The Madness of King George
Jack Cafferty of CNN said, in a recent on-air column, what I’ve been thinking so much better than I could have:
Who cares about whether the Patriot Act gets renewed? Want to abuse our civil liberties? Just do it.
Who cares about the the Geneva Convention? Want to torture prisoners? Just do it.
Who cares about rules concerning the identity of CIA agents? Want to reveal the name of a covert operative? Just do it.
Who cares about whether the intelligence concerning WMDs is accurate? Want to invade Iraq? Just do it.
Who cares about qualifications to serve on the nation’s highest court? Want to nominate a personal friend with no qualifications? Just do it.
And the latest outrage, which I read about in the New York Times this morning: Who cares about needing a court order to eavesdrop on American citizens? Want to wiretap their phone conversations? Just do it.
What a joke. A very cruel, very sad joke.
Google this: “Echelon”
…and your point is?
Should we assume (he said, knowing your answer will be “no”) that you agree that BushCo is totally out of control and that their actions should not be condoned? Or, rather, is your cryptic comment intended to suggest that Bush is doing nothing wrong because, heck, Echelon is even worse, so what’s a little malfeasance by the President when there’s so much other wrong-doing out there?
I’m simply pointing out that your “outrage” at our government “spying” is only aimed at the Bush administration. Where was your outrage in ’96’ when Clinton approved unlimited spying through Echelon? Oh yeah, why am I so hung up on something that happened 10 years ago. Clinton is old news.
You’re so transparent in your hatred but you seem to truly believe you are unbiased. Amazing.
Echelon is further evidence that what Bush is doing is wrong. To quote Google’s highest reference to the program: “But apart from directing their ears towards terrorists and rogue states, ECHELON is also being used for purposes well outside its original mission.”
This is exactly what Bush will do.
But aside from that, if Echelon was doing what it claims to do, why would Bush even need to tap our phones? Heheh. Confusing.
And besides, Don, your argument is basically that it’s okay to do this because Clinton did it? If Clinton did it, it was wrong then, and it’s wrong now. Or are you saying that since Bush is doing it now that it turns out it was okay when Clinton did it?
Don, what makes it okay for Bush to bypass the law regarding placing wiretaps on American phones without a court’s approval?
Source please, Don. And while you’re digging through the Fox-feed for talking points, let me just yank the Clinton-started-Echelon rug out from under your feet with this link showing Echelon’s timeline and its first coming to light in ’88 when (gasp!) Reagan was in office: http://world-information.org/wio/infostructure/100437611746/100438658902?opmode=contents
And then let me spin you back to the point at hand: This is not about Bush spying, it’s about Bush circumventing the LAWS OF OUR NATION to do so. You need a court order to tap phone lines in this nation of laws but he claims that because he’s King he doesn’t need one. *That’s* the issue: that he’s breaking the law in the way he’s spying.
I’m surprised that you as a “Libertarian” seem to be condoning this activity and attitude. Isn’t the right to privacy one of the core beliefs of Libertarian party? Talk about being transparent… Your adoration of Bush is so blind that you even go against your core beliefs to support him.
You’re both so easy.
Etchison(what the hell kind of name is that?): #1 Where did I put forth an “argument”? Can you please point out where I stated an opinion on Echelon or the current NSA eavesdropping. Typical of a liberal to make assumptions based on opinions rather than facts.
Chuck: The basis for Echelon started around 1947/48. It was called UKUSA then. It’s been part of every president’s toolkit since then. In the 90’s it was used extensively by Clinton’s administration. No warrents required.
I’m neither condoning nor opposing either president’s use of the NSA to protect our country. There is a main difference today in that we are at war.
I’ll try to use simpler words this time. You liberals would accuse Bush of lying if he said the sun shines during the day. You make statements based on emotion. Facts rarely enter into your diatribes. That’s the point I’m making. And when I show you how Bush and Clinton did exactly the same thing you dismiss it. I’ll ask you again. Where was your outrage when Clinton’s NSA was doing the exact same thing Bush’s NSA is doing now?
Isn’t it cute when conservative small-brains try to act smarter than the rest of us when their very beliefs and positions betray their idiocy? Man, that’s some funny shit.
Etchison is a last name, but a name not quite as open to ridicule as one that suggests laughter with both its pronunciation and its owner’s positions.
The fact that you aren’t condemning Bush’s actions amounts to supporting them, especially in light of the discussions we have here and the opposing positions you take. The fact that we are “at war” does not in the slightest diminish the importance of protecting our civil rights, and the fact that you and your ilk are so willing to give them up speaks volumes about your character and spinelessness. You claim WE want the government to be Big Brother and take care of us while YOU serve up every right you have — rights the soldiers you lionize have died for — on a silver platter in exchange for the mistaken belief that your government is taking care of you, swaddling you in a warm, fluffy, protective embrace.
As far as emotions vs facts go, we’ve gone round and round on this before, and you have yet to disprove a single one of my facts. I accuse BushCo of lying only when they do. Unfortunately, they do it frequently.
But I challenge you (again): Go back through all my Bush posts. Give me an example where I don’t have a facts to back me up. I admit when I’m wrong, and I’ll admit it if you can find one.
And finally… Where was my outrage when Clinton was doing the exact same thing Bush’s NSA is doing? I’ll tell you what, I won’t bother explaining to you why it’s not the exact same thing AT ALL, instead I’ll play to the argument you’re fumblingly trying to make and say: I would be equally as outraged if it had happened like you say/think it did. And as far as Echelon goes, I think it’s outrageous no matter who’s doing it.
You know, it’s really a shame I wasn’t on the Internets back when Clinton was in office and that we don’t have logs from Modem Butterfly, otherwise I’d have a record to show you of me criticizing him, too. Because I did criticize Clinton — but he wasn’t at nearly the same level of corruption as BushCo.
Oopsie. Googling my own bad self, I see that in fact I was on the job while Clinton was in office (this Republican wasteland only *feels* like it’s gone on forever, apparently) and that in fact … I wasn’t all that critical of Clinton. I admitted that he lied, but I was pretty dismissive of it. In hindsight, I’m still pretty dismissive of it. I think he was wrong to have lied to the grand jury and I guess I think it’s right that he was prosecuted for it, but I still think the witch hunt that lead up to it was asinine and that Republican hypocrisy is as strong now as it ever was.
Also, I’m a horrible soothsayer: I predicted that the witch hunt after Clinton would backfire on the Rethuglicans and they’d be voted out in a rout and that Gore would be our next President. Wow, was I ever wrong.
Now I question if even the meltdown the Republicans are enjoying today will turn the tide. If people were so stupid as to keep them around 12 years ago…
Just a bit of an understatement, but… Bush has been a disappointment to since the first year of his first term. As a fiscal conservative, I was disappointed with the farm subsidies and the No Child Left Behind Act.
Since then, his patterns of secrecy and his level of hubris, his attempts at expanding the powers of the Executive branch, and his choice in Attorneys General sadden me. For years I’ve felt this country has been sliding into Nanny-state socialism with the Democrats, now I feel it tipping the other way into fascist socialism.
Bush says that what he did was Constitutional. I wonder if he actually read the Bill of Rights or just glanced at the Cliff Notes.
Feh … Don is a game player. It’s like playing tic-tac-toe with a pecking hen. Waste of time. Color me gone.
I am always amazed at how you dodge the actual question.
11/1/2004
5/23/2005
On both of those dates you said the Bush administration lied. The only problem is on both of those dates you failed to state your source of this “fact”. It was, as usual, your opinion.
I hate to point this out Chuck but just because you say something it doesn’t make it a fact.
P.S. Buh bye Etch
11/1/2004. The only reference I made to lying there, so I assume this is your big opinion-as-fact, was this: “They will stop at nothing, they will lie, cheat and steal to hang onto it, so it’s critical that every single one of you do your duty and vote.â€
Now, it’s been well established that BushCo has lied – Google “Bush lies†for a paltry 555,000 hits, or just go here for one site dedicated to listing the BushCo lies — so, um… Bzzt, try again.
5/23/2005. Actually, in this entry I said that the Senate Republicans were lying when they claimed that judicial nominees had never before been filibustered, and I pointed out that Republicans themselves had filibustered Clinton nominees (Richard A. Paez and Marsha L. Berzon in 2004, if you want a reference for that). They said one thing, their record said another. Were they lying?
You be the… No, strike that. I’ll let reasonable minds be the judge.I then went on to cite a laundry list of Republican/BushCo abuses that have either been documented or are currently being investigated or prosecuted, so I guess the jury is still out on whether those are lies are not — but I think those “reasonable minds†I called on above will agree with me. And just so you know, I was thinking specifically of you when I wrote the line: “I challenge my conservative/Republican friends on why they support these idiots, and they’re completely oblivious to the contradictory rationalizations coming out of their mouths. It’s as though they are willfully turning their brains off.â€
So there you go, Don. How’d I do on the question dodging? Still amazed?
And more importantly: Would you like that crow to go or will you be eating it here? Or, more likely, like a typical conservative wingnut you’ll slink on outta here with your tail between your legs and quietly rationalize for yourself some twisted intepretation of this that lets you think you’ve won.
If you look closely at the Eschelon order, you’ll note that it requires the NSA to comply with FISA. So, while Clinton did spy, he did it legally. All along, that’s been the liberal argument: there were legal ways for Bush to accomplish the exact same thing, but he chose to ignore them.
Then he bullied the press not to let the cat out of the bag for a year.
Eschelon is a bullshit talking point the Limbaugh and Drudge have cooked up.
I know I said “color me gone,” so sorry for coming back.
Thanks Mike for that info, but also remember that it’s actually the constitution that requires the NSA to comply with FISA. (And Echelon re-iterates that.)
Bush ignored the constitution on this point, and unilaterally decided not to do it even though there is absolutely no delay in submitting a request to FISA (you can submit them 48 hours after you’ve started bugging.) He (through Condi Rice) claimed that this was because FISA slowed them down … but there is no evidence of this in the legally documented process. Why did he *not* want there to be a legal record of who he was bugging?
Bush blatantly broke the law and should be impeached. I am waiting to see if the Dems are going to buck up and do it.
The rest is noise.
Hmm… Don’s gone silent all of a sudden. I hope he didn’t get a crow bone stuck in his throat or something. But I’ll do him a favor and jump in for him with what I’m sure he’d say for himself if he weren’t busy eating crow:
“Liars!”
No bone here. I’m still waiting for you to come up with the proof that Bush lied. When you get it let me know.
I know you libs like to ignore the whole 9/11, war on terrorism thing but did you know a FISA judge actually said there is such a thing as executive privilege when matters of national security are at stake? Of course now I’m going to get the “Bush lies about that too”. Once you guys get some independent thought instead of parroting Pelosi you might wake up.
What the fuck, Don. I/we give you example on example on example and still you come back with “come up with proof”? Tell me, then, lay it out for me, exactly what will you accept as “proof”? I could show you a sworn affadavit signed by Bush himself admitting that he has lied, have him hand it to you and apologize to you personally for lying, and you’d still ask for proof. What the fuck. I swear, I lose more and more respect for you every time you post here — and I used to think you were a pretty good guy. Not any more.
Hey, did you know a FISA judge actually resigned because he thinks Bush’s warrantless surveillance program is legally questionable and may have tainted the FISA court’s work?
And hey, do you remember Bush saying on 4/20/04 “There are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires — a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we’re talking about chasing down terrorists, we’re talking about getting a court order before we do so. It’s important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.”
And what are we talking about now — what has Bush admitted to personally? Wiretaps without warrants.
Bush says we always get warrants for wiretaps, then Bush says we got wiretaps without warrants. What is that, Don? How is that not a lie?
You know what? Never mind. Don’t answer. Jim nailed it when he said debating with you is like playing tic-tac-toe with a chicken. You’re a child and I’m tired of you.
One thing I’ve always made a point of doing in here is letting people speak their mind, especially those I disagree with. I might fight with them tooth and nail, but I let them have their say. I do that because I hate how many of the conservative sites stifle any dissenting opinion, banning people like me left and right because we challenge what we disagree with. I think it’s important to let the opposition have their say, partly out of respect, but it’s not for entirely noble reasons — I also think that if you give an idiot enough rope he’ll hang himself with his own words, and I do my best here to oblige.
But I expect people to debate in good faith. You don’t, Don, you just peck mindlessly like a chicken. Your whole reason for being here is just to whine about how stupid libruls are and … I don’t know what else. Seriously. You just challenge what I and others say, and then when we answer your challenges, you claim we didn’t and you change the subject to complain about how stupid we are about something else. It’s a circular argument driven by an idiot who’s not even listening to himself.
I’m done with you. You’re banned.
People like Don are so common. They claim to be using logic, when actually they are extremely non-linear. The minute you make a good point, they are good at sqirming around and putting YOU on the defensive.
This week Bush admitted to an impeachable offense. Why does the burden of proof lie on us to prove he had lied? Huh? WTF? I asked Don to defend what the president did and he resorted to making fun of my name, and claiming I had assumed his opinion re: echelon.
Is Don brain-damaged? Why do so many Bush supporters resort to this tactic? Not all of them do, but so many …
Executive privilege does not give the commander-in-chief the right to bypass the 4th Amendment. Nor does it give the president the right to ignore Congressional oversight.
It just doesn’t.