Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: ribonucleic on May 16, 2007, 08:46:43 AM
-
In 2001, Bush tells the NSA to spy on domestic phone calls without a warrant. By 2004, when the program is due to expire, the lawyers at the Justice Department have concluded that this is a violation of the law. You know... a criminal act. So Robert Comey, who is the acting Attorney General while John Ashcroft is hospitalized for emergency gall bladder surgery, refuses to sign the Presidential order to continue the program.
What does Bush do? He has his Chief of Staff Andrew Card and (surprise surprise) Alberto Gonzales secretly head over to Ashcroft's hospital room to get his signature - even though Ashcroft is so disoriented that his wife has prohibited visitors.
Tipped off to this by one of Ashcroft's aides, Comey races over to the hospital with emergency lights to intercept them. Comey has only a few minutes to tell a barely-conscious Ashcroft (who has previously agreed the spying program is illegal) what is going on before the Bush goons show up. Ashcroft totters up from his bed and tells them to forget it. The goons no doubt exchange a meaningful look before skulking away.
Shortly afterwards, an angry Card summons Comey to the White House. Comey replies: “After what I just witnessed, I will not meet with you without a witness, and I intend that witness to be the solicitor general of the United States.”
When everyone finally sits down, Card bites his lip over how it will look if Ashcroft, Comey, and FBI director Robert Mueller all follow through on their promise to resign. So arrangements are made to have the program go ahead without Justice Department approval.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/16/washington/16nsa.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
Bring it on, wingnuts. I dare you.
-
FISA is very clear.
The president cannot order spying on americans without a warrant.
End of story.
Bush broke that law.
The law was put in place after Nixon's abuses of presidential power and it was designed to cover exactly what Bush is doing w/ the illegal wiretaps.
Of all the crimes of the Bush administration, this is closest to a slam dunk.
-
Bring it on, wingnuts. I dare you.
From much of what I've heard and read from Bush supporters they don't care if his acts are unconstitutional or even criminal. They use the justification that his actions are "stopping terrorist attacks" against us.
A curious side note is that it's never them that have their constitutional rights shredded, it's always others.
-
Anyone who defends this is a piece of shit.
-
Anyone who defends this is a piece of shit.
Q: ... According to James Comey, they were trying to take advantage of a sick man who was in intensive care.
TONY SNOW: Trying to take advantage of a sick man -- because he had an appendectomy, his brain didn't work? ... Jim Comey can talk about whatever reservations he may have had, but the fact is that there were strong protections in there. This is a program that saved lives, that is vital for national security....
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070515-3.html
-
Q: ... According to James Comey, they were trying to take advantage of a sick man who was in intensive care.
TONY SNOW: Trying to take advantage of a sick man -- because he had an appendectomy, his brain didn't work? ... Jim Comey can talk about whatever reservations he may have had, but the fact is that there were strong protections in there. This is a program that saved lives, that is vital for national security....
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070515-3.html
I wouldn't want to attack a cancer survivor...
-
Not to justify it, because legally you cant', but wasn't the "domestic spying" program installed to tap the phone lines of persons inside the U.S. making calls to people outside the country that were on the "terror watch list". Not just anyone inside the U.S. calling there grandma for instance? If it is vital than great, but this leaves plenty of room for abuse.
-
Not to justify it, because legally you cant', but wasn't the "domestic spying" program installed to tap the phone lines of persons inside the U.S. making calls to people outside the country that were on the "terror watch list". Not just anyone inside the U.S. calling there grandma for instance? If it is vital than great, but this leaves plenty of room for abuse.
fbi admits there was abuse already. ribo posted the first of the cases.
-
This program pre-dates the Clinton adminstration and will continue long after the Bush administration.
Additionally we are also talking about the interception of phone calls to and from known terrorists organizations.
What strikes me as funny here is that the Democrats would have a field day with the very same people responsible for safeguarding Americans if they had information that could save thousands of people and did nothing with it.
-
This program pre-dates the Clinton adminstration and will continue long after the Bush administration.
Additionally we are also talking about the interception of phone calls to and from known terrorists organizations.
What strikes me as funny here is that the Democrats would have a field day with the very same people responsible for safeguarding Americans if they had information that could save thousands of people and did nothing with it.
{LOL} I couldn't help but laugh when I read this part. Didn't Ashcroft once refer to the librarian's association,
as well as the teacher's association, ...as a bunch of terrorists?
-
This episode - trying to force a medicated man following surgery to sign a huge law because no one else would sign it - it's hilarious.
And it sounds like fairly big news. Fallout in the AM should be good.
-
In 2001, Bush tells the NSA to spy on domestic phone calls without a warrant. By 2004, when the program is due to expire, the lawyers at the Justice Department have concluded that this is a violation of the law. You know... a criminal act. So Robert Comey, who is the acting Attorney General while John Ashcroft is hospitalized for emergency gall bladder surgery, refuses to sign the Presidential order to continue the program.
What does Bush do? He has his Chief of Staff Andrew Card and (surprise surprise) Alberto Gonzales secretly head over to Ashcroft's hospital room to get his signature - even though Ashcroft is so disoriented that his wife has prohibited visitors.
Tipped off to this by one of Ashcroft's aides, Comey races over to the hospital with emergency lights to intercept them. Comey has only a few minutes to tell a barely-conscious Ashcroft (who has previously agreed the spying program is illegal) what is going on before the Bush goons show up. Ashcroft totters up from his bed and tells them to forget it. The goons no doubt exchange a meaningful look before skulking away.
Shortly afterwards, an angry Card summons Comey to the White House. Comey replies: “After what I just witnessed, I will not meet with you without a witness, and I intend that witness to be the solicitor general of the United States.”
When everyone finally sits down, Card bites his lip over how it will look if Ashcroft, Comey, and FBI director Robert Mueller all follow through on their promise to resign. So arrangements are made to have the program go ahead without Justice Department approval.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/16/washington/16nsa.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
Bring it on, wingnuts. I dare you.
Defend what? They have been wire tapping for along time, as a matter of fact, isn't Clinton the one who signed the original order? Just asking, not really sure, but I do know Clinton administration used wire tapping as well, besides, this artical is very vague, sounds like typical NYTimes bullshit to me!!
-
Joe,
Justice Dept told Bush it was a crime to do it. They gave him a law to follow.
The solution was a sneaky visit to a post-op medicated guy (cause the acting guy didn't want to break the law) to try to get him to override our justice dept.
No offense, but this position is completely indefensible.
-
Joe,
Justice Dept told Bush it was a crime to do it. They gave him a law to follow.
The solution was a sneaky visit to a post-op medicated guy (cause the acting guy didn't want to break the law) to try to get him to override our justice dept.
No offense, but this position is completely indefensible.
Why was it a crime for Bush and not Clinton? Also, what was the name of Ashcrofts aid again??
-
Why was it a crime for Bush and not Clinton? Also, what was the name of Ashcrofts aid again??
When did Clinton do this?
I'm not saying he didn't, but I'm not aware of it if he did... It certainly didn't come out at the time.
So, when did Clinton do this? If he did, it was wrong then too.
Are you excusing Bush because another person committed a crime?
Like saying that Bush can murder someone because Clinton murdered someone too?
-
Why was it a crime for Bush and not Clinton? Also, what was the name of Ashcrofts aid again??
When did Clinton do this?
-Hedge
-
Why was it a crime for Bush and not Clinton?
Really Mr. Lib? When did this happen?
-
Why was it a crime for Bush and not Clinton? Also, what was the name of Ashcrofts aid again??
Clinton got a warrant in compliance with the law.
Bush ignored the law thus breaking it.
-
Really Mr. Lib? When did this happen?
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.
"The Department of Justice believes -- and the case law supports -- that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes and that the president may, as he has done, delegate this authority to the attorney general," Clinton Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick said in 1994 testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on 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."
Such warrantless searches have been at the center of a political fight in Washington after the New York Times reported Friday that the Bush administration had a program to intercept communications between al Qaeda suspects and persons in this country, a story whose publication coincided with the congressional debate over reauthorizing the USA Patriot Act.
In a 2002 opinion about the constitutionality of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and the USA Patriot Act, the court wrote: "We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power."
Indeed, previous administrations have used that same authority.
One of the most famous examples of warrantless searches in recent years was the investigation of CIA official Aldrich H. Ames, who ultimately pleaded guilty to spying for the former Soviet Union. That case was largely built upon secret searches of Ames' home and office in 1993, conducted without federal warrants.
In 1994, President Clinton expanded the use of warrantless searches to entirely domestic situations with no foreign intelligence value whatsoever. In a radio address promoting a crime-fighting bill, Mr. Clinton discussed a new policy to conduct warrantless searches in highly violent public housing projects.
Previous administrations also asserted the authority of the president to conduct searches in the interest of national security.
In 1978, for instance, Attorney General Griffin B. Bell testified before a federal judge about warrantless searches he and President Carter had authorized against two men suspected of spying on behalf of the Vietnam government.
That same year, Congress approved and Mr. Carter signed FISA, which created the secret court and required federal agents to get approval to conduct electronic surveillance in most foreign intelligence cases.
A Washington Post report at the time said the new FISA law permits "the government (primarily NSA with the occasional help of an FBI 'black bag job' or break-in) to continue electronic spying without a court order if it is directed solely at the premises or communications of 'official' powers, such as governments, factions or entities openly known to be directed and controlled by foreign governments."
The year after FISA became law, a columnist in The Washington Post described what could still happen to any person or group determined to be "an agent of a foreign power."
"Once the attorney general has made that finding about someone, then the FBI can spy on them or burglarize their offices," wrote William Greider in a May 1979 column.
The Bush administration and Republicans on Capitol Hill say terrorist cells in this country are precisely what those FISA loopholes were intended for, even if they don't represent a traditional enemy state.
"Following the 9/11 attacks, it was obvious that al Qaeda utilized high-tech communication systems and modified its communication methods to avoid surveillance," Sen. John Cornyn, Texas Republican, said.
Mr. Cornyn and other Republicans have agreed with Democrats that hearings are necessary to learn more about Mr. Bush's domestic spy policy. There remains disagreement, however, over whether those hearings should be open to the public.
One area certain to be discussed in any hearings would be the use of warrantless searches in previous administrations.
In an interview yesterday, Miss Gorelick acknowledged her testimony before Congress but said it pertained to presidential authority prior to 1994, when Congress expanded FISA laws. Left unanswered, she said, is whether that congressional action trumped the president's "inherent authority."
"The Clinton administration did not take a position on that," she said.
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20051222-122610-7772r.htm
-
This episode - trying to force a medicated man following surgery to sign a huge law because no one else would sign it - it's hilarious.
And it sounds like fairly big news. Fallout in the AM should be good.
From listening to Ashcroft interviews, he had no problem signing it and believes whole heartedly in it to this day.
-
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.
Of course FISA permits warrantless searches. There is a 3 day retroactive period to secure a proper warrant.
Therefore a search may be performed without a warrant as long as a warrant is secured within 3 days after the search.
Bush just ignored that requirement.
That is a crime.
-
In 2001, Bush tells the NSA to spy on domestic phone calls without a warrant. By 2004, when the program is due to expire, the lawyers at the Justice Department have concluded that this is a violation of the law. You know... a criminal act. So Robert Comey, who is the acting Attorney General while John Ashcroft is hospitalized for emergency gall bladder surgery, refuses to sign the Presidential order to continue the program.
What does Bush do? He has his Chief of Staff Andrew Card and (surprise surprise) Alberto Gonzales secretly head over to Ashcroft's hospital room to get his signature - even though Ashcroft is so disoriented that his wife has prohibited visitors.
Tipped off to this by one of Ashcroft's aides, Comey races over to the hospital with emergency lights to intercept them. Comey has only a few minutes to tell a barely-conscious Ashcroft (who has previously agreed the spying program is illegal) what is going on before the Bush goons show up. Ashcroft totters up from his bed and tells them to forget it. The goons no doubt exchange a meaningful look before skulking away.
Shortly afterwards, an angry Card summons Comey to the White House. Comey replies: “After what I just witnessed, I will not meet with you without a witness, and I intend that witness to be the solicitor general of the United States.”
When everyone finally sits down, Card bites his lip over how it will look if Ashcroft, Comey, and FBI director Robert Mueller all follow through on their promise to resign. So arrangements are made to have the program go ahead without Justice Department approval.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/16/washington/16nsa.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
Bring it on, wingnuts. I dare you.
Tomorrow night on 24, Jack Bauer....
-
Aren't we all glad Rooster is back. Like him or not he is a funny bastard!
-
Of course FISA permits warrantless searches. There is a 3 day retroactive period to secure a proper warrant.
Bush just ignored that requirement.
That is a crime.
If I'm not mistaken, criminals are involved in crimes......correct?
-
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.
"The Department of Justice believes -- and the case law supports -- that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes and that the president may, as he has done, delegate this authority to the attorney general," Clinton Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick said in 1994 testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on 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."
Such warrantless searches have been at the center of a political fight in Washington after the New York Times reported Friday that the Bush administration had a program to intercept communications between al Qaeda suspects and persons in this country, a story whose publication coincided with the congressional debate over reauthorizing the USA Patriot Act.
In a 2002 opinion about the constitutionality of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and the USA Patriot Act, the court wrote: "We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power."
Indeed, previous administrations have used that same authority.
One of the most famous examples of warrantless searches in recent years was the investigation of CIA official Aldrich H. Ames, who ultimately pleaded guilty to spying for the former Soviet Union. That case was largely built upon secret searches of Ames' home and office in 1993, conducted without federal warrants.
In 1994, President Clinton expanded the use of warrantless searches to entirely domestic situations with no foreign intelligence value whatsoever. In a radio address promoting a crime-fighting bill, Mr. Clinton discussed a new policy to conduct warrantless searches in highly violent public housing projects.
Previous administrations also asserted the authority of the president to conduct searches in the interest of national security.
In 1978, for instance, Attorney General Griffin B. Bell testified before a federal judge about warrantless searches he and President Carter had authorized against two men suspected of spying on behalf of the Vietnam government.
That same year, Congress approved and Mr. Carter signed FISA, which created the secret court and required federal agents to get approval to conduct electronic surveillance in most foreign intelligence cases.
A Washington Post report at the time said the new FISA law permits "the government (primarily NSA with the occasional help of an FBI 'black bag job' or break-in) to continue electronic spying without a court order if it is directed solely at the premises or communications of 'official' powers, such as governments, factions or entities openly known to be directed and controlled by foreign governments."
The year after FISA became law, a columnist in The Washington Post described what could still happen to any person or group determined to be "an agent of a foreign power."
"Once the attorney general has made that finding about someone, then the FBI can spy on them or burglarize their offices," wrote William Greider in a May 1979 column.
The Bush administration and Republicans on Capitol Hill say terrorist cells in this country are precisely what those FISA loopholes were intended for, even if they don't represent a traditional enemy state.
"Following the 9/11 attacks, it was obvious that al Qaeda utilized high-tech communication systems and modified its communication methods to avoid surveillance," Sen. John Cornyn, Texas Republican, said.
Mr. Cornyn and other Republicans have agreed with Democrats that hearings are necessary to learn more about Mr. Bush's domestic spy policy. There remains disagreement, however, over whether those hearings should be open to the public.
One area certain to be discussed in any hearings would be the use of warrantless searches in previous administrations.
In an interview yesterday, Miss Gorelick acknowledged her testimony before Congress but said it pertained to presidential authority prior to 1994, when Congress expanded FISA laws. Left unanswered, she said, is whether that congressional action trumped the president's "inherent authority."
"The Clinton administration did not take a position on that," she said.
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20051222-122610-7772r.htm
This is true... Against non US Citizens. Bush also did warrant less tapping against citizens of this country.
That is a crime.
-
as a matter of fact, isn't Clinton the one who signed the original order?
Gee, a wingnut confronted with blatant and appalling evidence of a Bush crime trying to weasel out of it by blaming Bill Clinton for something. Never saw that one coming... ::)
And as further evidence of the rank intellectual dishonesty of these shits: Note how Redstate.com, while finding time to bitch about how the 400th anniversary of Jamestown isn't being properly observed by white-hating PC goons, was just a little too busy to acknowledge the existence of Comey's testimony in any way.
All of you are almost beneath contempt... but not quite.
-
If u have nothing to hide then why worry...I'm pretty sure nobody here has a back pack nuke. If this is against the law..change the law. In this case and in today's invirnmnet I don't think this is too much to ask. Individual liberties mean nothing if we all glow in the dark. Your lives are all worth giving Uncle Sam a chance to stop these pricks from killing your kids.
-
Bush himself can listen in on all my calls if he wishes. Then again, i'm not a criminal.
-
Thats my point..u won't be targeted. I am sure their were abuses and I'd like to see what they deal with. i bet it was in the collection of information on other crimes that they shoehorned into violations of the patriot act.
-
Your lives are all worth giving Uncle Sam a chance to stop these pricks from killing your kids.
Who, the Iraqi's?
-
It's through fear that we can lose our individual liberties. That's why pure democracies almost always turn into dictatorships.
A republic must maintain it's laws that provide reasonable protection from abuses. Illegal wire tapping or wire tapping with out accountability to protect the rights of citizens leads down a dark path.
Of course if you have nothing to hide why worry? That's not what i'm worried about. It the potential for abuse is what i'm worried about.
-
No..the other guys.....OBL and he's friends of course. The guys who were really responsible for 911 (240..shush) not these idiots we're being distracted by now.
-
It's through fear that we can lose our individual liberties. That's why pure democracies almost always turn into dictatorships.
A republic must maintain it's laws that provide reasonable protection from abuses. Illegal wire tapping or wire tapping with out accountability to protect the rights of citizens leads down a dark path.
Of course if you have nothing to hide why worry? That's not what i'm worried about. It the potential for abuse is what i'm worried about.
Today, it's terrorists... tomorrow, it's political dissenters... This is a slippery and dark slope people are saying is "ok" to tread down.
-
I hear ya man..I do but i think in this case we gotta do something.
-
I hear ya man..I do but i think in this case we gotta do something.
You work within the system... You get a warrant because you have reasonable suspicion... Get a judge to sign it... BOOM, done.
-
Fine simplify the process and avoid PC crap getting in the way of these guys doing their job.
-
Fine simplify the process and avoid PC crap getting in the way of these guys doing their job.
I'm find with that also... It doesn't need to be difficult. It just needs to be fair and legal.
-
Bush's violation of FISA has nothing to do with security of our nation.
He had 3 days to get a warrant after the search itself.
Bush just ignored the law.
FISA was put into place to guard against abuses of power by having a secret court review any use of the governmental wiretapping.
How does it guard against presidential excesses?
It requires that a warrant for the search be granted from a secret court within 3 days of the search.
The president merely asserts that, as president, he is above that law.
-
Bush's violation of FISA has nothing to do with security of our nation.
He had 3 days to get a warrant after the search itself.
Bush just ignored the law.
uhh... BILL CLINTON!
-
Ribonucleic
Don't you have anything better to do with your enlightened, socially redeeming life then read through left wing websites all day, cut and paste articles you find, post them on here (for all of the political boards 10-20 readers), and then insult the intelligence of everyone who may disagree with you or believe that America is a force for good in this world? Surely, when you are on your death bed in xx amount of years, won't you wish you had spent your youth doing something a little more exciting/worthwhile?
-
and then insult the intelligence of everyone who may disagree with you or believe that America is a force for good in this world?
I think everyone will agree America is a force for good. It's our Government thats the problem.
-
Surely, when you are on your death bed in xx amount of years, won't you wish you had spent your youth doing something a little more exciting/worthwhile?
Just knowing I irritated you enough to post that is its own reward. :)
And seeing you confirm the indefensibility of your position by yet another pathetic ad hominem attack is just the cherry on the sundae. ;D
-
I think everyone will agree America is a force for good. It's our Government thats the problem.
Well since the newly elected congress ratings are lower than Bush's.................
-
Well since the newly elected congress ratings are lower than Bush's.................
I find that very difficult to believe actually... I've seen the polls too, but I just can't imagine why.
This congress has definitely not had the opportunity to do any of the boneheaded things that Dubya has.... Just seems odd to me.
-
I find that very difficult to believe actually... I've seen the polls too, but I just can't imagine why.
This congress has definitely not had the opportunity to do any of the boneheaded things that Dubya has.... Just seems odd to me.
I'll give you two reasons why............Harry Reid and Nancy Polosi, that should be reason enough!
-
I'll give you two reasons why............Harry Reid and Nancy Polosi, that should be reason enough!
I don't see what either one has done that has been as bad as some of the Bushisms.
-
I find that very difficult to believe actually... I've seen the polls too, but I just can't imagine why.
This congress has definitely not had the opportunity to do any of the boneheaded things that Dubya has.... Just seems odd to me.
I find it weird that Bush was expected to have been able to stop the worst terrorist attack in history in his first 9 months, but nearly 6 months into this new congress and they "haven't had time?" Why then would you believe that they would be any quicker to pull out troops if elected president? Before you reply remember I am not a Bush fan and am ready for him to leave.
-
I find it weird that Bush was expected to have been able to stop the worst terrorist attack in history in his first 9 months, but nearly 6 months into this new congress and they "haven't had time?" Why then would you believe that they would be any quicker to pull out troops if elected president? Before you reply remember I am not a Bush fan and am ready for him to leave.
Well, my first item is that I don't think they are related.
Stopping an attack and ending a war are two different things. Stopping an attach which you have information about is one thing, while stopping a war (when you have basically taken it upon yourself to be the police of an entire country) is something else entirely.
Even IF you relate the two, which I can not do myself, I would have thought the fact we never finished our first war (Afghanistan) before undertaking another one, would have to be the biggest bone headed move ever.
To relate to Iraq... I don't believe anyone will just "pull out" of Iraq... It's just not possible right now... because of the creation of a war which shouldn't have happened anyway.
-
Well since the newly elected congress ratings are lower than Bush's.................
They're worthless too..
They forgot about checks and balances. They're more concerned about non-issues, like steroid use in sports. ::)
-
I don't see what either one has done that has been as bad as some of the Bushisms.
Pure speculation because I haven't had time to hear too much about it, but I'd say they haven't done anything they said they were going to do and I really think that people are just simply tired of all the negative blasts about the war and the administration, the polls are showing that we have two evils and the best of the two evils is ahead in the polls and rightfully so!
-
Pure speculation because I haven't had time to hear too much about it, but I'd say they haven't done anything they said they were going to do and I really think that people are just simply tired of all the negative blasts about the war and the administration, the polls are showing that we have two evils and the best of the two evils is ahead in the polls and rightfully so!
oh boy, let's celebrate the lesser of two weebles!
nice try for a spin on BUSH and his follies.
-
oh boy, let's celebrate the lesser of two weebles!
nice try for a spin on BUSH and his follies.
Really?
Whats your take on it?
-
oh boy, let's celebrate the lesser of two weebles!
nice try for a spin on BUSH and his follies.
Weebles wobble but they don't fall down.
-
Really?
Whats your take on it?
Well i look at it like this: The pull out movement by the Dem is posturing from their campaign promises. I think there aren't any real answers to the mess BUSH has created for us that will go down in history as the worse foreign policy decision ever.
Because of that, What can the demos do? People hate the war, they are tired of it, they see how stupid it it is and now believe we were tricked to get in there. So becuase the dems can't really provide a good solution to what BUSH has done, they are getting a low approval rating right now.
I don't approve of what the dems are doing. America needs to cut deals with the countries outside Iraq. We need their help and support. I guarantee you, once that happens the insurgency will lose it's steam and die.
-
Just knowing I irritated you enough to post that is its own reward. :)
And seeing you confirm the indefensibility of your position by yet another pathetic ad hominem attack is just the cherry on the sundae. ;D
I'm not even sure what this post is about, I wasn't referring to the subject at hand. I was making a personal observation on you.