posted
It's too bad that the White House kept mum for most of 2005 while the Democrats were throwing around outrageous accusation after outrageous accusation, because when the Bushies fight back, they make the Democrats look like complete buffoons. As proof, just witness what they've done to Al Gore:
"Gore, in a speech Monday, called for an independent investigation of the administration program that he says broke the law by listening in without warrants on Americans suspected of talking with terrorists abroad.
Gore called the program, authorized by President Bush, "a threat to the very structure of our government" and charged that the administration acted without congressional authority and made a "direct assault" on a federal court set up to authorize requests to eavesdrop on Americans.
...McClellan said the Clinton-Gore administration had engaged in warrantless physical searches, and he cited an FBI search of the home of CIA turncoat Aldrich Ames without permission from a judge. He said Clinton's deputy attorney general, Jamie Gorelick, had testified before Congress that the president had the inherent authority to engage in physical searches without warrants.
"I think his hypocrisy knows no bounds," McClellan said of Gore.
...Gonzales, who has agreed to testify publicly at a Senate hearing on the program, defended the surveillance on cable news talk shows Monday night.
"This program has been reviewed carefully by lawyers at the Department of Justice and other agencies," Gonzales said on Fox News Channel's "Hannity & Colmes." "We firmly believe that this program is perfectly lawful. The president has the legal authority to authorize these kinds of programs."
On CNN's "Larry King Live," Gonzales said Gore's comments were inconsistent with Clinton administration policy.
"It's my understanding that during the Clinton administration there was activity regarding physical searches without warrants," Gonzales said. "I can also say it's my understanding that the deputy attorney general testified before Congress that the president does have the inherent authority under the Constitution to engage in physical searches without a warrant. And so, those would certainly seem to be inconsistent with what the former vice president was saying today."
See what happens when the White House stands up for themselves instead of letting the Democrats serve up this sort of swill unchallenged?
-------------------- "NEVER UNDERESTIMATE THE POWER OF THE U.S./CHINA CONNECTION"
posted
Why aren't are you anti-Bush people talking smack about Condoleezza Rice? If Rice should run for President in 2008, she's got my vote! But Pat Robertson would come first if he should ever run again.
posted
FBI search of the home of CIA turncoat Aldrich Ames without permission from a judge.
this is just more stupidity...
Aldrich Ames committed his crimes before FISA laws wer enacted...
plus? he was a CIA agent.... if a govt official or a CIA agent brings his work home with him? i think he/she may be giving up their right to "privacy" anyway...
i bet intelligence operatives sign agreements to that effect...
and if they don't? they should...
remember the " Super duper Enron Top Secret Energy Meetings"? held by Cheney before 911? the White House wouldn't even release the names of the atttendees...
the Times reported that the FBI complained about how ineffective the surveillance program was, that they were casting too wide a net..... FBI director Robert Mueller reportedly raised concerns about the program’s legal rationale.....
as did serving atty generals before Gonzalez...
of course the NYTimes is just a "liberal media outlet"
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by glassman: FBI search of the home of CIA turncoat Aldrich Ames without permission from a judge.
this is just more stupidity...
Aldrich Ames committed his crimes before FISA laws wer enacted...
plus? he was a CIA agent.... if a govt official or a CIA agent brings his work home with him? i think he/she may be giving up their right to "privacy" anyway...
i bet intelligence operatives sign agreements to that effect...
and if they don't? they should...
remember the " Super duper Enron Top Secret Energy Meetings"? held by Cheney before 911? the White House wouldn't even release the names of the atttendees...
the Times reported that the FBI complained about how ineffective the surveillance program was, that they were casting too wide a net..... FBI director Robert Mueller reportedly raised concerns about the program’s legal rationale.....
as did serving atty generals before Gonzalez...
of course the NYTimes is just a "liberal media outlet" :rolleyes:
According to relatives that were in high positioins in the CIA, you sign those rights away to get the job, whether or not you take your work home. And it doesn't require that your work be involved in "intellegence".
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Stop muddling the issue with facts, glassman!
quote:Originally posted by glassman: FBI search of the home of CIA turncoat Aldrich Ames without permission from a judge.
this is just more stupidity...
Aldrich Ames committed his crimes before FISA laws wer enacted...
plus? he was a CIA agent.... if a govt official or a CIA agent brings his work home with him? i think he/she may be giving up their right to "privacy" anyway...
i bet intelligence operatives sign agreements to that effect...
and if they don't? they should...
remember the " Super duper Enron Top Secret Energy Meetings"? held by Cheney before 911? the White House wouldn't even release the names of the atttendees...
the Times reported that the FBI complained about how ineffective the surveillance program was, that they were casting too wide a net..... FBI director Robert Mueller reportedly raised concerns about the program’s legal rationale.....
as did serving atty generals before Gonzalez...
of course the NYTimes is just a "liberal media outlet"
-------------------- "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
- Benjamin Franklin Posts: 3898 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The liberal media trys so hard to cause problems for the conservatives. The more they try, the more it backfires and who ends up on top??? "AMERICANS" who support our Government, "AMERICANS" who support our troops overseas, "AMERICANS" that will do ANYTHING to combat against terrorism. Ultra-Liberals often commit terrorist acts of their own, especially when they have their picket signs up in the air and when they start chanting crap like "WE HATE BUSH" blah blah blah and so on.....
-------------------- "NEVER UNDERESTIMATE THE POWER OF THE U.S./CHINA CONNECTION"
posted
Then all the bottle and rock throwing at innocent people like little old ladies walking by, people get hurt, they get bloodied for stupid reasons, I mean what do you call that? Ultra-Liberal Terrorism, that's what!
-------------------- "NEVER UNDERESTIMATE THE POWER OF THE U.S./CHINA CONNECTION"
Let's do a "what if" so I can make a point. I think it's a good one. I think it's so good, I'd like to hear from anyone who disagrees.
What if a show like Dateline did a "hatchet job" on George W. Bush? It wouldn't have to really be a hatchet job, but any honest appraisal of that idiot's qualifications would prove he's a non-thinking rich man's boy - and that's all. But what would happen if Dateline did an unflattering portrait of Bush?
I'll tell you what would happen:
The vulgar Pigboy would spend at least three hours saying it wasn't true and he'd offer hours of rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
Bill O'Reilly would spend at least an hour on his show saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
Sean Hannity would walk all over Alan Colmes for an hour that night, saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
Eva Von Zahn would spend at least an hour that night saying it wasn't true and she'd offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
The Beltway Boys would spend at least an hour that night saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
Brit Hume and Tony Snow would spend at least an hour on Sunday saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
Juan Williams and Mara Liason would spend their entire allotted time saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
John McLaughlin would spend at least an hour on his syndicated show saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
Chris the Screamer would spend at least an hour on his show saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
G. Gordon Liddy would spend at least three hours on his radio show saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
Laura the Whore would spend at least an hour on her radio show saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
Michael Medved would spend at least an hour on his radio show saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
Sam and Cokie would spend at least an hour on This Whore saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
George (Judas Maximus) Steffi and George (dumb as a chimp) Will would spend their entire allotted time swearing that it wasn't true.
Bob Scheiffer would spend at least an hour on Face the Whore saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
Tim the Catholic would spend at least an hour on Meet the Whore saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
John Hockenberry would spend at least an hour on his show saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
Ollie North would spend at least an hour on his radio show saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
Robert Novak would spend at least an hour on his cable TV show saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
Paul Weyrich would spend at least an hour on his cable TV show saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
Still with me? We're close to the end...
BSNBC's Brian Williams would spend at least an hour on his show saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
Wolf the Whore would spend at least an hour on his show saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
Bill Schneider and Candy Crowley would do an hour special on CCN (Clinton Cock Network) saying it wasn't true, and offering rebuttal.
John Stossel would have a special on ABC: Is lying OK for liberals?
Then Howie Kurtz would spend 30 minutes on Reliable Sources asking if the media wasn't being too hard on a developmently-disabled child.
Barbara Olson would write a book condemning Dateline. Ann Coulter would write a book condemning Dateline. Laura Ingraham would write a book condemning Dateline. Peggy Noonan would write a book condemning Dateline. Andrew Sullivan would write a book condemning Dateline. William Safire would write a book condemning Dateline.
OK, we're going to call the above "Exhibit A."
Now, everyone on that list has done at least a dozen hit pieces on Clinton.
My question is, Where is "Exhibit B?"
When those 38 people attack Clinton and his cock, who does the rebuttal?
Even you ditto-sheep have to admit that nobody on that list has EVER defended a fabricated lie against the president.
There is no "Exhibit B," because there are so few liberal voices on television. The closest you can get is Eleanor on McLaughlin or Geraldo, but there is barely a liberal whisper on television, even though there are DOZENS of right-wing, Smirk-apologist shows whose livelyhood is lying about liberals.
I don't think you ditto-heads can offer an answer.
posted
Like Dan Rather when he discredited himself horribly RIGHT before he retired? LoL. Or did CBS give him the boot?..... Rather tried to screw Bush right near the end with that whole story about Bush and the National Guard. Where did it get Bush? RE-ELECTED! You can't beat that!
Michael Moore is another MORON with his 9/11 video. That video was nothing but to slander the President. Where did that video get Mr. Bush? RE-ELECTED!!!
So Liberal-Media lacks that much power and common sense that nomatter what they did to ambush the President, Bush came out ON TOP and WON once again!
Please continue to make me lafffff!!!!!
-------------------- "NEVER UNDERESTIMATE THE POWER OF THE U.S./CHINA CONNECTION"
Let's do a "what if" so I can make a point. I think it's a good one. I think it's so good, I'd like to hear from anyone who disagrees.
What if a show like Dateline did a "hatchet job" on George W. Bush? It wouldn't have to really be a hatchet job, but any honest appraisal of that idiot's qualifications would prove he's a non-thinking rich man's boy - and that's all. But what would happen if Dateline did an unflattering portrait of Bush?
I'll tell you what would happen:
The vulgar Pigboy would spend at least three hours saying it wasn't true and he'd offer hours of rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
Bill O'Reilly would spend at least an hour on his show saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
Sean Hannity would walk all over Alan Colmes for an hour that night, saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
Eva Von Zahn would spend at least an hour that night saying it wasn't true and she'd offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
The Beltway Boys would spend at least an hour that night saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
Brit Hume and Tony Snow would spend at least an hour on Sunday saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
Juan Williams and Mara Liason would spend their entire allotted time saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
John McLaughlin would spend at least an hour on his syndicated show saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
Chris the Screamer would spend at least an hour on his show saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
G. Gordon Liddy would spend at least three hours on his radio show saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
Laura the Whore would spend at least an hour on her radio show saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
Michael Medved would spend at least an hour on his radio show saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
Sam and Cokie would spend at least an hour on This Whore saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
George (Judas Maximus) Steffi and George (dumb as a chimp) Will would spend their entire allotted time swearing that it wasn't true.
Bob Scheiffer would spend at least an hour on Face the Whore saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
Tim the Catholic would spend at least an hour on Meet the Whore saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
John Hockenberry would spend at least an hour on his show saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
Ollie North would spend at least an hour on his radio show saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
Robert Novak would spend at least an hour on his cable TV show saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
Paul Weyrich would spend at least an hour on his cable TV show saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
Still with me? We're close to the end...
BSNBC's Brian Williams would spend at least an hour on his show saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
Wolf the Whore would spend at least an hour on his show saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
Bill Schneider and Candy Crowley would do an hour special on CCN (Clinton Cock Network) saying it wasn't true, and offering rebuttal.
John Stossel would have a special on ABC: Is lying OK for liberals?
Then Howie Kurtz would spend 30 minutes on Reliable Sources asking if the media wasn't being too hard on a developmently-disabled child.
Barbara Olson would write a book condemning Dateline. Ann Coulter would write a book condemning Dateline. Laura Ingraham would write a book condemning Dateline. Peggy Noonan would write a book condemning Dateline. Andrew Sullivan would write a book condemning Dateline. William Safire would write a book condemning Dateline.
OK, we're going to call the above "Exhibit A."
Now, everyone on that list has done at least a dozen hit pieces on Clinton.
My question is, Where is "Exhibit B?"
When those 38 people attack Clinton and his cock, who does the rebuttal?
Even you ditto-sheep have to admit that nobody on that list has EVER defended a fabricated lie against the president.
There is no "Exhibit B," because there are so few liberal voices on television. The closest you can get is Eleanor on McLaughlin or Geraldo, but there is barely a liberal whisper on television, even though there are DOZENS of right-wing, Smirk-apologist shows whose livelyhood is lying about liberals.
I don't think you ditto-heads can offer an answer.
posted
You are so hopelessly embedded into the lies your the Party has invented for you to swallow, that you aren't capable of even knowing you are wrong when you pass them on as facts. Don't mistake my intent. I do not excuse you for retelling the lie you believed to be fact.
You are guilty as sin. But I doubt, if lying were criminal, any court could or would convict you, because, so far at least (and until your kind has altered the system to kill more morons and idiots for things they can't fathom), it still is a principle of our legal system that a person must be mentally capable of understanding an act to be illegal before they can be pronounced legally guilty.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: You are so hopelessly embedded into the lies your the Party has invented for you to swallow, that you aren't capable of even knowing you are wrong when you pass them on as facts. Don't mistake my intent. I do not excuse you for retelling the lie you believed to be fact.
You are guilty as sin. But I doubt, if lying were criminal, any court could or would convict you, because, so far at least (and until your kind has altered the system to kill more morons and idiots for things they can't fathom), it still is a principle of our legal system that a person must be mentally capable of understanding an act to be illegal before they can be pronounced legally guilty.
How can you talk about your good ole' buddy, Tony Bennett like that!
Tony Bennett..... Way to long, way to boring. I read the first sentence and then I heard Jim Cramer's voice on TV. You know what that means? TIME FOR MAD MONEY!!!
See ya, wouldn't wanna be ya!
-------------------- "NEVER UNDERESTIMATE THE POWER OF THE U.S./CHINA CONNECTION"
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
