12.21.2005

Seriously...

I know i've already posted a little about this spying bush has been doing, but isn't anyone else pissed about it? I cannot believe that he is pretty much saying that he can arrest, spy, pretty much do whatever the hell he wants until "terrorism" is over. Give me a fucking break, will it ever be over? I'm pissed because he is saying that because we went to Iraq and because of 9-11, he can just bypass part of the constitution and invade anyone's privacy he wants? I actually HATE him -- it's a wonder that anyone actually voted this moron in. Wow, go America....

19 Comments:

At 12/21/2005 10:16 AM, Blogger Ray said...

I Totally agree with you! This deserves impeachment!

 
At 12/21/2005 11:57 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ok, first it isn't anyone's privacy. It's only international communication. Do you want to be safe or not? What will you give up for saftey in your own country? International conversation that sends a red flag to the government? If that's the case they can listen in on my coversations overseas because I for one would rather not live through another 9-11.

 
At 12/21/2005 8:09 PM, Anonymous Michele said...

If it's any consolation...I DID NOT vote for Bush, and frankly, I'm amazed that anyone would given the 4 years we already suffered through with him. Ugh!

 
At 12/22/2005 12:26 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Personally I'm not a Bush fan nor did I vote for him. But I don't care if he/government listens in on my conversations for terrorism content because I have nothing to hide. Now if they were listening in for no reason just to abuse power, then yes, I'd be pissed.

 
At 12/22/2005 9:44 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Unfortunately, this article is full of falsehoods.
1. "secretly" - There were several members of congress that knew (subcommittee on intelligence, I believe, among others) as well as the Attorney General. Not so secret, eh?
2. These members of Congress have known about it since a few months after 9/11... where was there outrage then? Hmm.. maybe it's because it's politcally advantageous now for them?
3. The wiretapping was on International calls - not domestic calls. This, by the way, is not illegal, which is one of the blatant ommissions of the article... which leaves the premise of impeachment as full of politically-motivated crap.
"Previous administrations, as well as the court that oversees national security cases, agreed with President Bush's position that a president legally may authorize searches without warrants in pursuit of foreign intelligence. That same authority, she added, pertains to electronic surveillance such as wiretaps. More recently, the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court -- the secretive judicial system that handles classified intelligence cases -- wrote in a declassified opinion that the court has long held "that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information." Read the articles listed below for more information
4. Visit http://www.washtimes.com/national/20051222-122610-7772r.htm to see an article explaining "warrantless searches" not being unprecedented. And this article http://www.washtimes.com/national/20051222-122610-7772r.htm explaining how Bill Clinton also used these same tactics to help obtain foreign intelligence and even expanded its use...

What it comes down to is it's the Democrats and the liberal media lying and playing a nasty game of politics with our National Security at stake... how sad is that!

The more important action item is to find out who leaked this information and have them charged and arrested.

 
At 12/23/2005 9:42 AM, Anonymous jen said...

holy shit i can't believe the civil liberties you people who commented here are SO WILLING TO GIVE UP! COME ON. you say you'd rather just let them spy and listen in because you have nothing to hide, well that is a valid point, but you are missing the whole point of this. the WHOLE point, is Bush WOULD have gotten the warrants just fine if he had ACTUALLY asked for them THE RIGHT WAY FROM A JUDGE. the disturbing fact is that HE DIDN'T. He just thinks he can go and do what he wants when he wants all in the name of "terrorism". He would have gotten the warrants just fine if he went thru the proper channels, which he chose to not do. now my question is which members are the "key members of congress" bush claims were briefed on this and i am disappointed that at the press conference he wasn't pressed on this. so yes this was "secret" and i am sure the government made sure it was kept "secret" for as long as possible ii hardly believe the government WANTED YOU TO KNOW THAT. It's bad enough our goverment can kill ANYONE and make it look like an accident (don't believe me see Syeriana or read See no evil the TRUE book which inspired the story)
so bush ignoring the constitution and our freedom that he is supposed to be PROTECTING. and the LIBERAL MEDIA is not to blame. the nytimes squashed this article for two years anyhow. i like how the other commenter just brushes that aside like oh blame the media, blame the media, they're all democrats OH NO! dun dun dun!
you have to be RETARDED not to see what bush is doing. He has sold america out. Everyone who didn't hate us 4 years ago certainly hates us now. Our civil liberties are something our country has fought hard to keep and the reason our country was FOUNDED.
also the anonymous commenter also states that if "members of congress knew about it it can't be THAT bad now" i can't believe you'd have this mentality that congress will keep our country in check, i mean come on you have senators who want to spend billions to build bridges you don't need, you have senators who say WHY HELP THE POOR PEOPLE OF HURRICANE KATRINA THEY SHOULD HAVE LEFT TOWN END OF STORY do i need to go on? there are republicans who aren't even sold on the patriot act, why do you think bush had such a hard time selling it thru again? also i think if you have such strong opinions about things you should sign your name to it. "anonymous" just means to me another blind sheep following the herd. bush's ratings are even down amonst republican's they don't necessarily like how he's handling things and they don't like the patriot act either.

 
At 12/23/2005 9:52 AM, Anonymous jen said...

also i just want to add. my boyfriend bought the see no evil book the other day i plan on reading it when he's done. It was written by someone in the CIA. And the intresting thing is the CIA censors everything with any connections, the author of the book LEFT the blacked out things in the book so you can see the process.

also disclaimer the mive syriana is FICTIONAL and only INSPIRED by the book. the CIA operant (george clooney) was the CIA agent that wrote the book. while the movie is fictional many parts with in the movie are truthful. and disturbing about our government. so i don't want to hear about how i am claiming a fictional movie as real and all that jazz.

i do have to hand it to you tho..bush wants your anonymous commenters to think just as they do. so it's working on some people.
i'm all for catching the bad guys when it comes to terrorism, but hey you got to go about it the right way, no one is going to deny the president the warrants.

i also always think well i have nothing to hide either, because i don't. but those train searches i'd see in NYC always bother me too. Again here's our civil liberties thrown away. You aren't supposed to be rifling thru my things unless you have a warrant. But we do this in the "name of terrorism" so it doesn't sit well with me either.

 
At 12/23/2005 3:53 PM, Anonymous Mike said...

I only posted anonymously b/c I thought I'd have to register or something. I didn't see the "other" category.

Since the other commentor wondered... the NYT kept the lid on the story for a year. Why? If it was such a ballbuster of a story, why sit on it? Oh... the author of the story has a book coming out in a week about it... Coincidence?

Where was the outrage when Jimmy Carter did it? After all, he was the one that originally created the FISA ("sneak around the court") rule/law.

Where was the outrage when Slick Willie did it? In 1994, President Clinton expanded the use of warrantless searches to entirely domestic situations with no foreign intelligence value whatsoever.

Since I doubt anybody actually read the article I posted, here's the link again: http://www.washtimes.com/national/20051222-122610-7772r.htm

Now, I'd rather him go through the courts the normal way, but not only is it legal, there has been numerous precedents set by previous administrations. Also, Bush has only authorized the spying on INTERNATIONAL calls (also only to terrorist nations - just just anyone calling their brother in Canada or something), much less invasive than what Clinton did.

Why didn't they go after Billy for impeachment? Is it because he was already becoming only the 2nd president to be impeached and they didn't want yet another impeachment hearing for him?

It's too bad that "journalism" these days is always so slanted one way or the other, rarely ever giving all the facts - especially facts opposing the premise of the story they want to create.

What it all comes down to is, after 9/11, any president who was *not* spying on people calling phone numbers associated with terrorists should be impeached for being an inept commander in chief. I just thank God we have a President willing to do what's necessary to stop another 9/11 from happening.

 
At 12/23/2005 5:15 PM, Anonymous jen said...

he does too much in the name of saving you from another 9/11
the war in iraq has nothing to do with 9/11 and bush wants everyone to think otherwise
i like how you assumed i didn't read your article or anyone else for that matter. oh because i am a liberal i ignore links. I can't comment on Carter because i was little when he was president. I don't always agree with the many things Clinton did either...and they already tried to impeach clinton on really stupid terms the first time around. Perhaps they could have really tried harder with the sham of whitewater too. They should have went for things that had relavence, that's their fault. I also disagreed heavily with his ignorance to africa, not everyone thinks he's a superstar. I just can't believe the actions bush is taking in the name of 9/11 and terrorism. He puts far far too many things under that category and i bet you were in full support of his findings of weapons of mass destruction that we all know now was just a massive miscommunication with our government. Why can't anyone just step up and say we have a mediocre president. he's not very intelligent, he can't even deliver a speech very well. 90% is execution, he needs a new speech writer BADLY. He needs to stop it with his awful vocabulary, it is NOT the vocabulary of a president. The point still is he is selling your civil liberties down the river and you should be concerned. It doesn't just have to do with the spying thing either.
I don't buy your reason for not signing your name. We read from right to left. To sign in Anonymous you have to literally SKIP over "other" it's fine if you don't want to put your name to it, it's just means you have a spine if you do back up your comments. even on the interweb.

 
At 12/23/2005 5:17 PM, Anonymous jen said...

we read left to right obviously, i just can't remember my left from my right when my barin is working faster than my typing

 
At 12/24/2005 3:53 PM, Blogger Dear Monday said...

Hello! Normally I don't like commenting on politics, but I'm enjoying people's statements here. I'll have to check out those links and resources. Thanks!

As for this subject of spying... I believe they do it more than we realize. Listening in on overseas phone calls doesn't make me as angry as the other more corrupt things that they do.

Sorry I don't have anything to back me up... just articles I pick up here and there, and watching too much 24. :)

 
At 12/26/2005 8:46 PM, Anonymous Mike said...

I read left to right as well, but the "blogger" option is selected by default, which requires an ID/Password. I did not select "other" and went straight to anonymous b/c I knew that didn't require signing up.

Anyway, on to things more relevent than how I signed my post...

#1. They didn't "try" to impeach Clinton. They DID impeach clinton. They just didn't vote to remove him from office. Lying under oath is a "stupid" or "irrelevent?" I thought that the President is not above the law? Any law.
This is the same guy that was offered Bin Laden SIX TIMES and refused to take custody of him.
#2. WMD - I just want all the Bush-haters to acknowledge that it wasn't just the Bush Administration saying that Saddam Hussein had WMD's. It was the UN, the Germans, the Brittish, the French, the Russians, etc. EVERYONE said he did. So please stop saying that it was only Bush who made these claims!

Quotes: "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002


BlogAdSwap

Support








--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Political Insider Ad Network

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





Quotes
"I hope we have once again reminded people that man is not free unless government is limited. There's a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: as government expands, liberty contracts." -- Ronald Reagan If The Bush Administration Lied About WMD, So Did These People -- Version 3.0
by John Hawkins
Since we haven't found WMD in Iraq, a lot of the anti-war/anti-Bush crowd is saying that the Bush administration lied about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Well, if they're going to claim that the Bush administration lied, then there sure are a lot of other people, including quite a few prominent Democrats, who have told the same "lies" since the inspectors pulled out of Iraq in 1998. Here are just a few examples that prove that the Bush administration didn't lie about weapons of mass destruction...

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

Ok, now that that's settled...
Reasons to go remove Saddam. The Bush Administration has never claimed that Saddam was behind 9/11. I'd like anyone to prove otherwise. Also, there were nearly a dozen other reasons to remove him: he's used WMDs and killed hundreds of thousands of his own citizens, his rape and torture chambers, mass graves (wonder how those happened), basic human rights violations, etc. And he failed to live up to the treaty he signed after the first Gulf War. Ok, that's enough justification (heck, that's about 10 times as much as Clinton had to go into Bosnia and Somalia).

I remember seeing someone say that this spying thing means Bush has too much power. Do these people not realize that EVERY President since Carter (who enacted these laws) has had this much power? Heck, he's used it less than most of his predecessors!

On closing, the war in Iraq is just a facet on the War on Terror, which, like the "War on Drugs/Poverty/Crime/Etc.," is a little vague for my liking. I do, though, think that most reasonable people understand what that means.

My only request is that when people post on this or any site that they do 2 simple things. PLEASE use proper grammar and spelling. Not only does it make it much easier to read, but it lends credibility to you and your message. After all, who is going to believe someone who seems uneducated? I'm not calling anyone uneducated, but since one can't enunciate in print and one doesn't tend to know the person posting, there can be a presupposition of ignorance or intelligence, depending on the level of writing.

Merry Christmas to all and to all a good night.

 
At 12/27/2005 7:36 PM, Blogger trudesign said...

Holy shit, didn't realize the debate going on here -- great stuff. I love it. Jen you have some great points -- it's truly funny how people could stand behind someone so backwards. It amazes me that people say that "there is nothing to hide" -- honestly I dont give a shit if there is anything to hide, that is not the point. The point is it scares me. It makes me feel that one day we will have barcodes in our skin. And people like you Mike would probably be "all for it"

 
At 12/28/2005 10:19 PM, Anonymous Mike said...

Mmm... Barcodes under the skin... yummy! J/K. No, I don't think I'm for barcoding people. I believe the Nazi's basically did that... and i'm NOT all for it, but you can generalize about if me if you like ;-)

On the barcodes note...

I'm not sure how into technology either of you are, but the potentially nasty thing is RFID (Radio Frequency ID). Imagine a little wi-fi barcode... sorta like the toll booths that you just have to drive through while you have their "fast pass" or whatever. it picks up the signal from that and debits your account for that trip.

Anyway, RFID's a really ingenious thing. It works great in supply-chain management (imagine the cost savings with some cheap little RFID's stuck on the pallets of product... no individual scanning of the pallets... just drive that truck on into the warehouse and your inventory is update!), but obviously can have privacy concerns if it's used in that way, too. Imagine an RFID chip embedded into your skin? It could literally be tracked wherever you go! That would be bad. On the other hand, imagine putting one into your pet? If he gets lost, the pound could scan it and see information like name/owner/owners location&phone... kinda cool.

Anyway, check it out. I can tell you are into privacy issues and that's awesome. Believe it or not, I am too. That's why I tend to keep up on the RFID issues/concerns.

Anyway, it looks like you guys had a great Christmas. Glad to see that. Tell all we said HI. I think the new baby's crying so I must go now.

 
At 12/29/2005 9:42 AM, Blogger Ray said...

I didn't even see the debate going on on this blog too! WOW, stirred something up didn't we? Anyway.. Hope all had a Merry Christmas! Miss You Guys! Even you Mike ;)

 
At 12/29/2005 9:52 AM, Blogger trudesign said...

Yes we did Ray, haha -- and next we will wipe our asses with shells like in demolition man...

 
At 12/29/2005 9:53 AM, Blogger trudesign said...

AND on another note, I love swearing - it does make me feel better. Fuck Fuck Fucky Ducks.

 
At 12/30/2005 7:08 PM, Anonymous jen said...

what the hell i wrote a comment here while i was in philly that was after that way way waaaaaay too long of a post that i was too lazy to read all of that said well steph i hope you had a good holiday despite all of this riff raff on your site!

i don't like to argue politics i leave that to my boyfriend who likes it too much and really knows his shit. I'll just live and let die with my bleeding liberal heart.

oh and i mispell stuff in comments all the effing time..if mister mike doesn't like it or thinks it makes me so unintelligent please don't bother reading my comments or even bother responding to them. I come with quirks, i am a designer, i never spell very well because i just type very fst. Altho in formal emails i always check everything. This forum is not very formal. I can go blow dust off my two untelligent degrees from the university now.

oh and i bought some intresting japanese crafting books and you read them from right to left! so fun!

 
At 1/06/2006 12:44 AM, Blogger Nikkita said...

this is not in regards to the politics, though it looks like a fun fight ;) if Jen reads this again...where did you find the Japanese craft books? I love anything Japanese just because of their strange sense of humor or whatever it is. If you read this, please comment on my page if you don't mind!

 

Post a Comment

<< Home