posted
what burns me is that all of the major media outlets presentedit as listening in on foreign traffic being routed thru the US only, but that's (apparently) not true...
dems voted for it too..
how did Hillary vote?Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) And Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) Voted Against Bipartisan Reform Of The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. (S. 1927, CQ Vote #309: Passed 60-28: R 43-0; D 16-27; I 1-1, 8/3/07, Clinton And Obama Voted Nay)
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
As has been the situation since about 1988, the major news services cut and paste the Administration's bent on just about everything.
There aren't many actual newsmen or women out there any more. To expect a person whose salary is, at a minimum, in the hundreds of thousands per year range, to chance being left out of the circle of the "approved", thereby bringing into question whether or not he can continually and constantly produce "news" and, thereby, questioning the reasonableness of paying him like a rock star, is simple minded.
News personalities and their hideously overblown salaries are as dangerous to this Country's health as are the vastly over paid corporate demigods.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well according to your buddy Slick Willie....
Bill appeared on ABC's Nightline on which he was interviewed by newsman Terry Moran. When Moran asked Clinton questions regarding what the media calls domestic spying by the National Security Agency, Mr. Clinton said that President Bush may have broken the law when he authorized the National Security Agency to conduct surveillance on US-based terrorists.
Asked if he thought Bush had gone too far by circumventing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to wiretap terrorists, Clinton told ABC's Nightline audience, "As a legal proposition, I don't know."
He claims it would have been better if his successor had followed established legal guidelines and that "it seems to me that unless there's a reason not to, we ought to use that surveillance court."
Then without batting an eye, Clinton told viewers yet another whopper and was given yet another pass by the media. He said that when he was president, he always tried to work within the constraints of the law.
When asked if the president should have constitutional authority to order domestic surveillance without a warrant during wartime, Clinton said it is "a decision the Supreme Court would have to resolve." So under a Clinton presidency, a bunch of blackrobed lawyers would run the war. One doubts that would ever occur because during his administration the cigar-touting Clinton conducted eavesdropping on Americans with no warrants, no judicial oversight and no congressional oversight to speak of.
Clinton continued his fabrication: "My attitude was that once the Congress had spoken on it and given us the tools that we needed, we used it," he said. "We used the law. We either went there and asked for the approval or, if there was an emergency and we had to do it beforehand, then we filed within three days afterward and gave them a chance to second guess it, because I thought it was a good — I think in the country you always have to try to balance these things out, so that's what we did."
So in brief, Clinton would have performed better as Commander-in Chief than George Bush, while being sensitive to Americans' civil liberties. This from a man who contracted or had his minions contract private eyes -- some of whom used illegal wiretaps -- to dig up dirt on those deemed "a threat." This from a man whose contracted flunkies slashed the tires of Kathleen Willey when she came out and told Americans what a sleazebag they elected as President of the United States.
-------------------- "Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication" Posts: 4005 | From: Shaolin | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Clinton told viewers yet another whopper and was given yet another pass by the media. He said that when he was president, he always tried to work within the constraints of the law.
He basically got away with it because of his...I feel you pain attitude
-------------------- "Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication" Posts: 4005 | From: Shaolin | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You keep making those claims and there isn't any shred of fact to back them up, just republican extremist propaganda and hatred.
That cut and paste BS you posted up there is, quite bluntly, a pack of lies under the guise of a set of questions. There isn't one single fact included that can be used to conclude that Clinton ever used illegal wiretaps. All that is there is the wishes and hopes of some far rightwing propagandist to slur the name of the Clintons in order to deter the attention of the public from the fact that the current Administration is engaged in illegal activities and doesn't give a damn about the law.
It's irresponsible to participate in that sort of slander and intentional misleading of the public.
The fact is that dubya and his regime are un-American and fostering cover for their activities isn't much better.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
their biggest crime (IMO) is really incompetence and cronyism..
why?
because the Dems are no less "fascist" as you put it than the GOP...
unfortunately? you use the term 'fascist" pretty loosely IMO...
fascists tend to shoot people that are unarmed in MY book...
we have yet to see that happening...
however? the use of superior firepower over people that are in essence not very well armed has and will continue to be used by BOTH PARTIES for the foreseeable future...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hell, we never should have even considered invading Iraq, superior firepower or not. We did it purely on the decision of the neo-con republicans who used it to cover other sins of their Party. Claims that the democrats participated in that decision are pure republicaan lies and BS.
I watched the Congressional debates carefully and heard the administration's claim over and over that there would never be any use of force in Iraq unless three things were beyond question.
1). That there were nuclear weapons (and, not or, other WMDs) in Iraq.
2). That those WMDs were poised for imminanrt attack on the shores of the U.S.
3). That any and all means of diplomatic effort had been entirely exhausted and no other option to protect the actual shores of the U.S. from attack physical military by Iraq without the use of military force existed.
The eventual vote in Congress was under the understanding that any action taken by the Administration would not violate those three conditions. The Administration spent many dollars in propaganda insisting that iut accepted those conditions.
There is no doubt that the Administration knew conclusively that each of the three conditions was not going to be met before they invaded. I.e., the invasion was 100% an improper action of the Bush Administration and the results of that improper invasion, including the disgusting situation that now prevails, is 100% the fault of Bush.
No member of Congress voted to allow Bush to act except under those restrictions.
He did anyway, proliferating, through enormous expense out of the Federal Treasury (my money), lies to make it look like he had adhered to the will of Congress.
No democrat (along with many republicans) in Congress, (with the possible exception of Lieberman) voted to grant unquestioned power to Bush and claims to that effect are lies.
Provideing cover by singing the tunes of the RNC propaganda machine amounts to aiding and giving comfort to an enemy of the Constitution, that is and enemy of the United States of America.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
The democrats do not control enough votes in the Senate to stop the republicans bowing down to the power of his royal highness and dictator, "The Decider".
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
Democratic leaders emerged from a breakfast meeting at the White House Wednesday and appeared willing to pass a limited expansion of spying powers before Congress leaves for a month-long recess at the end of this week, Reuters reported.
"What we committed to was to work closely with the administration to come to agreement," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said.
Pelosi expected the House to pass legislation updating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act this week, but Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was less optimistic his chamber would adopt legislation in the next few days.
it gets better too, note the date:
Posted 1/28/2006 2:16 PM Updated 1/29/2006 4:42 AM
Pelosi: No president should have Bush's eavesdropping powers WASHINGTON (AP) — House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi says President Bush should have used his extensive authority under the law to monitor suspected terrorists rather than approve the National Security Agency's disputed monitoring program.
"I would not want any president — Democrat or Republican — to have the expanded power the administration is claiming in this case," Pelosi, D-Calif., said in an interview with The Associated Press.
posted
This mess and all of its resulting quagmire is the fault of the republicans and no one else.
Only republican sympathizers and apologist say anything otherwise.
Claims to the contrary are Party line BS. Accepting such claims is a sickness the faithful seem unable to recognize in themselves and even are proud of. It works like the simplest and crudest form of advertisement. They repeat it so often among themselves and, refusing to warrant any other source, they hear it over and over, and they get to believing it is factual. After all, they say, isn't everybody saying it? It has to be true.
The democrats do not have total control over Congress. Indeed, recognizing that Lieberman will vote with the republicans on all matters about Iraq, a pure party line vote grants to Chaney the tiebreaker (in which case, guess what?). What the Senate democrats control is who chairs the variuos Semate committees and very little else.
For years, even before Bush was installed by a republican Court, the republicans had absolute control over Congress and did as they chose. They and they alone gave us war in Iraq. Now that it has been shown that they did wrong, they want to share the blame.
Sorry, it is the republicans fault and trying to blame it even partially on democrats (or anyone but the republicans)is bull sh-t..
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
You mean decided not to hand a propaganda package to the republicans for 2008?
Or do you mean accepted the fact that the democrats do not have absolute control of Congress and can't get a vote on any bill they want in the Senate? The House and Senate may operate separately, but not without the reality of what goes on in the other. There is no way the republican party will allow a vote in the Senate on anything meaningful related to their Iraq war.
Or both.
The republicans control that, don't they.
That's fact.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, the bill they wanted to come to the floor was stopped because without republican support they don't have 60 votes,
They voted not to be surrounded by republican claims they don't support the troops.
Yep, The republicans once again backed Bush.....backed an fascist and un-American crook over the Nations welfare. Pure Party line loyalty over the Nation. They do not care about the United States of America, only the republican party and it's love affair with corporations.....fascism!
That's what I've been trying to tell you.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not wussies......victims of the rightwing propaganda campaign to turn this country into a police state.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, you just can't abandon the RNC rhetoric and blather, can ya?
Gotta slander the democrats with slurs and insults because it is a sworn duty to show Party loyalty or it was learned at the feet of your mama......maybe both.
Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country, not the aid of the Party. This cadre of crooks MUST go. Our Constitution cannot prevail if the republican assaults on it are not checked.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: Ah, you just can't abandon the RNC rhetoric and blather, can ya?
Gotta slander the democrats with slurs and insults because it is a sworn duty to show Party loyalty or it was learned at the feet of your mama......maybe both.
Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country, not the aid of the Party. This cadre of crooks MUST go. Our Constitution cannot prevail if the republican assaults on it are not checked.
Checked by who? Democrats? Are you insinuating the democrats are not players in this political game we the educated call a scam?
Posts: 2965 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |