - Google is the latest, and I believe there was at least one phone company, and the librarians fight is also well known. Ask your bank if they have turned over their customer's data to them.

              Reply

              6 Replies

              • 100%

                capecoralM1 year, 7 months ago

                According to your post I should (see Scientific American, 12 Sept. 2003)

                But according to their site there was no such issue in 2002, or 2003, 2004.

                In addition do you seriously believe that the NSA is going to waste time and resources "Tapping" worthless phone conversations in the sense of finding a terrorist plot? Anyway I searched for the info you referred to but was unable to find your reference. Please direct

                LINK to Scientific America Archives.

                http://www.sciam.com/all_magazinecontent.cfm?yr=20

                Perhaps you will be so kind to direct me to the section of the Bill authorizing the government authorities to demand records from business'.

                Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004

                http://www.dod.mil/dodgc/olc/docs/2004NDAA.pdf

                Also would you be so kind to provide the links you are using as reference to your accusations that the "News" is full of cases concerning this matter being the NSA program...

                Reply

                5 Replies

                • 0%

                  MonkeyBiz1 year, 7 months ago

                  Sorry, wrong date for SA try mar 2003, vol 288, issue 3 Section: SA perspectives

                  The defense authorization bill is almost 500 pages long, try looking at the news article by Eric Lichbrau in the New York Times, 20 Nov. 2003, page A17.

                  As for the final links concerning cases of businesses resisting government requests for their data bases?... jeeze where to begin? try typing into a search engine "Google refuses to turn over user data to US government" or "librarians up in arms over government data demands" These things have been in the news for some time now, don't you read the newspapers?

                  Reply

                  4 Replies

                  • 0%

                    MonkeyBiz1 year, 7 months ago

                    Oh. Almost forgot, Yes I do think the NSA would waste time and resources. Do you seriously think their data mining has a 100% success rate? As a matter of fact, that is my second major complaint against them, the first being of course, their total disregard for the constitution.

                    Reply
                  • 0%

                    capecoralM1 year, 7 months ago

                    Nice. Ok your a Joker who uses the NY Times as your information resource. Should have known huh. Your all about hearsay and conjecture with no real facts to support your position. Jokes on me.

                    Reply

                    2 Replies

                    • 100%

                      MonkeyBiz1 year, 7 months ago

                      Yikes! Here I was thinking that for a neocon you actually sounded reasonable and polite. But like the rest of them, you are resorting to name calling and character assasination. Much easier than doing a little research or using your brain isn't it? Can you be specific? What exactly do you claim is hearsay, conjecture and not factual?

                      Reply
                    • 0%

                      deathray1 year, 7 months ago

                      Actually, even though the Times has had siome reporting scandals, they continue to be the newspaper of record.

                      Reading the NY Times might seem a disparaging comment in certain quarters, but not in those whose political bias only allows for one sided analysis.

                      Reply
            • 50%

              SamMyam1 year, 7 months ago

              That is probably the least convincing argument I have ever seen.

              A "terrorist populated area code?" Inside this country? That begs the question: would these be the same known terrorist area codes in which the 911 highjackers stayed when they were here?

              The wiretapping is being done on people inside the US, period. No one is seriously debating that. And if it is, it's illegal without a warrant. It's no more complicated than that.

              But do another logical backflip please, it's amusing to watch.

              Reply
    • 0%

      moortiez1 year, 7 months ago

      You could not be more wrong. the FISA act specifically states that is the only means by which the president may collect information on the tellecommunications of US citizens inside the united states, but i suppose you have never read the law, like I have. No worries. Wingnut ignorance is bliss for you neo-fascists. You just love having your rights taken away, and your business looked into by your heroes, the neo con junta.

      Reply
• 100%

  Spadecaller1 year, 7 months ago

  The wanton abuse of power by this president is unconscionable.

  Anything less than a bipartisan front to curtail Bush and his mob from further damaging our nation and the prospect of peace in this world is unacceptable.

  All Americans should demand from their representatives immediate action -- making it clear they will not get their votes in 2008 without addressing this issue promptly.

  Reply
• 75%

  Aidenag1 year, 7 months ago

  Article hit it right on the head. Bush is backtracking on things he stated were so vital to national security that anytime someone complained or even questioned the legality, he smeared them as Terrorist supporters.

  I hope everyone who actually thought he was defending America wake up and realize that it was about executive power grabs, and nothing more. Sure all presidents try to increase thier own power, in the name of Security, or a dozen other excuses, but what Bush and Cheney have done is something that Nixon himself could never have dreamed possible.. The Total removal of all checks and Balances that have stopped Our leaders from doing some VERY Stupid stuff over the years.

  Reply

  1 Reply

  • 0%

    Beau78901 year, 7 months ago

    To be fair, they haven't yet accomplished total removal of checks and balances--that would have taken the complicity of the Republican-controlled Congress and the stacked Federal courts. It was on its way, but luckily, the new Congress is showing *some* signs of standing up for its power.

    But it should be obvious (if it wasn't before) that your point about these constitutional violations being more rooted in a desire to extend power than to protect the nation is correct. As soon as Bush realized he couldn't get away with it in this case, he decided to follow the law.

    Reply
• 100%

  bubba21 year, 7 months ago

  It is dawning on Bush that he now might not be able to get away with becoming KING, so he is backing off SOME on his grab of power over Congress and the courts.

  The current Congress needs to investigate FULLY all of the Constitutional and legal violations of the white house.

  What has disgusted me most of late is how the white house is painting Syria in the same 'picture' with Iran and how both countries are part of the 'axis of evil'. But it was Syria that Arar and other 'detainees' were sent for rendition and for torture.

  The white house has consistently lied, and now they are flip-flopping in an attempt to stave off investigations into their lies and their illegal actions.

  Reply

  2 Replies

  • 100%

    lfergie8121 year, 7 months ago

    "the white house is painting Syria in the same 'picture' with Iran and how both countries are part of the 'axis of evil'."

    This is exactly why the other countries cannot trust the United States. If they don't do exactly as this administration demands, they get put on the bad list. These people in power now don't have the ability to use diplomacy nor do they feel it necessary to do any.

    Reply
  • 60%

    Beau78901 year, 7 months ago

    Well bubba2, you know what the motivation is for them to paint Syria with the same brush as Iran--it's part of the PNAC agenda to dominate the mideast. And now that the administration knows it has only two years to make as much progress as it can with that, the timetable's been accelerated.

    Reply
• 0%

  MonkeyBiz1 year, 7 months ago

  What could we expect from someone who dismisses the constitution as "just a piece of paper?" Attorney General Gonzo dismisses the Geneva conventions as "quaint," and claims there is no constitutional right to habeas corpus (among other outrageous things). If they don't believe in the Constitution, they probably don't believe the unwashed masses have any rights, and they will do whatever they want. Democrat or Republican, these people ought to scare the bejesus out of every American.

  Reply

  8 Replies

  • 100%

    Aidenag1 year, 7 months ago

    As much as i would love to believe that quote is true, it sadly is not. it was "reported" by Doug Thompson who owns CapitalHillBlue.com, who at the very least, never verified his sources, and at the very worst, made up the source to create fake news. You be the judge of it after a "20 year long source of his turned out to be Fake." that source "Terrance J. Wilkinson" is the man who "Overheard" bush say that quote.

    http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/071003K.shtml

    Reply

    7 Replies

    • 100%

      MonkeyBiz1 year, 7 months ago

      Thompson claims three GOP sources for the quote and does not name any of them. You may be correct, they could all be fake sources, but the article from truthout doesn't mention the Bush quote or that Wilkinson was one of his sources for the quote. The article only is a mea culpa from Thompson for trusting Wilkinson as a national security source for over twenty years. Where does the quote from Bush fit into any of this?

      If Bush and his Attorney General had shown any respect for the constitution in their actions, I might be inclined to believe that perhaps he didn't call it "just a damn piece of paper." Sadly, actions speak louder than words, so even if he didn't say it, you can bet that that is his attitude.

      Reply

      5 Replies

      • 100%

        Aidenag1 year, 7 months ago

        Well when one of his sources for that quote turns out to be FAKE a totally non exsistant person, and the other 2 he wont name.. I call it bogus lol

        Reply

        4 Replies

        • 100%

          MonkeyBiz1 year, 7 months ago

          aidenag - According to the story on the link YOU provided, Wilkerson was one of the sources for a story about Bush dismissing evidence that WMD didn't exist, he was NOT named as a source in the "damn piece of paper" story.

          Also, the guy did exist (he was recommended to Thompson by the GOP), only his name and credentials are false. He was called one of the "good guys" by the GOP folks who recommended him as a source of info for Thompson.

          Pretty fishy - ya think?

          Reply

          3 Replies

          • 100%

            SamMyam1 year, 7 months ago

            Hmmmm.... and still no answer from Aidenag.

            I also checked that story, and you're right. No mention of the fake-ID GOPplant being the source of that quote. Seems like Thompson would have mentioned that, were it the case.

            One would have to assume that the three sources -- and the quote -- are legit, until proven otherwise, then, right? Unless we want to dismiss all unanmed sources? If you do that, there goes about 90 percent of stories on Fox.

            Reply

            1 Reply

            • 0%

              Aidenag1 year, 7 months ago

              I agree sam, unnamed sources are ussually trustable, but when you have openly stated that one of those "Sources" wasnt real that REALLY puts the other two sources reliability and even exsistance into question...

              And as for the "he didnt say wilkerson was one of the sources".. Actually he did, then removed it, along with all other mentions of that "Source" as he said he was going to do in the Link i provided above..

              Reply
          • 0%

            Aidenag1 year, 7 months ago

            MonkeyBiz.... i dont know how many more times i can say this.. Wilkerson IS one of the people Doug Used as his "Sources" for the Bush quote...

            I cant be any clearer, he was the ONLY one of the sources that Thompson revealed. and he turned out to be a total scam.....

            Reply
    • 50%

      Beau78901 year, 7 months ago

      Regardless of whether Bush said the Constitution is "just a piece of paper," iit is clear he believes it.

      The other telling quote I heard is the one he made in defending the warrantless wiretaps: "Anyone who thinks warrantless wiretaps are a violation of the Constitution, just doesn't understand the world today."

      In other words, to Bush, the Constitution doesn't matter.

      Reply
• 63%

  Amazing11 year, 7 months ago

  "Generally, they mask the fact that he (Bush) either got what he wanted from Congress or found a way to add some other veneer of legitimacy to his lawless behavior. The campaign to expand presidential power goes on, at the expense of American values."

  That is why he should be impeached. And his VICE President as well. We have no idea what kind of "signing statements" are hidden in the back room. Our Constitution is in danger.

  Congress needs to uphold its oath of office to defend and protect the Constitution from both foreign and domestic threat. This administration is a domestic threat.

  Globally we are arguably the most hated nation on earth. The populace is considered powerless, clueless, or spineless. Which do you want to be?

  Contact your representatives. Let them know how you feel.

  http://www.congress.org/congressorg/home/

  Let them know that WE, the PEOPLE will not tolerate this behavior.

  Impeachment NOW! Vigilence Forever!

  Reply

  4 Replies

  • 100%

    JustCallMeV1 year, 7 months ago

    Amazing1: Once again your comment says it all!

    -V-

    Reply

    2 Replies

    • 0%

      Amazing11 year, 7 months ago

      Thanks. You're my favorite movie.

      Reply

      1 Reply

      • 100%

        bubba21 year, 7 months ago

        LOL!!!

        Reply
  • 0%

    MonkeyBiz1 year, 7 months ago

    Amazing1 - Well Said!

    Reply
• 100%

  deathray1 year, 7 months ago

  Is that all you got?

  You support all the stuff that the Administration is doing?

  I's easy to say things like "Liberalism IS a mental disorder..." like a parrot, because there isn't anything substantive you can say.

  Polly, go find a cracker somewhere else...

  Reply

  4 Replies

  • 100%

    Searunner521 year, 7 months ago

    Yup - that is all he has! Pretty freaking sad isn't it!

    Reply

    3 Replies

    • 100%

      deathray1 year, 7 months ago

      Really? Did the liberals start this war?

      Honestly, if liberalism got you killed it would only make us happier.

      Reply

      1 Reply

      • 100%

        deathray1 year, 7 months ago

        You know what?

        I retract my statement regasrding liberalism getting DocJ killed.

        I realize that it is his own mental deficit that makes him repeat things.

        Reply
    • 0%

      Searunner521 year, 7 months ago

      And you still have nothing. I'm even willing to bet that you haven't got a real clue as to what the underlaying philosophy of liberalism is. Likely the best you can do is regurgatate the spew of one of the neocon barking head brigade as it is very doubtful that anything more complex than I'm hungry, tired, have of potty, etc... has ever crossed through your brain!

      But do keep trying as there are those that do believe miracles can happen!

      Reply
• 0%

  JohnChasWebb1 year, 7 months ago

  "Judges?, we don't need no stinking judges!"

  Quote is from "The Paranoid President" published by Doublecross, 2007

  Reply
• 0%

  Matteu001 year, 7 months ago

  So many people hate our freedoms and our constitution. It is a shame they call themselves Americans. The enemy is among us and they are the Neo-Con Chicken Hawks. Our Constitution is foundation of our country and it is what makes our country unique and better than the rest of the world. Each elected official swears an oath to protect and defend it against ALL ENEMIES foreign and domestic. To do anything less is an act of treason.

  Reply

  3 Replies

  • 100%

    ChefEOD1 year, 7 months ago

    Would you include acts and attempts to 'add' to the constitution as treasonous as well? To read 'between the lines' or to read into it what is not plainly there, should that not be considered treason as well?

    Just curious.

    Reply

    2 Replies

    • 100%

      amazed1 year, 7 months ago

      nah... that's different

      Reply
    • 0%

      Searunner521 year, 7 months ago

      There is a process by which the Constitution can be modified or changed and as long as it is done within those parameters I don't have a problem!

      Reply
• 100%

  Blackace1 year, 7 months ago

  I hope this congress investigate these guys. If for nothing else, they should do it to be sure that all is well with our laws and that these crooks hasn't for ever damage it.

  Reply
• 100%

  pattif1 year, 7 months ago

  He needs to be impeached and jailed!

  Reply

  1 Reply

  • 100%

    donald511 year, 7 months ago

    ...with Cheney, Rummy, Gonzales, Wolfowitz, Feith, Perle, all the signers of the PNAC Document, etc... try and jail them all!

    Reply
• 100%

  MonkeyBiz1 year, 7 months ago

  garmissou86 - excellent analogy! trouble is, they haven't ridden off into the sunset yet.

  Reply
• 0%

  bigG1 year, 7 months ago

  garmissou86 - Sort of a good analogy, but unrealistic. If Cheney was shooting they would all be in deep shiite.

  Reply

  1 Reply

  • 100%

    MonkeyBiz1 year, 7 months ago

    garmissou86 - Sorry, I have to accept bigG's assesment... I forgot Cheney's shotgun proclivities.

    Reply
• 100%

  bonefactory1 year, 7 months ago

  I smell waffles from Bush!

  Reply
• 0%

  questionseverything1 year, 7 months ago

  i watched the senate hearings today on c span

  i thought our senators did a good job for the most part in STARTING investigations on ag gonzoles...there were so many points that scream for further attention its hard to know whr to start

  the ag hasnt brought brought to sucessful conclusion cases against

  the anthrax attacks on dem senators

  fraud against govt spending in iraq (ovr 50 cases)

  voters rights violations

  maherar a canadian citizen sent to iraq to be tortured

  only 1 conviction on abuses of torture against corporate employees (civilians) in the abu/guentonimo cases

  in fact seems to be hindering prosecution in public corruption cases by removing local ags involved in those cases as warned by sen whitehouse of ri

  i gotta say knowing the man the pres picked to be the highest prosecuter in the land doesnt think hc is a right scares the heck outta me and made me happy to see the senators rip that line of thinking to shreds

  Reply

  1 Reply

  • 100%

    questionseverything1 year, 7 months ago

    oops the canadian was sent to syria to be tortured not iraq..srry for the mix up

    Reply
• 100%

  rickcb1 year, 7 months ago

  "First, Mr. Bush and his aides say his actions are so vital to national security that to even report on them - let alone question them - lends comfort to the terrorists."

  It truly boggles my mind that the Republican led congress allowed themselves to be rendered absolutely impotent! I find it hard to believe that they would sacrifice their careers...they had to see the writing on the wall. They HAD TO KNOW that Bush was violating the constitution that they swore to uphold. There had to be more going on than meets the eye.

  One has to wonder too why the Democrats took impeachment off of the table. It is truly disappointing, and we are not hearing anything out of their "investigations." There are just too many unanswered questions.

  Only one thing is clear to me; this country is in need of a RADICAL change.

  Reply

  2 Replies

  • 0%

    rickcb1 year, 7 months ago

    "Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people."

    ~Theodore Roosevelt

    Hmmm...I never use to be so pessimistic, but perhaps good ol' Teddy is right.

    Reply
  • 0%

    Blackace1 year, 7 months ago

    rickob - The problem with crooks is if they get away with the crime long enough, they think they will never get cought. These guys thought the country would never catch on to them...we may have been slow but in the end we cought up to them, thank god.

    Reply
• 0%

  rickcb1 year, 7 months ago

  AND ANOTHER THING (LOL)... Can you imagine the litany of crap that Bush is going to try to push through in the final hours of his presidency? That's one list I want to see. Thank God most of it can be negated by the incoming president; provided it is not another Republican stooge.

  Reply
• 100%

  snotbucket1 year, 7 months ago

  Bush knows you cant fool all the people all the time....

  but he and FOX NEWS have done a good job of fooling 51% all of the time.....

  or is the mentel health of this country in that bad of shape.

  Reply
• 100%

  Obtruder1 year, 7 months ago

  I find it interesting that a deal was cut...

  The truth is, Bush is waiting for Stephens to croak and then he will nominate a Supreme Court Justice honest enough to uphold the Constitution and pronounce that it is Un-Constitutional for the judicial branch to infringe upon Presidential authority, during a time when the country is threatened, which is granted by the Constitution in the first place.

  FISA, in effect, is Un-Constitutional by virtue of a judical review that the Constitution does not grant to the judiciary in the first place.

  The judiciary, by Constitutional decree, can only oversee legislative activity, legislative pronouncements of due process, or those powers granted to federal courts by original jurisdiction.

  The FISA legislation, that emerged during the Carter Administration, has been Un-Constitutional all along.

  Bush will play this card until the Supreme Court is fixed!

  Reply

  2 Replies

  • 0%