"Let the love rain down
Rain down on me
Rain down on me" The Who

Gee Brad - quite a fan club you are developing.

Amazing how intelligent one needs to be to fling an insult with no justification of it and then go on their merry little way, with great pride, feeling they have accomplished something good!

Guess he learned that kind of talk from Cheney!

Cherry Mistmas!
Uh oh, here comes John Kerry!
Quick Laura, bar the gates! John Kerry wants his presidency back! Ugh!

well, the last refuge of those who are about to die is in the arms of aggression.. I guess the idiots who have nothing "to say" about all the crap they are/were wrong on will just get violent as their last vestiges of hope that they aren't totally fucked in the head flea them..

Keep on keepin on, Brad! We love ya, even if you are a "commie bastard" who should "just leave"..

I'd rather be (maybe I am?) a Commie Bastard than a neo-con, corporation-loving, Constitution shredding, lying chickenhawk fascist! These guys are making Communism and Socialism look better than ever, imho!

Remember this boys & girls!!!

They also get promoted!

Who needs soldiers when you have propaganda makers who are desperate for cash?

Doug E.

Brad: Who was it who said, "You can tell a man by the enemies he makes."???

It was either Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Aquinas, or Tommy Smothers. Regardless, Brad, keep on keepin' on. You're doin' great, we're doin' great and the desperation of mindless trolls is all the proof you (and we) need.

"I'd rather be (maybe I am?) a Commie Bastard than a neo-con, corporation-loving, Constitution shredding, lying chickenhawk fascist! These guys are making Communism and Socialism look better than ever, imho!"

Funny I dont recall any of the comments stating that the notes were from Republicans?

What ever happened to Pat Paulson?

Never mind I know he has passed away, RLM just made me remember him!

By the way Charles Bouy, I do know who my father was!

Funnyconservative, the point is, I think, you'd have to have your head pretty far up your ass to be that pissed off at Brad over .. well.. anything he's ever said or posted (that I've seen).. only a neo-con moron could fit both shoulders up there... hence the accusation..

Hmmmm speaking of Velvet Revolution....

Looks like we got trouble John....

Ken Hajaar and Diebold are on the attack

"There is no truth to the fact the system can be compromised.

Oh but they say this even THOUGH during the "chain of custody process" the vendor has access to memory cards which have had their seal broken, conducting a faulty logic/accuracy test, AND send home the voting machines after being "handled" with poll workers!!!!

Is this not the joke of the freaking century!?!? We should make this Ken Hajaar character and his friends swear to this under oath in court!

Also, I wonder if Ken knows about what Interpreter code does......does he also know that it violates every FEC section of HAVA authorized code? I'm sure he does...

Doug Eldritch

No truth to the FACT that (a Diebold) system can be compromised? Did he mean "No truth to the CLAIM...etc.?"

Talk about your Freudian slips!

Thanks Doug E for the link to Ken Hajaar's piece.

Just the kind of humor I need for the drive home!

#11

Well nice to know that prejudice is not only existing on the right nowadays.

It could have been a Democrat. Many Zel Miller Democrats do not think the election was rigged, do not think heavy hand counting will cut corruption, and they also support war.

Just another perspective.

Wow, Just wanna say I Love You Brad.....don't let the bastards get you down....

#15 I know nothing of "Zel Miller".. though, if you can't concede that there were MANY problems with the 2004 election that need to be properly investigated, if you can't see that much more oversight/transparency/hand-counting will reduce the chances for corruption, if you support the ILLEGAL and UNJUSTIFIED invasion of Iraq, I don't give a shit if you call your self a Dem, Repub, Martian, or anything else... in -my- opinion you chose to ignore FACTS and are therefore a fuckwit neoCon. Your "personal label" is irrelivant, your actions are all that matter.

So.. I stand behind my "prejudice", proudly.

RLM #13 -

That DID stick out like a sore thumb, didn't it?

Brad - the fact that the truly lunatic fringe takes enough notice of you to sling what they think of as deadly venom your way means that you must be doing everything right. I'm very proud to be one of the "6 or 7." )

mwahahahahaha---Yes, young Friedman--feel the cynicism course through your body, making you more powerful than ever...soon you will surpass, and in turn, replace me, claiming your rightful position as supreme and ultimate liege to all seeking truth and reason and sanity in omnipotent, final coexistence...oh, and as for all those NOT seeking for the above-mentioned triumvirate to finally rule supremely over all things everywhere, you will rule and own them in ways, the simplest descriptions of which are eternally beyond their slightest inkling of comprehension, which colored in the light of being the supreme uber-cynic, is simply downright fucking hilarious...Yup. No two ways about it. Just plain ol' hilarious.

GOOD JOB BRAD,the RATS are getting desperate and they will strike out til this evil bunch go down in flames!!We're all ready for the fight,but must keep the pressure on Diebold.Bush supporters are so pathetic,I doubt they will EVER admit the truth.Bush is Hitler reincarnated and they are too ignorant to or braindead to see it!!So Sad our country has come to this!!Keep it up Brad,THEY CAN'T STAND THE TRUTH!!

What about those of us who ADMIT to and LIKE being a commie bastard?

Read my lips: GO CHENEY YOURSELF, MR. BUOY!!!!

Just remember this: Those who hate Brad, really really hate the truth and want to suppress the truth. I love when they hate, because it "outs" those who want the truth suppressed.

(see Bush approaching NYTimes & WaPo editors to suppress news)

They say that about everyone who seeks journalistic reality Brad. Including the court that gave them everything they wanted.

Then they dissed the court and the court reamed them a new one. Now they have gone to the Supremes to tell on the court that loved them and get relief from the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals that "usurped the President's authority" (link here).

Reminds me of the time I worked for the Governor's Office in Alaska. My boss Hickel was named Secretary of Interior and went off to Washington D.C.

He was later fired by Nixon for shutting down the oil wells in California, saying they needed to be built better.

It was always a badge of courage to have been fired by Nixon, Hickel would later say.

So, it is a badge of honor when neoCon fascists throw a tantrum. It usually means that you have introduced them to themselves.

I think it's sad. We seem to have drifted back to the 50s and the ill-bred McCarthyism. "Commie bastard"?

Please.

If I and other liberals are such Communists, why is it we're still the majority of the country? Maybe THEY are the ones who should leave, what do you think?

Next they'll say, "There are 170 known Communists in the House of Representatives!"
:satisfied:

I guess when Charles emailed, he missed the plural "bastards" by simply typing "yourself." Too bad, another well meaning troll who missed out on some of his education in order to further his own political agenda. Ehhh, cant win. Keep on the good fight!

Every Gilded Age follows a war or other crisis. Every Gilded Age needs a scapegoat, and every tyrant needs a convenient victim for his hatred.

Post-Civil War: ex-Confederates, all Democrats

Post-World War I: Reds/Anarchists/Immigrants

Post-World War II: Commies, ex-fellow travelers

Post-Iran Hostage Crisis/Arab Oil Embargo: Liberals

Post-9/11: Liberals, now Commies again

Brad

Count your blessings, you missed out on being named "Misinformer of the Year".

Chris Matthews got that award (link here).

He cleaned up a lot in December, however, he must atone greatly in 2006 or he deserves the award.

#17

Yes I am sure you will hold onto your "prejudice" proudly. Just like you will hold onto your hysteria, and your ALLEGATIONS.

Go to Google. Type in "election fraud" and throughout the history of government all over the world, there has always been one group of hot headed losers who felt they could change the results by screaming and crying various "fraud" allegations.

For the last eight years (I'm surprised you didn't start whining about 2000 as most people do) it has been American Liberals.

Which is probably why American Liberals are smiling about 20,000 Sunnis in Iraq doing the same thing that they do here everyday and use this as example of "failure in Iraq". LOL. They're just behaving like liberals. That's it.

I'd like to get a breakdown of the proper ratio here in the United States - as we already know is ridiculous in Iraq. 20,000 out of 10 million voters (which makes it 1 in every 500 voters) there.

I'd like to see it here.

That's the book I wish someone would write! At least it'd be a new idea on behalf of the left.

***I was trying to be humorful in that last thought. However, I am sure some of your staunch election fraud accusers can let me know what indeed the stats are on American voters. For instance how many of out of every 1,000 voters in America believes that the last election was rigged here in the states.

I'd like to see the source too so I can read up on it more.

Hey, its Tool and the Gang (Jeanne NukeUm, Charly Boy, Ricky, Paul, HCOCDR, Jimmo, MikLeee, ScottFromMca, FunnyConServative, and ad nauseum).

They are part of a top secret propaganda campaign called Rings Around urAnus, which is done in secret NASA tents.

Their cover is confusing (link here).

They were offended because I thought they were really just brown nosin' the prez.

These wingnut neocons are making terrorists look good.

They have an IQ of 92. That's altogether.

#28 -

"***I was trying to be humorful in that last thought."

I humorously agree that we could all stand a bit of humor, trapped as we are in a world situation that increasingly has very little that's funny about it.

For Funny Conservative: There's no such word as "humorful." If you think you're funny, you ought to know the word you're looking for is "humorous."

Whether the Iraq election was honest or fraudulent makes no difference...if the election stands as is, Shiite clerics will control the government. If a new election is called and Sunnis do better, then their clerics will gain more power, but Shiite clerics will still be in the majority. In either case, Iraq will be a theocracy.

We've lost 2,160 soldiers in less than three years, plus 10,000-15,000 wounded and maimed. Iraq has lost an estimated 30,000-40,000 people, including many innocent civilians. We've been told that these deaths (and many more to come) will not have been in vain, because Iraq will have become a democracy, to serve as a model for its Middle Eastern neighbors.

Instead, Iraq has become another Iran. So take your silly quibble about Sunni protestors being like American liberals, and throw in the Tigris River, O.K.? You sound like a college sophomore, truly.

#26
> Post-Civil War: ex-Confederates, all Democrats

Now they are all Republicans - the south/red states!

You can thank two people for that - Carter and Reagan. Carter helped, Reagan solidified it.

Communism is bad because of the millions of people who have been killed in the name of it. Stalin killed 40 million. You guys have communistic ideas which have failed everywhere they are tried.
Another reason why communism is terrible.

I cannot believe #5 said he would rather be a "Commie Bastard than a neo-con, corporation-loving, Constitution shredding, lying chickenhawk fascist!"

Why do you hate corporations? Why do you hate free-interprise? Why do you hate the market?

Bush has not lied! He has only said what the world has been saying since 1991, including Germany, France, the UN, Clinton, Kerry, Kennedy, etc.

How about our economy? Outstanding! Compare to Germany and France! How come you guys never share good economic news? How come eveything with you left kooks is doom and gloom?
If Clinton was still in office, you would be having an orgasm over the economy.

Paul #34

Why do you stupidly conclude that anyone who criticizes axiomatically hates?

This is childish and smacks of emotional constipation probably founded upon fear.

Did your parents smack you if you ever spoke out ... or your employer?

Have you not learned yet that debate and criticism are part and parcel of American life?

The hatred of criticism is not American, it is communistic, fascist, totalitarian, and other fear mongering and fear based political sicknesses.

What country are you in Paul?

Wow, Paul. You missed the point completely about ex-Confederates and Democrats after the Civil War.
They were SCAPEGOATS. Please check the history books. Republicans waved the "bloody shirt" for the next 30 years (until most Civil War veterans had grown old or died) so as to paint ex-Confederates as TRAITORS. Many of these Southerners had family roots in colonial America going back to the 17th century. The fact that most Southern states are now Republican has nothing to do with it.

You also missed the point about Reds/Commies and the two world wars. Our enemies in those two wars were GERMANY and JAPAN. But once the wars ended, who became the hated scapegoats? COMMIES! Does that make sense to you? If
Communism is bad because 40 million people have died in its name, why weren't we fighting it during World War I and World War II instead of wasting our energy on Germany?

And what gives you the nerve to say "you guys" have Communistic ideas? Who are "you guys?" I've never heard anyone on Bradblog defend Stalin. What you're doing is exactly the same thing Attorney General Palmer did after World War I, and what HUAC, Nixon, and McCarthy (among others) did after World War II. You are SCAPEGOATING people you don't like as Commies or Communist sympathizers. That's insulting, and it's wrong.

You bring up corporations and "free enterprise." As someone who spent 28 years with Wall Street firms and taught financial planning at the college level, I might know a bit more than you do here. There was once a time when Corporate America was part of a free-market economy. It no longer is, because
antitrust enforcement has become a dinosaur (one recent exception: the suit against Microsoft).

The point of the Sherman Antitrust Act (passed in 1890 and signed by Benjamin Harrison, possibly the most pro-business president ever) was to limit the power of large corporations, which in that era were driving smaller companies (their competition) out of business with monopolistic practices. These companies were headed by men like Vanderbilt, Rockefeller, Morgan, and Carnegie..."malefactors of great wealth," Teddy Roosevelt called them (and he didn't mean it as a compliment).

What you call "the market" is not a level playing field, because Corporate America, without the checks and balances afforded by antitrust enforcement, has all the advantages. Can't you see that? Can't you see how the Bush administrations has climbed into bed with the corporate leaders? I suspect you can, but choose not to.

Finally, the economy is not "outstanding" at all. The fourth quarter G.D.P. was good (not great), and it was buoyed by a non-recurring event, rebuiliding after Hurricane Katrina. Don't count on that being a factor in 2006. Furthermore, consumer spending has grown to a very dangerous 76% of G.D.P. When I left the brokerage business in 2001, it was at 67%, and that was regarded as too high. Consumers are borrowing like mad on home equity and credit cards, and that's keeping the retail numbers up...if interest rates rise two or three percent from her, look out.

By the way, I never voted for Bill Clinton. So give it up with the "you guys" stuff, O.K.?

Just a sidenote to #36
"What you call "the market" is not a level playing field, because Corporate America, without the checks and balances afforded by antitrust enforcement, has all the advantages. Can't you see that? Can't you see how the Bush administrations has climbed into bed with the corporate leaders? I suspect you can, but choose not to."

I found this in Rolling Stone Dec. 29 2005- January 12, 2006.

THE CRONY CORPS

Top Homeland Security officials got their jobs because they're loyal to the president - but their qualifications don't exactly inspire confidence.

Michael Chertoff - Secretary of Homeland Security

Qualifications: Advised GOP senators during the Whitewater investigation; engineered a roundup of 762 Muslims after 9/11 that yielded no terrorist convictions.

Katrina Response: Remained at home as storm bore down. Still clueless days later: "I have not heard a report of thousands of people in the Convention Center who don't have food and water."

Michael Jackson - Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security

Qualifications: Loyal aide to Bush Sr.; chief operating officer of Lockheed Martin.

Katrina Response: In Congressional testimony, he was unable to explain why $400 Million in federal contracts were awarded to private firms without competitive bidding: "The Opportunity to go awry here is large."

Andrew Maner - Chief Financial Officer for Homeland Security

Qualifications: Planned travel as junior aide to Bush Sr.; announced death of Ranger, president's favorite dog. Holds the only Cabinet-level CFO post that does not require Senate confirmation.

Katrina Response: Called relief effort "excellent." Outsourced all DHS data management - but was forced to suspend $229 million contract because of delays and cost overruns.

Patrick Rhode - Acting Deputy Director of FEMA

Qualifications: Former TV anchor for stations in Alabama and Arkansas.

Katrina Response: "Probably one of the most efficient and effective reponses in the country's history."

John Pennington - FEMA Director for Pacific Northwest

Qualifications: BA from nonaccredited correspondence school; co-chair of first Bush campaign in Cowlitz County, Washington.

Katrina Response: "Personality coordination is sometimes just as important as disaster coordination."

There is a really interesting article that goes with it about how FEMA was gutted and replaced with Cronies but I really don't feel like typing it so your on your own.

#33

Dear Mr. Mills:

Thank you for the grammatical correction. After I posted the comment, I had realized the error and was going to correct myself or apologize until I noticed other postings from other posters that contained grammatically incorrect use and out and out misspellings, and honestly I thought nobody would notice.

However, this does raise one question. I think it’s rather interesting that you chose to showcase mine and ignore the others. At this point, one might ask themselves what exactly was “special” about my error compared to the others that earned me the educational title “college sophomore.”
(I can only imagine what you’d characterize the others on the basis of their errors. One can only hope that they are on the same political side as you. Oh, wait.)

In any case, I should be grateful that you acknowledge a Republican as having any education at all. So, thank you! Though if you are referring to the same college students who throw pies at Ann Coulter (and miss) or throw salad dressing on Pat Buchanan, then I have to say I’d be a little offended. As long as I can be a “College Republican,” your characterization is okay with me. Cool?

Your theocratic prediction is, at least, new debate. I should congratulate you on that. It makes the base of the Democratic party; who predicted one small year ago that Iraqis would not even participate in the polls, look even crazier. But after ten million showed up and proved them wrong, it’s nice to see one individual coming out with something new.

Though your prediction is fairly new to the political arena, I would have to say that I disagree on the basis that bringing in an “Osama Bin Laden-like” government will be rejected hugely by the country that had nothing to do with 9/11 or Al Queda (seeing as they were a secular society - according to liberals anyway). In addition, the female voters alone would reject it on the basis that the theocracy; based on religious teachings in that area of the world, would strip the women from the rights that they just earned a mere few months ago.

I am touched by your overwhelming sense of compassion for 30,000 dead Iraqis when it serves your purpose to bash Bush (or alleged “neocons”). Do you have similar writings showing your sense of compassion for the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis who were gassed at the hands of the honorable Saddam Hussein? If so, I’d like to see them.

As far as 2,160 dead American soldiers: yes these are terrible because they fall on our greatest Americans who supported their President and country and helped to make a swamp like Iraq a better place. My only comment on that is, I am so glad you weren’t “blogging” during World War II when we lost 400,000 or the Civil War where we lost 600,000. In terms of what got accomplished, I’d say the war is going magnificently. (I already know your response, but go ahead anyway and entertain me).

The point still stands. When 20,000 out of 10 million are whining about the results, it makes them no different than American liberals. Like liberals, they are alleging fraud. The secondary point of how silly liberals are when they use this as “ammo” against Bush (who’s approval rating grew as a result of rants like yours) still stands on the basis that they ARE using it in the first place, when in fact, they demonstrate everyday that a minority can consistently whine and that democracy can still be successful.

It’s this flip-flopping that truly makes me feel sorry for Alan Colmes, or Bill Maher, or any other sensible Democrat who’s party is being destroyed, single handedly, by it’s own crazy "humorous" base.

funnyconservative #38 said:

"hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis who were gassed at the hands of the honorable Saddam Hussein"

There seems to be much that shows Iran did it!

Here's another link which puts the toll from gas at around 7,000 not 100,00 as you claim.

I'm not trying to defend Saddam by the way - I just want to set the record straight!

It takes nothing to spout the party talking points.
Do research! See what other views are out there! Check the evidence and above all form your OWN OPINOIN based on the research you have done.

Relying on others to do it for you is a cheap shot and in the end you are meaningless.

Actualy OPINION would be a better option - dyslexic fingers I guess!

Not sure Bluebear, but this might say something to you regarding numbers.

So far I havent heard any factual evidence proving that Iran did it, but I'll check your links.

http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/legacyofterror.html

By the way Bluebear, the pdf file is restricted from sensitive viewers. Just so ya know.

In any case though, after seeing such a sick display it makes me wonder why anyone would even spend precious energy trying to "set the record straight" when it comes to correcting someone on the evil doings of Saddam Hussein.

Funny enough, though you claim to not be defending him, one of your link's headlines states "In Defense of Saddam Hussein".

Brad U. R. the Media. Air America Radio is the media.

I believe NOTHING on the TV, CABLE, etc.

FOX LIES, CNN The Clueless News Network, MSPCA . . .

If President Chucklnuts said it was raining and I was Getting Wet . . . WHERE THE MAN WITH THE HOSE ? ? ?

I always watched the news in the old days, now Not even the weather.
Summer is hot, Winter is cold, Spring is wet, Fall gets Dark early.

Brad Blog was just mentioned on the Mike Malloy Show by Mark Crispin Miller.

Trolling For The Truth

Tolling For The "Chimes of Freedom" Crashing

Funnyconservative: It struck me as peculiar that someone who uses "funny" as part of his name wouldn't know the difference between "humorful" and "humorous." That's why I highlighted it. No other reason. It's sort of like someone calling himself "jet pilot" and not knowing how to spell
"airplane."

Now, you were the one who compared Sunnis in Iraq who cried "fraud" to liberals in the United States who did likewise after the 2004 election. It's a silly comparison for many reasons (and the silliness of it, not your political affiliation, is why I said you sound like a college sophomore). I don't care if you're a Republican or Democrat, honestly.

Sunnis in Iraq might be right or wrong in their claims of fraud. Neither of us knows. But this election was supposed to have been a "historic" (that word has been used repeatedly by supporters of Bush's policy) step toward democracy in Iraq. Whether the election was honest or not, and whether Iraq will be forced to hold a new election (as in Ukraine), the outcome will be the same...a theocracy. And we've fought for almost three years and lost 2,160 soldiers to create a democracy!

The Sunnis are in no way, shape, or form comparable to "conspiracy buffs," or "liberals," or "sore losers," or whatever name you assign to those of us who know our 2004 election was stolen.
They're fighting a religious war, ours is a political one. Irag has no Electoral College (whereby stealing one state like Ohio can swing an election), nor do they have 50 different states with 50 different political organizations all making their own deals with shady voting machine companies that have direct political affiliations with one party. And we both know which party that is, don't we?

Those of us on Bradblog have been fighting this battle for almost 14 months, and on several disparate levels. Corrupt companies like Diebold and E.S.&S. should be banned from the election business. The mainstream media have refused to acknowledge clear evidence of fraud, even to the extent of not covering Diebold's recent news (which for any objective person is proof of what we've been saying all along). Congress has to get over its stupid and un-American way of thinking, that any honest investigation of a suspicious election is impossible because it's a partisan effort by the loser to ferment sour grapes. That's just bullshit. Honest elections are a fundamental right of every citizen, and the two parties have no right to abridge it. And finally, the longer this goes on without being fixed (and the people responsible being sent to jail), the harder it will be to fix it...ever.

Your ridicule of "liberals" and your comparison of them to Sunni Muslims is both insulting and igrnorant. I happen to be a political Independent who has voted for more Republicans than Democrats in my lifetime (I'm 64). I never voted for Bill Clinton, and I voted for Reagan twice. I believe George W. Bush is an ignoramus, and I believe the people behind him have stolen two elections for him and for themselves...that's why I'm angry, not because I'm a liberal. And I'm certainly not like any Sunni Muslim you ever knew.

If you say foolish things, please expect to be called on them.

Speaking of the Civil War and Democrats, the pro-slavery Democrats were on the wrong side of history then. The Democrats today are on the wrong side of history.

Here is a Democrat and what he said about the anti-slavery Republicans back in those days:

"George Washington Paschal (1812-78) was a prominent jurist and political writer, who helped found the SOUTHERN INTELLIGENCER (Austin, TX) in 1856 and served as its editor through 1860. Through the paper, Paschal advanced his strong antisecessionist political position and "fulminated brilliantly against the Know-Nothings, Free-Soilism, Black-Republicanism, and the abolition of slavery."

See folks, nothing has changed.

For #35
> Why do you stupidly conclude that anyone who criticizes axiomatically hates?

Do you hate Bush?

For #36
> If Communism is bad because 40 million people have died in its name, why weren't we fighting it during World War I and World War II instead of wasting our energy on Germany?

Some said we should have gone into Mosow after Germany. You know why we fought Germany. That's a dumb question.

After we defeated Germany, the USSR was the ones threatening to take over and they had nukes. Fortunately, we never had to fight them. We just had to bankrupt them as Reagan did. Ask Maggie Thatcher who killed the communists. She was right in what she said at Reagan's funeral. I was in the USSR in 1991. It was a third-world dump with nuclear weapons.

#46
Glad you voted for Reagan. The French thought he was an idiot!

Paul came home from kindergarden and typed:

Why do you hate corporations? Why do you hate free-interprise? Why do you hate the market?

Robert Lockwood Mill smartly handed you your ass in re: the above, but I'd add which "free-interprise"? The billions in corporate welfare that your "President" just gave away to oil companies, for example? How "free" exactly is it, genius?

Bush has not lied! He has only said what the world has been saying since 1991, including Germany, France, the UN, Clinton, Kerry, Kennedy, etc.

That's weird, I don't recall "the world" mentioning mushroom clouds, yellowcake from niger, aluminum tubes "that could only be used for one thing", or Germany, France or the UN saying "Go to war" and "Bring 'em on".

I'll leave the other scores of lies for another time (but here's a hint for you - "A wiretap requires a court order", GWB 4/04)

How come you guys never share good economic news? How come eveything with you left kooks is doom and gloom?

Wow, first you wingnuts complained I didn't cover the "Historic Iraqi Elections" and now that I did, you've found another strawman. Impress us all, call for the Resignation of George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney if you give a damn about "honesty and integrity in the White House" or even that old piece of paper called "the U.S. Constitution".

Finally, FunnyConservative said:

"It makes the base of the Democratic party; who predicted one small year ago that Iraqis would not even participate in the polls, look even crazier."

Have any cites for us there, FC? On that "base of the Democratic party" making such a prediction? I'd be delighted to see it...unless of course (like yellowcake from Niger) it didn't actually happen. Waiting on the edge of my chair for your reply.

P.S. re: Saddam gassing the Kurds. You may want to take a look at who sold him the gas...and who shook his hand afterwards. Yutz.

Paul: At least he didn't vote for Bush.

Like father's intellect, like son they always say!

You idiotic vermin induced neocons put the most vulnerable disgrace in history into office, and frankly don't have a damn thing to say about it now, except spewing various non-sensical babble!!!

You're all the same as Michael Scanlon, so you fake neo-liberals Paul should be in jail with him!!!! Right off the chopping block of Diebold, and all their vote executives.

You still want to talk some shat today?

Doug E.

Paul #47

Paul, you said "Speaking of the Civil War and Democrats", as if that were the thread topic.

So I would point out the subject matter of this thread. Hard to focus Paul, or are those papers beside you in the photo (post #29) what you are ordered to type?

Free thinking is very, very scary to your handlers Paul. They have your mind malfunctioning these days.

HumorFulneoCon #38

You said "As far as 2,160 dead American soldiers ... they fall on our greatest Americans who supported their President and country" as if you own these folk. As if they are chattel. Since they are "yours" you think you can misrepresent them.

Actually, remember the story about Pat Tillman? We do. And we will protect the truth about him over your misrepresentations and propaganda. He was one of us not one of you.

Your handlers felt the same way as you do. They could say he was for the war, for Bush, etc., when he was not. They could lie about how he was killed and about everything else.

Your handlers are bad guys, just ask Tillman's parents.

The Dick

I have discovered that this troll is the supervisor of the troll squad depicted in post #29 above.

No wonder they do not change their story, they would have to answer to The Dick.

Except, Paul, the Democrats of George Washington Paschal's day are today's Republicans, and the Republicans of his day are today's Democrats.
You admitted to this when you boasted in an earlier posting that the South (the red states) was solidly Republican.

To put it another way, find me a Democrat in Congress today who would agree with George Washington Paschal's editorials. I don't always agree with Democrats (God knows), but when it comes to civil rights and the cause of the common man, they're light years ahead of the Republicans.
If, as you say, Democrats are on the "wrong side of history" today, then George Washington Paschal was on the right side in 1850.

Irrelevant of party affiliation... there's only one thing I want... and it'd be the same whoever is in power...

Open, transparent and honest government.

Judging on corruption alone... there's no reason at all to have faith in... or be proud of... the Republican party at this moment in time.

No ethics, no morals, not a shred of decency.

We have all the ammo in debate, we have all the strong points in arguments... all they come back with is... insults.

That alone says everything that needs to be said about Chickenhawk supporters.

Just look at them on yahoo's news boards..

--

Lib: "Why the hell do you still support Republicans after they've done [insert list o'crimes here]"

Con: "Uh.. libs are gay, libs love terrorists, um... you're a lib'tard, libs are weak, f**king commie libs!!!"

--

To be honest Brad... I'm suprised the 101st Freeper Keyboard Battallion hasn't sent you thousands of emails by now... all with just as strong an argument as the two you've published on this thread.

Brad said:

"Have any cites for us there, FC? On that "base of the Democratic party" making such a prediction? I'd be delighted to see it...unless of course (like yellowcake from Niger) it didn't actually happen. Waiting on the edge of my chair for your reply."

In response to my assertion of insane-crazy Democrat flip-flopping.

Here is one that really helped demonstrate the argument fashion and convincing concerns of the left. (Now if we can only convince them to pick one side of an issue and actually STICK to it).

http://www.washtimes.com...0050211-123325-7245r.htm

Enjoy, I'll respond to the rest of it later.

Regarding your yellowcake argument (as if it was truth), I am sure you can hire some other liberal like Wilson to say that the Washington Times article is false on the basis of this and on that.

Wake up. Joe Wilson is not an example of proof. Him and his wife are examples of the lengths opportunists will go to in order to get a 6 figure book deal signed.

Of course you like him though, his arguments are just as insane as Barbara Boxer's.

#54,

You are hilarious dude

"Lib: "Why the hell do you still support Republicans after they've done [insert list o'crimes here]"

Con: "Uh.. libs are gay, libs love terrorists, um... you're a lib'tard, libs are weak, f**king commie libs!!!""

LOL.....poor Democrats.
Yahoo message boards? You forgot "contard" in your list of "yahoo message board" charaterizations. Have you seen some of the things liberals have said on those things?

This is just smear. At least be fair and acknowledge the boneheads who throw pies at Ann Coulter (at LEAST Brad had the sack to have a discussion with Ann Coulter that did not involve calling her a "nazi" or slinging food at her) or college liberals who shout her down and play boom boxes to prevent her from speaking. In addition Pat Buchanan was doused in Salad Dressing, David Horowicz has been attacked.

This never happens to Michael Moore or Cindy Sheehan on college campuses. College Republicans enjoy discussion.

Republicans as a general matter enjoy discussion - that's why I am here.

But to take quotes from a few inarticulate rednecks and for other liberals on these boards to be characterizing this as "typical Republican debate" is simply false.

Conservatives are the ones on college campuses now that require security to protect them from being attacked. No intellectual curiosity from liberals at all, just food throwing, profanity, and nonsense.

Again, I really feel sorry for the few Democrats out there who are honestly trying to debate.

I think the bottom line is that regardless of Democrat or Republican, accountability to the people has been diminished to the point where now democracy is at risk. The president now thinks that he is above the law and can wiretap or render anyone with an opposing view. I think the question the conservatives should be asking themselves is if they want to see a day where we live in an empire ruled in tyranny by allowing freedom to be taken away one slice at a time. Allowing an administration such as this one to rule a country is not only insanely stupid but dangerous to everyone who believes there is still hope in democracy.

They should have thrown feces at ann coulter.

Why don’t you enlighten us Brad? Who sold the gas to Saddam and shook his hand after? If you can find proof of what you are alluding to you will have a whole lot more to report on, since using that kind of gas is against Geneva Convention and has been since 1929. We did not sell it to him. Have fun proving otherwise.

And what do you say about the Democrat presidents that have wiretapped US citizens in the past? Clinton tapping right wingers after the Oklahoma City bombing especially. Quite frankly, in both cases (then and now) I agree with limited use of this. There, I said it, Clinton did one thing right. You should be happy.

Last, the world did think Saddam had the stuff. They did not have the balls to do anything about it, and going by the sound of it, neither do you. 17 UN resolutions does not say that your side of that debate was unequivocally right. It means that everyone thought he was a threat. Otherwise the UN would not have wasted their time.

"The president now thinks that he is above the law and can wiretap or render anyone with an opposing view"

Then that would explain why 99% of the posters on this blog are still running free, right? Michael Moore, Al Franken....last time I checked they have not be hauled off to internment camps.

Secondly, the President can "spy" without the court's approval. He has the majority's backing.

It should again go without saying that FDR - during World War II - rounded up all Japanese, including loyal Japanese-American Citizens and sent them all to internment camps. The Supreme Court during wartime said they were not going to touch it - and were not going to undermine the Commander in Chief.

Two suspected terrorists (post 9/11) cell phone numbers were retrieved during wartime. If a President were not listening to their conversations - I think we'd have something to worry about.

The liberal rant though has shifted from "he should not have been eavesdropping" to "we agree that he should have been listening - but he should have gotten a court order first", which of course is followed up by an easy, but common liberal lie that it's a "requirement" for a Commander in Chief during wartime to gain approval of the Supreme Court before he makes a decision that's in the best interest of our country. Unlike liberals, the President is able to gain the majority in this great Democracy that we live in without needing justification from the Courts.

I think it's great though that liberals are making the ruccuss about it. It's showing Americans why they cannot be trusted with National Security.

Sort of makes ya wonder why the approval ratings suddenly leaped up at the close of the year, huh?

I hope we keep hearing more and more about this: keep it up!

Alrighty then, FC, apparently you are unable to back up your silly statement ""It makes the base of the Democratic party; who predicted one small year ago that Iraqis would not even participate in the polls, look even crazier." with any actual facts. I'm "shocked".

Later FC when on to say:

"Republicans as a general matter enjoy discussion - that's why I am here."

heheheh...Coincidentally, that's why I'm here, with a blog in the first place, since the "Conservative" run media does not allow voices contrary to the Rightwing disinformation. When there is a Leftwing equivalent (anywhere!) of a CNN, Fox "News", Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Michael Savage, ad nauseum on the airwaves, please let me know.

As to your last post above, it's mostly unadulterated nonsense which doesn't even deserve a reply. But in brief: No, the President can't "spy" without a court order. Not on US citizens, as the "President" himself had (previously) admitted before getting caught. Whether the "majority" agree with him (which their is no evidence of) is both beside the point, and has nothing to do with the laws of our country and constitution. Beyond that, no, this is not "war time" and what both Clinton and FDR did --- with congressional and judicial approval! --- has nothing to do with your "President" breaking the law of the United States of America. No matter how much you wish to apologize for criminals because you voted for them.

BIG K - If you have evidence that Bill Clinton illegally wiretapped American Citizens, I'll be the first one to call for his impeachment (oh, wait, too late)...well then, I'll condone his actions. There is no such evidence of any such illegal acts that I know of. Please feel free to prove me wrong.

As to Saddam being sold WMD, if you have trouble finding it, let me know and I'll bother to take the time to find some of those "receipts". In the meantime, here's one such picture of America (in the name of Don Rumsfeld) shaking hands with the criminal Saddam Hussein:

More info here.

That was, of course *prior* to his gassing the Kurds while we were busy selling such weapons to Saddam in the 80's.

Brad,
see # 54

Once upon a time, conservatives were staunch defenders of civil liberties and small government.

"heheheh...Coincidentally, that's why I'm here, with a blog in the first place, since the "Conservative" run media does not allow voices contrary to the Rightwing disinformation."

A.) I commended your "desire" to have discussion by pointing out that you had repartee with Ann Coulter as opposed to you calling her a "nazi" or throwing food at her at a college campus.

B.) Regarding Fox News, some guests on O'Reilly and H&C have included Bob Beckel, Katrina VandenHeuvel, Susan Estrich, Ellis Hennican...and let's not forget Alan Colmes is co-host of Hannity & COLMES. That's more blabber. Also if you are trying compare CNN to Fox News then can you tell me why it was liberals that were obsessed with pulling Coulter off of CNN?

Bush did not "admit" that it was a crime to spy on terrorists during war time. I provided you with a link to back up my assertion - as you requested. Why dont you do the same in this case that confirms A.) That Bush committed a crime. and B.) that he "admitted" it.

It's funny, you get to make crazed accusations without citing facts. Then you characterize my fact-citing (such as FDR detaining Japanese American Citizens without the approval of the Supreme Court) as "unadulterated".

You can keep characterizing Republicans as stupid or corrupt all you want, sooner or later you are going to need proof of something.

Like rats off a sinking ship they claw and drag others down to save their own worthless necks...

Bush did not "admit" that it was a crime to spy on terrorists during war time. I provided you with a link to back up my assertion - as you requested. Why dont you do the same in this case that confirms A.) That Bush committed a crime. and B.) that he "admitted" it.

DEAN: Well, I don't think there's any question he's violated the law. He's admitted to violating the law. What he is saying, I have a good defense, and that is national security. I have this power to do this, or this very vague resolution that the Congress granted for my using force in dealing with Afghanistan and terrorists. I can read into that that it also includes collecting signal intelligence.(12/27/05)

But what the fuck does JOHN DEAN (counsel to Richard Nixon) know? That anti-American free enterprise-hating liberal douchebag (who can't even formulate an argument or have a discussion lol!) is only interested in selling books! Damn these book-mongering money-grubbing power whores! DAMN THE BIBLIO-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX!!

"I have this power to do this"

As with FDR during World War II, THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF has the "power".

That's the point! It's not illegal for the President to do so.

Brad said:

"both Clinton and FDR did --- with congressional and judicial approval"

You're wrong the Supreme Court did not touch FDR's decision to hold Loyal Japanese American Citizens in internment camps.

He did not need the Supreme Court's approval.

So Donnie Rumsfeld shook his hand. I do not recall getting my hair tangled over that so much as the selling of chemical weapons. If you have those receipts in an old pair of jeans, please produce them before they are sent through the wash.

As for Clinton, he sought powers to wire tap the public after the Oklahoma City bombing and after the attack during the 1996 Olympics. Simply typing “Clinton, wiretap, bombing” in Google will produce some interesting reading. He wanted to tap almost 1% of the country. That is a lot, by the way. He did get almost 1200 taps.

And I love your so called “Conservative media.” That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. So they are not liberal enough for you, does not make them right wing. When, during the 2004 presidential election I am reading a report critical of Bush on CNN.com, with 3 banners on the page advertising for Kerry, and 2 pop ups for Kerry, I feel the conservative news engines turning. When the FBI crime report says that more guns are used to foil crimes than are used committing them and not only does that fact go unreported but there is not a single case in the media describing this phenomenon, I also bask in conservative glow and pride in the media powerhouse we have created. Whatever.

That's the point! It's not illegal for the President to do so.

Yes, actually it is.

#60 "Then that would explain why 99% of the posters on this blog are still running free, right? Michael Moore, Al Franken....last time I checked they have not be hauled off to internment camps."

Does Maher Arar mean anything to you FC?

BVAC

Your going to have to come up with something better than “yeah huh.” It is sophomoric, and not very persuasive.

Here is an example. The language adopted by Congress in giving the president authority to go after bad guys is as follows.

“all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons [the president] determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the attacks of Sept. 11”

All necessary and appropriate force. Now dems are saying they meant this, or meant that, but not what is going on now. Sounds like they are getting buyers remorse, but does not change the fact that they gave the power to defend his people the best he could using whatever he needed against al Qaeda. To me, that includes tapping phones of bad guys. Keep in mind also, taps like that are not generally going to hold up in court. There must be some hard evidence to put someone away. Some conversation on the phone will not do the trick.

Big K,

You can flap your gums all you want. Myself? I'm going to take it easy and relax - when these idiots start defending internment as being A OK in their book, I don't think anything I say will be very persuasive.

Just keep shedding those excess layers of civil liberties and pray that Our Leader will protect Us from Them, ok?

The question remains, what law gives ultimate power to the president to make up whatever laws he sees fit, provide un-challenged "pork" contracts to the "pioneers" and political friendlies, and ignore an entire section of the country that probably voted his way anyways.

Oh and just to reinerate what Brad was saying about conservatives controlling the media, see Patrick Rhode under #37.

Let me reiterate that overall I am thrilled with liberals' expected reaction to the NSA spying on suspected terrorists: I'm happy about it and encourage the opposition. Everytime an average American watches the news and finds out that lawyers of convicted individuals who were put away as a result of evidence from those phone calls, are now "trying" to file civil suits against the US Government to get these PROVEN terrorists released, the same average Americans will be reminded exactly why liberals cannot run our country and be trusted with National Security. You can count each vote by hand if you'd like. I'd be so willing to take bets starting right now on 2008.

Any takers?

(BTW I know that when the courts hear these cases - if they even make it to court - the judges will throw them out on the basis that they would have granted the permission to the NSA in the first place - if Bush had found that silly step nescessary).

Big K wrote (about Clinton):
He wanted to tap almost 1% of the country. That is a lot, by the way. He did get almost 1200 taps.

Uhhh, yeah, he "got" the wiretaps...that means he got APPROVAL through the legal channels. This has all been discussed before - Bush was the only president in recent history to have been turned down for wiretaps (even though it was only 4.) Obviously he decided he didn't need any further legal approval to wiretap AMERICANS and decided to bypass the whole system. THAT'S what the problem is. Half-wits.

In case the US Constitution is relevant, here is what it says:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." (US Constitution, Amendment IV , link here).

The behavior of the president is clearly a violation of the US Constitution, the highest law of the land.

This law is higher than the Supreme Court, higher than Congress, and higher than the president.

The current spy discourse by neoCons as they struggle to maintain a "strict constructionist" position on "shall not be violated" and at the same time maintain a "whorishly loose constructionist" interpretation ("it is ok for the president to do it") makes me LMAO.

"Recent history?" You mean in the last six years, right. How recent are you talking about? As stated, presidents that were democrat imprisoned American citizens for no reason, and there are people still alive today that remember it. Clinton had plenty of transgressions against the citizenry that are well documented, but is that recent enough for you?

BVAC, I am flapping my gums to try to get you to think. When fighting people like al Qaeda there needs to be a different set of rules. If it means tapping my phone conversations with my wife, have fun. The president has repeated he is only interested in calls to destinations outside the country to people suspected of being terrorists. You and I have little to worry about. At least I have little to worry about. I do not know what you do with your time or who you talk to.

Regarding the detention of loyal Nisei during World War II by the Roosevelt adiminstration:

It was morally wrong. It never should have happened. But F.D.R. DID NOT EXCEED HIS WAR POWERS IN DOING SO, BECAUSE WAR HAD BEEN DECLARED.

Bush has spied without a warrant against U.S. citizens having no affiliation with terrorists or terrorist organizations. THIS DOES EXCEED BUSH'S WAR POWERS, BECAUSE WAR HAS NEVER BEEN DECLARED. "TERRORISM" ISN'T A DEFINABLE ENEMY, IT'S A TACTIC USED BY CERTAIN ENEMIES TO ACHIEVE POLITICAL ENDS DURING PEACETIME.

To equate Roosevelt's actions with Bush's is dumb. Both are wrong, but Roosevelt acted as commander in chief during wartime. Bush acted as commander in chief during peacetime.

Finally, a "war on terrorism" can be a war against whomever a president declares a terrorist to be. The Nicaraguan contras were terrorists by any normal definition, but Reagan called them "freedom fighters" and not only didn't proclaim war on them,
he aided them illegally! In the Philippines, Marcos had Aquino murdered as a terrorist, when in fact Aquino was a freedom fighter leading an uprising against a crook, Marcos, whom Reagan called "a great friend of America" up until the very end.

Bottom line: No "war on terrorism" can imbue a president with war powers, because that phrase has no standing in domestic or international law. A president only derives war power from an actual war. F.D.R. had such power in 1942, even though most people agree he misused it against the Nisei. Bush never had it, and is not entitled to protection.

Mills, you start out by saying (in regard to FDR and Bush) "There is no difference", and "both were wrong" to the attitude of "how can you compare the two?".

This is war time. 99% of politicians on Capitol Hill refer to this as "war time". Democrats and Republicans alike - even leftist Barbara Boxer (cannot get any lefter than that). I wish you good luck at changing all of their minds - especially the liberal senators - they're the ones who are most stubborn .

The people that were convicted as a result of evidence found off of these phone calls were people who blew up buildings, who killed people - and so forth.

You can call it what you want, I call it terrorism, GWB took care of it.

But once again, please, keep going. Though you claim to be neither Republican or Democrat, it certainly has been the the position of Democrats that you seem to be supporting here, and at this point - I think now - Americans overwhelmingly understand that liberals can never be trusted with our national security again. They prefer made-up legal technicalities to bash Bush (which is more important to them) than to being thankful that the individuals who are put away (that want you dead as well as me) are gone because of Bush (the man they love to bash).

Bush's approval ratings showed, along with the success of the Iraq elections, and the growing economy, that this was the nicest thing that the New York Times has done for him since he was elected in 2000.

Robert,

It is funny you should say that. Osama says this is war. Declared it on us years ago. He carries it out as a war, we conduct ourselves the same as we must, otherwise we will suffer greatly. They are not interested in political ends. They are interested in victory. To them it means destroying the white devil (us, that means you and me both) and instituting their form of government. Sounds like war. Looks like war. Tastes like war. Must be war, brother.

We in the US are a nation of laws. Even "war" is regulated by our laws:

"The Congress shall have Power To ... provide for the common Defence ... To declare War ... To raise and support Armies ...To provide and maintain a Navy; To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repeal Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States ..."

(US Constitution, Article I, Section 8, link here).

War, whatever it is, is not something the President does, it is something the Congress does.

When the neoCons talk about war, it is not an American concept, but rather some fascist or communist ideology based upon the blathering of mindless dicktator like The Dick VP, who has no concept of the American spirit.

What the president is doing looks illegal, smells illegal, and is illegal.

Big K, stop kidding yourself buddy. You're not trying to make anyone think, you just want to reassure yourself that you are right. If going on the internet and defending domestic spying makes you sleep better at night, more power to you. I'm sure if the government offered electronic ankle bracelets to every citizen to protect them from the terrorists, you would be the first in line.

You also touch upon a common theme that I've seen across various blogs, not just this one. Every time a defender of big government and opponent of civil liberties, such as yourself, talks about wiretapping and surveillance, they inevitably imply that anyone who doesn't might be a terrorist. "At least I have little to worry about. I do not know what you do with your time or who you talk to."

Yup! You're a big god-fearin', america-lovin' son of a gun - in fact I bet the NSA has you undersurveillance just for inspiration! Maybe you'll even get a call from them thanking you for defending the country from terrorists/liberals. ...but me? gee, who knows what i do in my spare time, i might just be a terrorist.

Big funny conservative guy, I've said it before - you are hilarious dude! Oh shit man! People want to kill us! Give the executive all the power it wants or we'll die! War time? Give me a break.. FDR mobilized the economy to get the country out of the greatest depression in history and provide the wartime infrastructure needed to defeat global fascism (REAL fascism, not this 'islamo fascism' crap you people keep trying to peddle). Bush told us to go shopping.

A far cry from the scrap metal drives and energy conservation that characterized the wars of old.

Whether you look fondly on internment or not (I don't), FDR at least kept the borders safe. Meanwhile our border security is lax, ports and harbors go unprotected, we're still having problems with the FAA and airport security... but hey, I just want to bash Bush I guess - not because he's the president and responsible for foreign policy and such - he's just the man I love to bash! ...but seriously, get over the cult of personality crap, ok?

and back to Big K - oh wow, so now we've given the authority to declare war to little prep school scum bag terrorists? I guess it makes sense, since we've also let them decide what civil liberties we should and should not have. White devil? I don't want to disturb your fantasy, but there are some non-white people in this country too. What are you going to say next - they hate us for our freedom?

By the way, it's a good thing that after Osama declared war on us we moved in, captured him, and squashed his network of terrorist agents. OH WAIT!

Sounds like war. Looks like war. Tastes like war. Must be war, brother. *grunt*

Now go masturbate to your GI Joe dolls.

RE #83 above

Since Congress alone has plenary power under our laws, to declare war, it is interesting to take a look at the word declare. It means:

1) To make known formally or officially.
2) To state emphatically or authoritatively; affirm.
3) To reveal or make manifest; show.
4) To make a full statement of.

A synonym is "announce". Thus under our law it is congress, not the president, and not the courts that has the sole power in these matters.

The president thinks he has these powers or that should be his and not Congress' (link here).

The congress makes known, states emphatically, reveals and makes manifest, shows, and makes a full statement of "war" under our system of law.

The neoCons are digging themselves into another constitutional hole in their brain, and will soon make attempts to get out of that hole, which will go something like this:

BVAC

Thanks for waking up. My intent was made manifest in your last post. I love real debate, but hate it when someone says they are right because they are, and they just are, and you should know it because. You exercised some gray matter, that is all I wanted.

To be honest, I was joking about you being a terrorist. Obviously. I can not speak for the rest of the people you talk to, but my comment was to be taken as literally as yours saying I am being monitored just for inspiration, or your crass comment about me masturbating to G.I Joes. (c’mon, Barbie is much more my speed.)

The white devil comment was taken from Osama and his friends themselves. It is what they call us. Sometimes referring to the president alone, oftentimes referring to every tax paying citizen of this country.

We are of course in agreement on one thing. The borders need to be secured. It is impossible to reconcile that one.

One more thing. In my post #73 I pointed out that Congress did give powers to combat terrorists and used the language “all necessary and appropriate force.” It may mean different things to different people, but to me and about 51% of the country it means he can tap phone lines to people calling Uzbekistan for fun and talking at length to uncle Osama. Sorry, I have no problem with that. I would be pissed if something else happened and he was not using everything at his disposal to head them off.

For Funnyconservative and Big K: Read my post again, and show me where I wrote, "There's no difference (between F.D.R.'s detention of Nisei and Bush's spying on Americans). I also never wrote, "Both were wrong," either. For heaven's sake, it's one thing to misquote someone...another to change what's in print right in front of you!

I did write about F.D.R.'s action, "It was MORALLY wrong. It never should have happened." But I tried to show how there WAS A CLEAR DIFFRENCE between that act and Bush's conduct.

Let's go over this again, please. The question is about a commander in chief's war powers. They are only derived from war itself. War does not exist when a foreign terrorist says it does, only when the U.S. Congress affirms a president's DECLARATION of war. Throughout our history, various foreigners have verbally assailed the United States in a warlike manner, viz. Pancho Villa, Khrushchev, Qaddafi, Ayatollah Khomeini, Kim Il Jong, and others, without the president DECLARING a state of war or claiming war powers. No such power was inferred after the first Trade Center bombing.

It seems redundant to add that even if Bush had somehow magically acquired war powers to fight Osama without ever declaring war, that he diverted men and resources away from that battleground to Iraq...which had zero to do with Osama and 9/11. Truly, it's an absolute mystery to me how grown men (and a handful of women) could have lived through the last five years of misery, deceit, ex-post-facto excuse-making and sheer ineptitude, and yet support the Bush administration.

Big Daddy K,

I wouldn't consider myself even an avid reader of OBL's work, but to my knowledge he's never called us or Our Leader "white devil". You might be thinking of "Great Satan". "White devil" is the stuff Bush snorted in college. (just love bashing Bush!)

about 51% of the country it means he can tap phone lines to people calling Uzbekistan for fun and talking at length to uncle Osama.

Silly Big K, Uzbekistan is not where people call to talk about uncle Osama, it's where the US and UK send people to be tortured!

And since you brought it up, you exhibit another common theme I see across the blogosphere. Every action carried out by the NSA is directly related to OBL or Al Quaeda, and requiring oversight or 72-hour-after-the-fact warrants for these operations would result in another 9-11.

With around 20,000 warrants obtained for wiretaps under the FISA court, it's no wonder you guys are crap-your-pants-surrender-all-civil-liberties afraid of terrorists running through your backyard with machetes ready to hack your head off. Protect us Dear Leader!

My favorite from firedog lake:

We picture a cave somewhere in Pakistan. Osama picks rat meat off a stick when countless number twos rush in screaming "Good God man, no warrants! Shut it all down!"

RLM #88

As the constitutional section I quoted in my #83 shows, you are incorrect to the extent you say the president can declare war under our law.

Only the congress can do that.

Noone, not the president, not the congress, and not the courts can violate the 4th Amendment, which is quoted in my post #78.

So, whether there is a war declared by congress or not, the president cannot do searches, which the supreme court has ruled that wiretaps are, without a warrant.

I have heard the term “white devil” used a few times, that is really a matter of semantics. Same with the Uzbekistan comment. My point being made, I don’t mind tapping of phones to people calling those areas who are on a government watch list. They are not running up on soccer moms. I am all good with it.

I would wonder if a number of them are not even US citizens, but here on a Visa. But we will not know that since giving a list of names would be contrary to doing this in secret so it can be effective. But, I digress.

Hey, who knows what those soccer moms do in their spare time?

Big K #91

I really do not give a rats ass that you "don't mind tapping of phones" of American citizens or not.

I don't care either about anything you like, dislike, hate, love, or any other legend in your own mind gymnastics you care to go thru on your keyboard.

What I do care about is what the US Constitution and the oaths to uphold it say.

You care to discuss the US Constitution and what it likes and what it dislikes?

If not, kiss the wind, because you might as well love yourself these neoCon daze.

If there was a Draft the soccer mom's would riot in the street . . .. > self

Dredd,

I did talk about the law, and no one seamed to answer to that. Congress gave powers to go after these guys, dems now do not seam to like it. Tough. It has happened before, other presidents have done it, and others will in the future I am sure.

As far as the Constitution is concerned, we all know the Bill of Rights it seams, and we all know that every one of the rights we have include limitations. We have free speech, but libel and slander are not protected. We have freedom of religion, but polygamy as part of religion is not protected. We have a right to keep and bear arms, but full auto machine guns are not protected. In all cases, the individual right is put aside so as to not trample on the rights of others, who are undeserving of the perceived malice that the individual may have toward another. In this case, we have a right to live our lives, and while someone may have the right not to be listened to on their phone conversations, they do not have the right to deprive the rest of us of our basic liberties. The question in my mind, and others, is this. When these guys are using our system against us, knowing that we cannot cross a line to stop their plans, how do you purpose to stop them if not like this? What will you say to those that may loose someone? That the rights of those who took the life you they cared for was more important? Dems are real quick to tell me that if I feel more secure walking the street with my pistol that it is not as important as their wish I do not carry, despite the Amendment. Where do you draw the line with this?

One of the silly Bush dead-enders said:

The people that were convicted as a result of evidence found off of these phone calls were people who blew up buildings, who killed people - and so forth.

What people that "were convicted"? Blew up what "buildings"? Killed what "people"? You're talking out of your ass. Bereft of evidence for your wishful-thinking argument.

You can call it what you want, I call it terrorism, GWB took care of it.

Faith-based Americans are the best!

As to Big K's last silly note, repeat this with me:

72 hours, 72 hours, 72 hours.

That's the amount of time your hero Bush had to go to the FISA court *after* he wire-tapped whoever he damn pleased.

I've yet to hear a single person (Dem or otherwise) suggest that wire-tapping a suspected terrorists, citizen or otherwise, is a problem. The ONLY problem here is THE RULE OF LAW.

In case you've forgotten that phrase, go check your comments from circa 1998 or so. It may ring a bell for ya.

Alright,

Here is a page from Cornell Law School that describes the law as it stands.

http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/

It says the president is able to authorize the attorney general to wire tap conversations with foreigners, and they are able to tap US citizens and obtain a permit 3 days later. Maybe that is what Brad was talking about, I don’t know. But he can authorize taps without a permit to foreigners, like it or not.

By the way, notice the date on the law. 1978. It has been on the books for a while, and, hmmm, who was president in 1978 again? Can anyone tell me? I have been looking for that for 3 days just for you guys. Enjoy.

One more thing before the boon of sleep takes me for the night. What the hell were you talking about with comments circa 1998? I do not think you were talking to me, but a link to whatever you were meaning there would be nice Brad. Thanks.

ah Big K, you're quite the tricky dick

I think you pushed the crayon too far up your nose - the president can authorize the attorney general to spy on people? That's a lot of micromanaging for one person!

All kidding aside now, you're missing the point. Or deliberately trying to confuse the issue to create the impression that our Leader is jus' rollin' up his sleeves and tryin' to protect us from the terrorists.

Look, the Attorney General can authorize wiretaps without a court order IF it meets the requirements of section 102A(1) of the FISA act. That section requires that the involved parties are not U.S. citizens. It also happens to define foreign power as a group engaged in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefor, which muddies the waters up a little bit - so I won't go there. And since Our Leader, with his steely resolve, made the tough decision, with such steely resolve, to unite and strengthen America by providing appropriate tools required to intercept and obstruct terrorists, the purpose of these wiretaps was expanded a whole lot.

Now wait a minute Special K, this all appears to be a moot point, since Ashcroft chose to not reauthorize some NSA wiretaps! Then when he was hospitalized, Deputy Sheriff Attorney General Comey refused to sign off on them too! So counsel Albo Gonzo the torture advocate/fetishist ran over to the hospital where Ashcroft was on more drugs than Rush Limbaugh, and he STILL refused.

WAIT a minute Big DicK! I've looked all around, and I haven't seen anyone even argue that the spying on U.S. citizens is illegal, like it or not. The issue, which you seem to not want to bring up, is that after years of effectively surveilling and retroactively going to the FISA court for a warrant, as per the law, the Bush admin decided it didn't have to do that anymore! In your short and pointless reply, can you at least acknowledge this?

All this talk about "terrorists using our system against us" and our intelligence not being able to "cross the line" is pure bullshit and a clever strawman. There are no roadblocks, no red tape - just a retroactive warrant from a rubber-stamp court to provide some oversight on the operation.

Hey, I don't know what you do or who you talk to in your spare time. The NSA could wiretap you and any other soccer mom that calls Afganistan 24/7 for all I care - but they need a warrant to do it. No warrant, no good.

By the way, it was Carter who signed the act into law. Congratulations, you're well on your way to playing politics with national security and the constitution!

some sources so you don't have to spent the next week looking for newsweek on the web:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com...96/site/newsweek/page/4/
http://foi.missouri.edu/...ourts/seccrtrebuffs.html

Big K #95

You said "Congress gave powers to go after these guys".

The only thing missing is a cite to the law. So far all you are citing is your own air. That may be enough for air heads, but I require a citation of authority because neither your word nor my word is the law.

Please post the law you refer to. It is quite short.

You asked "Where do you draw the line with this" after saying there are limits on all rights. I assume you realize this applies to the Office of President as well? The "Commander in Chief" clause limits his commander in chiefdom to military personnel during times of war. He is not the commander in chief of the civilian population.

And as a civilian commander in chief of the armed forces, it is a felony for him to use the military to enforce civil law under the criminal statute 18 USC 1385.

That is where I draw the line.

BVAC,

I hope you are having fun with my name. I think I called your arguments sophomoric before, it is a charge I stand by.

As for your assessment of the law, I admit I am not a student of law. The intricacies of it are not something I have been schooled in. However, the person I asked to get that site I posted earlier is. According to him the president is within his rights, based on that law. I will take his authority on this subject over yours.

I am indeed having fun Big Klown, and I hope you can lighten up a bit and see past my insults and personal jabs. Theres a bit o' truth underneath.

I am not a student of law either. Nor am I a law student. Or a paralegal. But I know how to read. What I don't do is read talking points. Which from day one is all you've been basing your comments on whether you are aware of it or not (like it or not).

The site you posted earlier is not a hard one to find. It has a lot more information on it now, but a few weeks ago it was just the executive orders by the presidents you can't seem to remember. This was used across the blogosphere by individuals such as yourself, who fear the brown people and love big government, to bolster their arguments and turn it into a political football. It was even used by Drudge who left out a crucial piece of information, so his talking point minions had something to spam on blogs such as this one. The argument stood for maybe half a day until it was realized that it has nothing to do with what Bush is currently being criticized for.

So, you're going to have to find another talking point - I suspect that whoever found that website for you has a few ready by now. I'm surprised you needed someone else to find that site for you, and that it took them three days.

Since I'm debating with a proxy here, maybe your friend would like to post under his own name.

Since he seems to be an authority on the subject.

-

Not that I tack my opinions to Dean, but since his buddy met the same fate that Bush is headed for, I think he might have more insight to this than your friend:

DEAN: Well, I don't think there's any question he's violated the law. He's admitted to violating the law. What he is saying, I have a good defense, and that is national security. I have this power to do this, or this very vague resolution that the Congress granted for my using force in dealing with Afghanistan and terrorists. I can read into that that it also includes collecting signal intelligence.(12/27/05)

BVAC,

I said I could not find it after 3 days. I asked him and he produced it readily. I realize it does not bode well for my powers of Google-Fu (as someone recently called it) that I was not able to produce the site in that time. But it was New Years Eve, and I had revelry and libation to attend to. As to how much the site has changed, I can not speak to that, if you have proof that Cornel School of Law is trying something funny, let us see it.

I have been trying to stay away from the talking points, if I were to produce those I would be discussing John McCain's comments on the issue defending the president, or Alito's. But, I am sure they would fall on deaf ears with you guys. All I am interested in is citing the law, and the reasoning behind the actions taken. No, I am not scared of brown guys. In my opinion, making a law like the old days in the West whereby every citizen must travel with a gun would end much of this. Anyone trying to take over a plane would have to contend with the business end of a “peacemaker.” Or a few of them, but I digress.

As for my friend coming in here, I asked him to. I know he would be better at this than I, so we will have to see.

K

You want to cite law and discuss reasoning -

Yet you haven't responded directly to any point I've made.

The courts provide warrants 72 hours after the wiretap. It gave around 20,000 of these. Rejected 4. Modified around 100. Bush decided there were a couple dozen he didn't have to go to the court for at all. That's illegal. Not even the AG or deputy AG wanted to reauthorize this program. So what's your problem?

P.S. I'd like to see the result of a hundred people with peacemakers unleashing their justice on an airplane.

P.P.S. planes don't fly good when theres holes in them.

That means they do not fly into buildings either. If a terrorist knows he will have little chance getting the plane to the destination he intends, he might not try it to begin with.

And I did respond to your post. If the president is able to authorize the taps, he does not need secondary authorization from the AG. The president makes policy, not his subordinates. At least that is how I read the law.

"That means they do not fly into buildings either. If a terrorist knows he will have little chance getting the plane to the destination he intends, he might not try it to begin with. "

So your trying to tell me that if it was legal to allow so called "peacemakers" on a flight with lethal weapons that it would make flying much safer? That is singlehandedly the stupidest thing I've heard in 2006 and I think it takes the cake for the rest of '06 as well. How the hell does that make people safer?

It is clear that you are part of the shoot first ask questions later crowd. You know, the same crowd that charged into Iraq with no plan in sight. The same crowd that is trying to drill in an Artic Wildlife Refuge. The same group that is being implicated in many ( I don't even know the count anymore) Indictments.

Supporting a party such as this one is like the drunk guy at the party who picks up the ugly chick. Sure it sounded good at the time but once you sober up and realize what your in bed with you will run out screaming.

A wise man once said to me that fat chicks are like mopeds. They are lots of fun, you just would not want your friends to see you on it.

The gun comment was not terribly serious. I hate having to explain things like that to liberals. It is called euphemism. When you guys use it, its is supposed to be a joke. When a conservative uses it, it is "hate speech" or "stupid." Of course such an idea would not get through congress, and maybe it should not. It is not a cause I am in the vanguard for.

I'm against federal gun control too. But it's easier to just make fun of you.

If the president is able to authorize the taps, he does not need secondary authorization from the AG. The president makes policy, not his subordinates.

And that is the most asinine thing i've read (in this thread).

Big K, I can understand that you feel the president and his people are protecting you and make you feel warm and fuzzy and safe but I think you need to re-evaluate.

The country is actually less safe right now. I'm not sure if you read the alternative media such as this or believe in it for that matter but you have to start forming an opinion of your own instead of being a brain-dead pawn that follows the other lemmings off the cliff.

BVAC,

I am glad we have some common ground on the gun control issue. Feel free to make fun, however. Free speech and all.

On the rest of our discussion I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I see nothing wrong with the actions taken, legal or otherwise. If it goes to court we will all be watching, I am sure.