Did the President wiretap CNN’s Christiane Amanpour? Any other journalists? Leading political figures? Is the president above the law?
Breaking News
Oprah Quitting TV Show In 2011
Oliver Willis
Like Kryptonite To Stupid
-
-
Breaking News
- Tila Tequila Live Streaming Mental Meltdown
- 31 Die In Chinese Mine Blast In Heilongjiang Province, 82 Trapped
- Victoria Justice Stars In New Nickeloden Show “Victorious”
- CERN’s Large Hadron Collider Back Up And Running
- Megan Fox Alive For Transformers 3
- Maryna Linchuk @ 2009 Victoria’s Secret Fashion Show
- Madison Parker Works Out
- Sony Reveals Lame Attempt To Fight iTunes
- Brian Thomas: UK Man Gets Away With Killing Wife In His Sleep
- Olivia Wilde @ US Weekly Hot Hollywood 2009 Party
Live News
Scofflaws in tandem.
“LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA…I can’t hear you….LA LA LA LA LA …”
It is readily becoming apparent that, here as elsewhere, the idea of law
is an abstract concept to many within and without the administration. The
law is only concrete in an arbritary sense, and thus becomes a tool for
those for whom it has no meaning.
I give you, Tweedldum and Tweedldee
Two giants of redundant republican protoplasm
Did bush steal alien technology from Area 51 to plant probes in the brains of leftists everywhere? Has Bush trained Karl Rove in the lost art of Necromancy, causing the dead to rise from their graves and feast on the hearts of democratic presidential candidates? Did Bush really tear up the Constitution for kindling in the Lincoln Bedroom?
Uh, no.
But thanks for random tossing of mud….I don’t think it is sticking yet.
Bejus OW……
I miss Dr. Gonzo
Hunter S. Thompson, in the October 10, 1974 Rolling Stone: “But the climate of those years was so grim that half the Washington press corps spent more time worrying about having their telephones tapped than they did about risking the wrath of Haldeman, Ehrlichman, and Colson by poking at the weak seams of a Mafia-style administration that began cannibalizing the whole government just as soon as it came into power. Nixon’s capos were never subtle; they swaggered into Washington like a conquering army, and the climate of fear they engendered apparently neutralized The New York Times along with all the other pockets of potential resistance. Nixon had to do everything but fall on his own sword before anybody in the Washington socio-political establishment was willing to take him on.”
I love that you’re certain nothing of the sort ever occured. Of course, how could our beloved President ever do wrong while he’s still walking on water?
Batman and Robin of Plausible Denialism
Oliver, only you, and, I guess, Cleo, can draw such incredible inferences from what did not occur.
I give you Tweedldee. Wherefore art thou, Tweedldum?
“Your arguments would hold so much more strength if there was some shred of fact behind them.”
Those don’t look like arguments, Dr. Those look more like questions.
Dr Pedro = Idiot.
Oliver I bet you were the kind of guy who would take a white piece of paper to art class and tell the teacher it was a “white cow drinking milk in a snowstorm”
Lords knows you have quite an imagination, but again, your arguments would hold so much more strength if there was some shred of fact behind them.
Of course your “Amen Chorus” of “OW’s Echo Chamber of Love” really adds a lot to the discussion too!
At least you guys are consistent though. You bought right off on the vast right wing conspiracy with the Monica Lewinsky thing….right up until they got the Clenis’s spooge off the dress at least…then it became a chorus of “lying about sex isn’t lying….” and “a blowjob isn’t sex” (both of those ideas were vehemently argued against by lovely bride by the way)
Don’t forget to “investigate” the Necromancy charge, that one is a doozie, I hear Rove has a Zombie in the trunk of his car……
We’re talking about George Bush spying. Would you please stop fixating on Bill Clinton’s penis for five minutes?
(Is the president above the law?) The answer is yes he is,this has been demonstrated by his breaking the law and how do I say this,hmm.
I have it,he is wee,weeing on our heads and telling us its raining.
I wonder if Joe Wilson is on the enemies list, or Scott Ritter?
From “- NBC did not say it pulled the references to Bush spying on Amanpour because it was inappropriate conjecture about something which Andrea Mitchell had no evidence.” we have extrapolated (so far) That George Bush is spying on newspaperhumans and breaking the law.
Buma wants to know if Joe Wilson and Scott Ritter are on the enemies list (whose existence we are not yet aware of.)
Based on that kind of thinking, I want to know if George W. Bush is spying on the 8th Grade at Christopher Columbus Middle School, up the street from me; ot spying on the homeless shelter about two blocks away; or the Spanish Mass across from me; or the Mexican – run produce store about four blocks from me; or the Breyer’s Ice Cream Shoppe in the center of town, or the …
OT, Oliver, but I know you’re a fan, so this might interest you — if you don’t know about it already:
http://www.superherohype.com/
“Based on that kind of thinking, I want to know if George W. Bush is spying on the 8th Grade at Christopher Columbus Middle School, up the street from me;”
Let me try to think like a liberal. Bush WOULD NOT spy on Christopher Columbus Middle School, because it’s named after a major boogeyman to those on the left.
HOWEVER, should they ever change the name to something else, because we all know Columbus was a genocidal scumbag and not deserving of having a school named after him, then Bush would spy on the school because they succumbed to PC pressure and changed the name.
Man, whatever you guys drank New Years, I want to avoid. Whew.
BTW, my brother in law’s kid is reporting that Ted Koppel’s wig is really C Amanpour’s merkin and that Abramoff associate Harry Reid (in reality, a space alien) secretly made the swap and plans to blame it on Bush. I WANT A SPECIAL PROSECUTOR NOW. THIS TREACHERY HAS TO STOP!!! OH, THE HUMANITY!!!
Dugger, to quote the great Criswell,
“Can you prove that it didn’t happen? Perhaps on your way home, you will pass someone in the dark, and you will never know it, for they will be from outer space.”
we have absolutely no assurance that it didn t and couldn t have happened.
As you have been reminded several times, there is no assurance that any one of a million things “didn’t or couldn’t have happened.”
Doesn’t that mean anything to you?
Or are you all really thinking and saying, “It’s possible that George W. Bush did something wrong, and we won’t rest until we find out what it might have been.”
That’s just too crazy.
What’s funny is the right wingers laugh and try to pass it off as a joke, but the point remains: we have absolutely no assurance that it didn’t and couldn’t have happened. ANd that is the problem with Bush doing his little thing in secret without judicial or congressional oversight.
Remember when right wingers were all upset with the idea of judges that legislate from the bench? The left assumed they meant that only congress could pass laws, now we see they were upset that judges might try to usurp George Bush’s royal perogatives.
Just imagine if there were aliens floating around in the troposphere.
When there are so many Tweedldums and Tweedldees populating
our world, would you expect them to land and say ‘hello’?
I am going to let you guys quote each other, just to see how ridiculous you are….remember, the following words are out of the mouths of your “fellow travelers”
“Just imagine if there were aliens floating around in the troposphere” Semanticleo
“What s funny is the right wingers laugh and try to pass it off as a joke, but the point remains: we have absolutely no assurance that it didn t and couldn t have happened” Alex “Potty Mouth” Corrigan
You guys are idiots, but fun to watch. You see children, proving a negative is a difficult proposition. Most grown ups will see right through it….which could explain the current Republican majorities in the House, Senate and White House.
Hey PSU this is about Clenis schlong, not about Columbus….
try to stay on subject will ya…….
ROFLMAO
Dugger, newsflash from my dog…..it was the Barvarian Illuminati…
shhhh, mums the word……
You know things are bad for these winger trolls when they start resorting to ‘humor.’ I offer all you Bush ass-lickers a bit of advice, which I’m sure you’ll summarily reject out of hand: in order to use irony, you must first have a conception of reality.
Case in point, from drpedro’s clumsy Straw Man Clinton argument:
You bought right off on the vast right wing conspiracy with the Monica Lewinsky thing& .right up until they got the Clenis s spooge off the dress at least
No, genius, it was never about the blowjob. It was about a right-wing Congress going on a fishing expedition in order to smear and paralyze Clinton’s presidency. At the time, there were plenty of awful things being done by Clinton that were worthy of righteous anger, but those things (NAFTA, the Crime Bill, bombing innocent civilians, etc.) were all Republican table-setters, weren’t they? So that begs the question of why the Rethugs settled on the blow job. Only an inquiring mind would want to know; a f-cking right-wing, reactionary handjob will just stomp and spit his approval.
Now back to the present: Bush publicly admitted spying on U.S. citizens. We know for a fact that the Bush administration was spying on other countries’ diplomats (including ‘allies’) during the run-up to the illegal Iraq invasion. The Bushies even blew the cover of one of their own spies just to score cheap political revenge points. Does anyone here honestly believe that they would never spy on a journalist who wasn’t telling the story the way they liked? If so, you are being as stupid as you are being vile.
Just like I said before the illegal Iraq War started, “WAIT AND SEE.” You winger assholes predicted that the Bushies were telling the truth about WMD. YOU WERE WRONG. How many of you predicted victory in Iraq? YOU WERE WRONG.
Newsflash, d-ckheads: the Bushies are frauds. Osama’s still alive and bragging, the Taliban is still running around in Afghanistan (heroin’s back, too), and Saddam Hussein is making a mockery of his very expensive trial. And you ignorant cowards want to give the Bushies power to spy on us all? What a bunch of loads.
Andrea Mitchell is Mrs. Greenspan, is she not? Hardly a card carrying member of the liberal media conspiracy.
So you are saying that you don’t want safeguards in place to prevent abuse?
What I am saying is that without safeguards in place, just that kind of abuse will happen, if not by Bush then by the next president. Checks and balances, get it? Congress makes laws, judges interpret laws, presidents enforce laws. Not, president interprets law, doesn’t like law, makes own law, hides fact from congress and judges.
With a secret program carried out outside our system of checks and balances coming to light, yes, finding out how it was applied, who it was applied to and what effect it has needs to be investigated. It isn’t necessarily a fishing trip, but the point remains, we don’t know who Bush spyed on, if his targets were appropriate , and if the system wasn’t abused by some political flunky. Remember when the Department of Homeland Security was wrongly used to track down Texas democrats that left the state to stop the vote on redistricting? Political flunkies pretty much run rampant in this government.
“crazy” history has a habit of repeating;
Hunter S. Thompson, in the October 10, 1974 Rolling Stone: But the climate of those years was so grim that half the Washington press corps spent more time worrying about having their telephones tapped than they did about risking the wrath of Haldeman, Ehrlichman, and Colson by poking at the weak seams of a Mafia-style administration that began cannibalizing the whole government just as soon as it came into power. Nixon s capos were never subtle; they swaggered into Washington like a conquering army, and the climate of fear they engendered apparently neutralized The New York Times along with all the other pockets of potential resistance. Nixon had to do everything but fall on his own sword before anybody in the Washington socio-political establishment was willing to take him on.
Speculation aside, this is the issue that will determine whether Bush can keep the public behind him on the wiretapping issue.
As long as the question appears to be, “Should the President authorize wiretaps of terrorists?” he’ll keep the trust of the majority of the public.
As soon as the question becomes a little broader, for example, “Should the President be able to order wiretaps of American journalists without a court order,” he’ll have a real problem on his hands.
Andrea Mitchell apparently asked a very provocative question in an interview and NBC hustled the evidence down the memory hole. The specificity of the question–naming names–is what makes it so curious.
I found it curious that the usual chorus of hecklers here adamantly refuses to even mention what little we know about this strange interview.
Yea and we know how the media hates to run stories about government invasion of our rights. I mean, who are these woodward and bernstein guys anyway?
That crazy media, always checking facts a MILLION times before reporting anything. Shoot, did you see that story on the miners…? Oh, wait, maybe that isn’t a good example…but ,ok what about that story about the TANG letter that proved the president weaseled out of serving, remember Dan Rather…shoot, no thats not a good one either
I always thought that the crazy right wingers were the conspiracy theorists, you know, black helicopters, new world order….guess THAT stereotype is right out the window…
You children keep plugging away, you know the old saying, even a blind pig finds and acorn now and then
Hey, Cleo, I think I saw that quote before. Maybe at 12:18 AM.
Perhaps I should point out that Mr. Thompson was a drug – influenced loony tunes, not a historian.
Also, history doesn’t repeat itself like a “Friends” rerun; rather, certain historical trends are cyclic, certain human behaviors are repetitive, and human motives are not all that varied or all that changeable over time.
Finally, repeating something doesn’t tend towards accuracy, but only towards repetition — like your pessimistic Knight Ridder Kurdistan story.
“Did bush steal alien technology from Area 51 to plant probes in the brains of leftists everywhere? Has Bush trained Karl Rove… ”
hahahaha
i agree… and another thing
“its the economy stupid”
hahahaha
in 2008 show the world what idiots we are with your vote
or don’t
Andrea Mitchell asked Risen on the air a very specific question involving a specific journalist. She wanted to know if he had evidence of the NSA spying on Christine Amanpour. Why would she ask such a specific question? Why mention Amanpour by name? Why ask the the question at all, unless she was following up on other information? The speculation is based on the idea that the specficity of Mitchell’s on air question suggests she’s persuing a specific allegation.
I don’t see anyone, however, in the press or on blogs making accusations that this actually happened. Oliver’s whole post on it is nothingmore than a series of questions — and a perfectly legitimate series of questions given that this NSA program was carried out without the proper, required checks and balances. Only a Congressional investigaton can possibly hope to answer all the questions raised by the revelation of this program. Do you sniveling right wing fucks support such an investigation? No, of course, not, you’ve placed all your trust in Big Daddy Bush to save you from the bogeyman.
I have to ask all you snickering idiots a few simple questions: Do you place such tremendous trust in this President that you are willing to forgo the Constitutional checks and balances that form the foundation of our system of government? Are you so frightened of terrorists that you would surrender your rights to easily to the whim of a single individual?
Dr. Pedro thinks we’re behaving like children. But I don’t see anyone on the left running to big daddy whimpering “save us, save us.” What I see on the left are people of principle standing up and defending what’s right and what’s good in the face of the danger and the scornof cowards.
Pedro, Dugger, Frank, the lot of you, are driven by nothing but child-like fear. You all ought to be ashamed of yourselves for so quickly selling out the Constitutionon issue after issue, be it torture or domestic spying, all because you’ve surrendered to irrational fear and want to save your own skins. It’s just disgusting.
Pedro,
“You guys are idiots, but fun to watch. You see children, proving a negative is a difficult proposition. Most grown ups will see right through it& .”
So, tell us how you feel about those WMD’s, won’t you? Your side is fond of saying things like, “It was up to Saddam to prove he destroyed them”, yet, now you lament about how “difficult” it is to “prove a negative.” You deserve a lashing, just for being so tremendously disingenuous.
Or better yet…you should be sent to Iraq to help look for them.
Here’s another question. Is Ammanpour a US Citizen? If not, how is someone who is not a citizen able to claim protection under the Constitution?
Frank: Buma wants to know if Joe Wilson and Scott Ritter are on the enemies list (whose existence we are not yet aware of.)
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7625.shtml
Speak for yourself, Frank, unless that was the royal ‘we’.
frameone: Get that prescription filled, man, you’re losing it.
I’m not a sniveling fuck, you’re a sniveling fuck. See how easy that was?
Now let’s take a few deep breaths and calm down.
I won’t attempt to speak for anyone else, but myself.
Oliver has based his conjecture upon a few unanswered questions in someone else’s blog. Pretty much like asking, “How come we never see Charles Manson and frameone together, hmmm?”
Has anyone asked for an investigation in to the possibility that President Bush has been spying on journalists?
If so, have any “right wingers” (sniveling fucks, or otherwise) failed to support such an (so far, non – existent) investigation?
I just read about this new “scaredy cat” talking point the other day, and it is without substance. You’re trying to throw the ball into the right wing court, by assuming that violations of the Constitution have taken place, and we, on the right have accepted it out of cowardice.
Now you expect us to “buy” the Constitutional violations on yoiur say so, and defend ourselves from your unfounded charges of cowardice.
To put it in language you understand, frameone: Go fuck yourself.
buma: Apparently, you’ve taken me under your (right) wing. I read that link of yours, and I consider it as reliable as the National Enquirer. While I regret the use of “we” (editorial, not royal, jerk), I stand by my statement.
It is not known that such a list exists.
Frank, you’re a total moron. You completely fail to address the fact of Mitcell’s initial question. All speculation stems from why she would ask Risen such a specific question. Does she have a source telling her something?
Has anyone called for investigations? Yes. indeedy you dipshit: http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/18/bush.nsa/
Have right wingers rejected calls for an investigation? Indeed they have, instead calling fro an investigation into the whisteblower.
And the charges of being a cowardly fuck are well grounded in the fact that everytime there is an allegation of wrongdoing directed at this administration you morons leap in with “But he’s saving us from the terrorists!” You value your own skins more than the principles of this country and so place all your trust in whoever plays Big Daddy to your bawling, fearful inner child. Not only are you totally wrong on this issue your have no balls to boot. Idiot.
That’s actually a pretty interesting question, Farris.
I hadn’t realized that Amanpour isn’t American-born. (And as a result, my answer to your first question is: I have no idea.) That could help explain why her name came up during the interview between Mitchell and Risen.
The answer to your second question is a little easier, however. The effect of the Constitution and the laws of the United States isn’t limited to citizens. Constitutional protections may also apply to legal residents who are citizens of other countries.
Certainly, communications b/t London & Sudan aren t the purview of the NSA.
Wha? That’s EXACTLY their purview!
“acting as if asking a question was some sort of a proof, or statement of fact.”
Calling Dr. Dipshit — that isn’t what I said at all. I never said that Mitchell’s question was proof of anything, only that it is the grounds for speculation about why she asked it. She asked a specific question about the NSA spying on Amanpour. Why? Does she know something?
Yes. That is what the inspectors were there for. To witness the destruction of known stockpiles of chem and bio weapons. They were not there to search for them, or to play shell games with the regime (which is what actually happened, leading to their expulsion in 1998 and Operation Desert Fox). Saddam was bound by UN resolutions to prove in the positive that the weapons he was KNOWN to have no longer existed. That, my friend, is not proving a negative. Its proving that they have positively been destroyed.
Saddam had to prove a positive, he had to prove he positively destroyed his WMD s.
Laughable. Truly comic genious. How do they “positively” prove they destroyed Anthrax, etc? Show us piles of dust?
According to the material Farris points to, Amanpour is based in London.
Thus, if the NSA listened in on a conversation between Amanpour in London and Sam Terrorist in Sudan, that wouldn’t involve a domestic communication.
I think Ferris shows us why Amanpour is the subject of this mini-controversy.
Quaker…
“Note that the U.S.” = “Note that the Constitution…”
Curmudgeon is still having comprehension problems..
Saddam had to prove a positive, he had to prove he positively destroyed his WMD’s. This was not a Bush requirement, it was a UN requirement. And I feel the same way about the WMD’s that Britain, France, Germany, Israel, the UN , Russia, John Kerry, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid and the US feel about it, we all thought he still had them.
Frameone is using a wonderful technique…acting as if asking a question was some sort of a proof, or statement of fact. You must not have noticed the irony in my “questions” regarding karl rove and Necromancy……
I am not sure who is “running to daddy”, but I know that I heard a lot of liberals screaming “connect the dots!” as the 9/11 intel came out. Now as we attempt to connect the dots, everyone is worried about the fact that we are collecting intel.
Look, I know in your minds Bush can NEVER do anything right. You guys hate bush and republicans with a religious fervor. The problem is, you are willing cut off your nose to spite your face. The real problem is, you are willing to put this country at risk, in order to try to take down Bush. You see, if you can successfully shackle the administration and we have another attack you will scream “The republicans can’t protect us!”. And if we use legal means, even if it is walking the line you scream ” he is violating the constitution!”…..
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, you guys are the “America Last’ers”
No, they would have to show records of the destruction. Saddam’s government, if I recall, was able to produce records of the destruction of many weapons.
Producing a detailed accounting of the fate of all of his weapons would have been impossible–and cause for suspicion if had done so.
Quaker, you don’t think that during Ammanpour’s tenure at the London bureau, she never set foot in the US? And if she did, do you think she never called anyone?
Certainly, communications b/t London & Sudan aren’t the purview of the NSA. (That’s Valerie’s job!) And I certainly wouldn’t consider Ammanpour Enemy #1. But until we have actual facts (heck, actual allegations instead of black-helicopter rantings), it’s hard to defend or deny the charge.
Quaker…
I’m going to go out a limb here and say that everybody on U.S. soil is protected by the Constitution. I may be wrong, but I think this is the case. Note that the U.S. does not confer citizenship status or privilege on anyone…it just protects basic rights such as that against search and seizure, that protecting speech, etc.
There’s a lot of stew being made from very few oysters in this deal. I don’t think it’s wise to make positive statements (”There is an enemies list”) based on a negative report (NBC removes a small section of transcript). I would wait for an actual confirmation of the list before we all start high-fiving each other. I would have thought we had learned from the wingnuts in that regard; they’ve been wrong on so many issues (WMDs, bin Laden, easy victory in Iraq, etc.), but still insist on breaking out the champagne as soon as Fox News says something vaguely positive. Let’s not be those guys.
I think you’re right about that, scratch. I just decided to take the cautious path and avoid going out on that limb.
Then again, given the arguments surrounding the cases of Jose Padilla and others, who knows?
Mr. C….
You may find it laughable, but he was in fact required to prove that he had destroyed those things. Positive proof of destruction is fairly common…book dealers return the torn-off covers of unsold inventory to “prove” that the books were destroyed and not sold, for example. The EPA (or whatever agency is responsible for such things) can walk into any place that deals with hazardous waste, and require “proof” that materials were disposed of properly: logs of serial numbers, shipping records, records from incinerator facilities, etc. In fact, the U.S. periodically destroys old weapons of our own, and there is a procedure for documenting this destruction. Saddam was not able to show such documentation, suggesting that the required destruction was not done, or was done but not properly documented.
Thanks, though I wonder if Ammanpour is truly a “resident”, or merely here on a semi-temp journalism visa (and claims residency in, oh say, England).
Either way, it’s probably moot since she’s married to James Rubin, which if I’m up on my (admittedly shakey) immigration law makes her legal.
Still, we’ve seen CNN/AP/Rueters/you-name-em make contact w/ terrorists. I certainly hope that when Rather set up his interview with Saddam in 2003 that NSA was listening in.
Shorter Pedro: I have wet dreams about Bush.
I would guess she did both.
But Andrea Mitchell’s insinuating question was driving at something. I think that the fact she’s based in London is relevant.
They sure are. That’s exactly what the NSA does.
Quaker…
Thus, if the NSA listened in on a conversation between Amanpour in London and Sam Terrorist in Sudan, that wouldn t involve a domestic communication.
An interesting point I heard made recently: if the routing of those communications even passed through U.S. territory, say through a U.S.-based ISP, or an ATT switching hub, then the same prohibition against eavesdropping would be in force, just as surely as if they were chatting between New York and Chicago. I think that’s what’s missing in the reporting on this whole eavesdropping thing: the actual scenarios in which these operations were conducted. The flavor of the story has been that of a blanket authorization to listen in on any American, in the hopes of catching someone on the act. It’s quite unlikely that this was the case.
I would just like to point out that her husband is a prominently connected democrat. Bush spying on her would not be appropriate.
That doesn t sound like a niggling technicality to me.
Nor to me. But I’m not thinking technicality, I’m thinking of scenarios in which the FISA process is just inadequate, but the NEED for authorization is real and above-board, similar to all the shortcomings we’ve heard about with domestic wiretapping laws that were written before cell phones and email.
Could be. I would think that John Ashcroft (and maybe the FISA court too) could conjure up a justification in a situation like that.
Anyway, you’re right that there’s too little information. When one tries to fill in the gaps, you end up with more speculation than anything else.
Ain’t that the truth?
That lack of specificity allows lefties to fear the worst and righties to wish it all away.
The troubling part of the whole business for me is that FISA court judges had problems with the program, John Ashcroft had concerns, and members of Congress who were briefed expressed reservations.
That doesn’t sound like a niggling technicality to me.
Midderpridge…
Are you saying that, in a case where surveillance would be otherwise necessary and legal, the surveillance should not be conducted if the spouse of the subject is a political figure?
D’oh!
frameone, I don’t really care to discuss any issues with you now that you have returned to your snarling, animalistic style. People on this blog routinely call each other names, often tasteless and disgusting names, although that does seem to be a “talent” exceled at by left wingers.
You, on the other hand, leaave one with the impression that you are slavering over the keyboard like some rabid beast. We’re all a bunch of bullshit artists, Paul. All of us. We’re not tuned into the White House or the DNC. We can type until our fingers are bloody, and it won’t change a thing.
I like a good political argument as much as anybody, but you’re like a walking case of road rage. Chill out, man. You’re an intelligent man with something to say. Don’t bury it in blood and guts
Look, I know in your minds Bush can NEVER do anything right
No, according to his record Bush can never do anything right. Except keep assholes and suckers on his bandwagon, that is.
Let’s recap: the excuse being rehashed here is that the Bushies had good reason to believe that Iraq possessed an arsenal of WMD that it was so ready to use that it justified attacking Iraq without provocation. Other nations hostile to the U.S. have arsenals of WMD, some of them confirmed. Why not attack them? If the Bush administration truly believed that Saddam had WMD capable of launching at either his neighbors or at the U.S., why didn’t they target those weapons? After all, Secretary of War Rumsfeld said he knew where they were. Also, it was never proven that Saddam used any of his arsenal against U.S. forces in 1991. Why didn’t he use them in 2003, when his back was even further against the wall? Again, why not let the inspectors continue their work, if Saddam had never used anything that the inspectors hadn’t found? Wouldn’t that suggest that the inspections and/or the international pressure were working, or that Saddam had nothing real to hide?
All this, of course, isn’t even counting the proof of the pudding found in the eating. Nothing of substance was found after exhaustive post-invasion searches. Worse yet, little has been mentioned in the corporate media of the non-Chalabi-aligned scientists and others who had been claiming all along that Saddam had long since destroyed the bulk of his arsenal (you know, the shit that he used when he was Reagan’s friend). So let’s face the facts: there was no justification for invading Iraq.
2001: Powell & Rice Declare Iraq Has No WMD and Is Not a Threat
shorter Alex … I shall ignore the topic of this thread, and proceed to go off on one of my typical rants.
“So let s face the facts: there was no justification for invading Iraq.”
Alex are you being deliberately obtuse and ignorant?
Iraq violated 12 UN resolutions, Saddam thumbed his nose at the world via the Oil For Food program while his people starved. He regularly shot at coalition forces enforcing the no-fly-zone. Any two of the above was a violation of the Desert Storm cease fire. He did the above for more than 12 years……
Let’s YOU face facts, repeating that we had “no justification” is a complete and utter farce…and it makes clear that you are not to be taken seriously.
If you had the requisite faculties, son, you could aspire to summarizing me.
Since you bring up the topic of the topic, did you have anything of value to offer on your own account? Oh, I see; no you didn’t. You only had a poorly targeted cheap shot. Why don’t you go back to Little Green Foosballs, or wherever your kind gathers and festers? Or you could stay here and give the smart people one more pinhead at which to laugh.
I suppose if I place my tinfoil hat securely on my head, I may then possess the requisite faculties.
First link was broken:
Israel leads world in defying UN resolutions
see JD above as well as comments to follow by Tweedldum and
Tweedldee.
Good for them. Great, in fact.
When you want to look back through history, and find out if you are on the right side of an issue, take a look at the list of people that has persecuted the Jooooooooooos.
Iraq violated 12 UN resolutions
Is this the barometer for unprovoked invasion? Alrighty then! When do we set sail for Israel, Turkey, and Morocco?
Saddam thumbed his nose at the world via the Oil For Food program while his people starved.
So we’re sending troops to Sudan, too?
He regularly shot at coalition forces enforcing the no-fly-zone.
Iraq had a right to defend itself against illegal incursions into its airspace. Haven’t you heard? The no-fly zones were illegal.
As I said, NO JUSTIFICATION.
Tweedldum remains optimistic about the situation in Iraq.
130 Iraqis and 7 U.S. military dead in attacks today.
Alex;
32 instances; tsk, tsk. Shame on you Israel. Here’s another $44 billion.
Logic will get you nowhere with the Plausible Denialists because the true
bottom line is to be right, in spite of any facts to the contrary.
Notice I said “two out of the three things above..”
Read Alex and Leo, read.
But good job not responding to the issue and moving the goalpost…
It was the evil joooooooosssssssss….
yea buddy, you are same guys who were standing in the US during WWII screeching…”those nazis never hurt me…why should we go over there…”
Wow, Scratch, you sure are making a leap there. If there was just cause, then law enforcement would be within their rights to appropriately monitor and tap her. But, if it comes out that Bush did it with his little peeping program then absolutely not. If you are looking for actual evidence against a prominent and politically connected person, you better be damn sure your t’s are crossed and your i’s dotted. Secondly, if that person is politically connected, you better make sure that it is done according to the law with oversight so you can’t be accused of political witch hunts and immoral and illegal political spying. ou shouldn’t use a questionable, secret program outside accepted judicial practices.
DrPedro, invading Iraq was a mistake. The negatives that have occured far outweigh any positives gained for the US as a country. The justifications we presented to the world have proven to be false. Furthermore, while trying to tie the invasion to the War on Terror, what we have done is taken a country that was not associated with anti-US terrorism and made it a recruiting poster for terrorists, a funding boon for terrorists, an arms depot for terrorists, and a training ground for terrorists. None of those things would indicate a winning step.
“I like a good political argument as much as anybody”
Frank, when have you ever put forward a “good political argument”? You guys have been blathering on and on about how Bush didn’t violate the law over these warrantless wiretaps while the White House has been arguing precisely that the President has the authority to break the law in the name of national security. He doesn’t. No where in the Constitution is the President given the right to break a law he doesn’t like. This whole scandal has broguht to light the fact that the right wing in this country is teaming with little facists who would grant the President of the United States unlimited, unchecked power over the lives of Americans because they wet themselves with fear whenever they dare to think of the complexities and challenges of modern life. Ya, the terrorists want to kill us. You would hand them the Constitution and the Bill of Rights of too. If it seems like I’ve become more aggressive in my posts of late it’s because I keep reading assholes like you and Dugger and Pedro arguing against the very freedoms that make this country what it is while draping yourselves in the mantle of true Americans. It makes me sick.
Talk about moving the goalposts, pedro; you went to another sport: Jew-baiting. Did I say anything about “the Jews”? I said Israel. That’s a common neo-con tactic, by the way, equating any criticism of Israeli policy with hatred of the Jews. It won’t fly here, so you can stick it right back into the orifice from which it oozed.
You’re looking especially lame today with that one, but even more flaccid with this one:
you are same guys who were standing in the US during WWII screeching& those nazis never hurt me& why should we go over there&
I’m “one of the guys” who would have said that in the future maybe we should keep our wealthy citizens and corporations from bankrolling and supplying mass murderers and dictators, then “we” (or anyone else) won’t feel the need to go overseas and fight them.
Do you have any more impotent, right-wing talking points you’d like to have smacked down, pedro? You know, instead of lurking around here fighting librul ideas, maybe you could donate your expertise to your own righteous cause by volunteering to go overseas and join your Hero’s crusade. Or are you a “why should we go over there” type?
Midderpidge….
I’m not sure what “leap” you think I made. You made the remark that it would “not be appropriate” to do surveillance against her because her husband is a prominent Democrat. I fail to see what the status or occupation of one’s husband has to do with whether it is appropriate to conduct surveillance or not. You did not address motive or legality, merely the status of her husband.
Right, frameone, your “I’m telling you fucking assholes the truth, and if you don’t agree with me, you can kiss my fucking ass” approach is all my fault.
By the way, congrats on totally ignoring the context and substance of the remainder of the post, you maniac.
It’s your credibility to lose, o macho (”you can come and get me, terrorists, but I’m sticking with my left wing view of the Constitution”) one.
Unfortunately, the next terrorist attack, if there is one, won’t kill just you.
Yea Alex the president of Iran tried to do the same thing…..I wasn’t talking about jooosss, I was talking about israel….Uh huh, nice try, but I think your Kaffiyea is on too tight.
And I have BEEN overseas and deployed in support of both Afghanistan and Iraq chucklehead, ten years in the Navy.
Your service was where?
What a giveaway.
Do you also wear your LGF t-shirt in public?
Don’t read it, don’t have the t-shirt.
It is funny to me that you guys are so dependent on the leftist talking points that you think that is what we do on the right as well. Not the case, it is just that logic and truth are universal, so people with brains often come up with the same answer give a set of data…
hard to believe eh? You know, 2+2= 4? Tough for a lefty to wrap his shriveled,atrophic cerebrum around….
Looks like this has turned into a non-story.
At 1:37:
Rewind to 10:08:
peedro, I think LGF owns the trademark on the “jooooossss” thing. If you’re not a regular reader, you ought be paying them royalties for swiping it.
Funny, I just went through all the active posts…never saw it.
Ahh yes, quaker is making stuff up again….
Or, this PROVES that I read it all the time, cause I denied it and it wasn’t there…I guess….Sorry, I have a hard time faking the leftist’s convaluted logic
I see. You came up with that clever jape all on your own?
Save a chair for peedro at the round table, Ms. Parker!
A priceless piece of history (which Tweedldum says doesn’t repeat
itself) thanks to Kos.
The burglary of the office of Dr. Ellsberg’s psychiatrist was raised at the Senate Watergate hearings on July 24, 1973. Chief Counsel Samuel Dash asked John Ehrlichman about the burglary.
Ehrlichman responded:
“I think if it is clearly understood that the President has the constitutional power to prevent the betrayal of national security secrets, as I understand he does, and that is well understood by the American people, and an episode like that is seen in that context, there shouldn’t be any problem.”
Quaker, stricken as unresponsive…..again.
Official: Amanpour, other CNN journalists not targeted for surveillance
WASHINGTON (CNN) A senior U.S. intelligence official told CNN Thursday that the National Security Agency did not target CNN Chief International Correspondent Christiane Amanpour or any other CNN journalist for surveillance.
NBC raised the allegation in an interview with New York Times reporter James Risen, asking him whether he knew anything about possible surveillance of Amanpour by the NSA. Risen, author of a new book, “State of War: the Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration,” said he had not heard anything about it.
NBC posted a transcript of the interview on the MSNBC.com Web site Wednesday, then quickly removed the page. In a statement posted on the industry weblog TVNewser, the network said the transcript was “released prematurely,” and that reporting would continue.
The interview was not broadcast on any NBC news program, the network said. From National Security Correspondent David Ensor (Posted 8:16 p.m.)