Official Declaration of War Against Bush - Cheney and their Republican Supporters - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

host · 07-02-2007, 04:03 PM

I'm Just Warmin' Up....<a href="http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/07/02/libby-commutation-washington-responds/#more-682">Bush's commutation of Libby's sentence</a> is for me, the straw that breaks the camel's back.... I'm "calling out" all republicans and other conservatives who support Bush, Cheney, Bush's war against "terrorism", tax cuts for the wealthy while 150 million are reduced to owning 2-1/2 percent of US wealth...and while US treasury debt was "transformed" from $18 billion annually, in the fiscal year ending 9/30/2000, to a recent six year, annual average of $412 billion.....RNC/Bush - Cheney/DOJ vote suppression conspiracy.....this is going to be a war of words.... a verbal <b>"throw down"</b>.

To start it off....what are you thinking.....what do you read....what do you "know"?????? Do we even speak the same language, anymore????

Here's the "editor at large", of one of your most prominent publications:

Quote:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19460029/
'Tucker' for June 26
Read the transcript to the Tuesday show
Updated: 10:43 a.m. CT <h2>June 27, 2007</h2>

Guests: Jonah Goldberg, A.B. Stoddard, Mort Zuckerman, Michael Chertoff

CARLSON:.....On his last full day as prime minister, it is reported that Blair will be become a special envoy to the Middle East. Will he make the difference in the world‘s most perilous region?

Plus, the most perilous region in Washington, D.C. this week is the office of Vice President Dick Cheney. Today‘s “Washington Post” featured the third in a series of four articles bent on exposing Mr. Cheney‘s sinister and alleged skirting of the Constitution, and reputedly dangerous influence on the rest of the Bush administration.

In today‘s episode, the vice president dictates economic policy and tax cuts, among many other things. The “Post‘s” scathing series has spawned editorials across the country, suggesting that Dick Cheney ought to be impeached, or otherwise forced out of office for the good of the nation.

Well, joining me now, one of Dick Cheney‘s very few remaining defenders and only a part-time defender at that, is nationally-syndicated columnist and editor-at-large at “The National Review Online,” Jonah Goldberg.

Jonah, welcome.

<b>JONAH GOLDBERG, THE NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE:</b> Hey, thanks for having me, Tucker.

CARLSON: So, you are one of the very few people with the courage, the moxie to go into print, and say, you know, there is something good about Dick Cheney. Was this a parody or do you feel this way and if you do, defend it. <h2>Why are you defending Cheney?

GOLDBERG: No, I, I—well, first of all, I have—I just simply, I have always liked Dick Cheney.</h2> I think that he‘s, you know, as I put it in the piece, you know, everyone—everyone on both sides of the aisle, there‘s a lot of this you know, sort of talk about how we don‘t want politicians to go by the polls, who don‘t put their finger in the wind and go with just whatever the prevailing conventional wisdom is.

And yet, <b>Dick Cheney is really the only guy who doesn‘t bother talking the talk, he just walks the walk.</b> He does not care, and I think it‘s a sign of character and integrity on his part that he just doesn‘t care. There are a lot of people out there who worship the masses and Dick Cheney doesn‘t. He cares about history, he cares about the merits of the argument. He probably cares about power quite a bit, too.

But he‘s a serious guy, and the flip side to that is that I‘m not sure that‘s the best thing to have in a vice president. It turns out that there‘s something to be said for having the only other nationally elected candidate, other than the president themselves, be a politician, as it were. Care about winning the Oval Office for himself....

........CARLSON: That‘s right, and I agree with you completely that whenever people say, we need a politician who doesn‘t look at the polls, we need another Harry Truman, they don‘t know what they‘re talking about or they‘re lying. People want to be pandered to, they want someone to suck up to them, they want a very democratic president—small D democratic, I agree completely.

GOLDBERG: That is what Michael Bloomberg is, right?

CARLSON: I am bothered though—that‘s right, that‘s exactly right.

GOLDBERG: I mean, he‘s sucking up to the vanity (ph) of the independents.

CARLSON: But I‘m bothered by Cheney ‘s—but does—Cheney‘s secrecy, his penchant for secrecy. I mean, this is a cliche, a stereotype, but it‘s rooted, apparently, in truth. The guy really is secretive to a degree we haven‘t seen in a while. That is—I mean, we do have a right to know what our government is doing, don‘t we?

GOLDBERG: Yes, sure, although I think you would concede, even though you and I disagree about some foreign policy stuff, you and I would agree that there are some things that should be kept secret. We might disagree about what they are.

CARLSON: Right.

GOLDBERG: And you know, but I do think that what Cheney has learned after a lifetime in Washington as a power player, is that the person who holds the secrets has power. And he is using that for what I would say, or probably what he believes to be certainly good ends. A lot of people disagree on that, but he‘s trying to do best as he can and he sees holding onto power as a tool to do that.

I think it‘s got a real counter-productive side to it because it creates this kind of antibody reaction of such visceral dislike of the guy that it makes his policies that much less effective because he can‘t really get everything that he wants that way.

CARLSON: I think you‘re absolutely right.

Why is he so disliked? When you talk to—when you talk to liberals or just even garden-variety Democrats and Dick Cheney‘s name comes up, you‘re apt to see hyperventilation. People hate Cheney on this visceral level. What is so hateable about Dick Cheney?

GOLDBERG: I have no—I really, I truly have no idea. I like Dick Cheney, love to have a beer with the guy. I think he is a smart, serious man in American life. I think one of the things that bothers them is that he doesn‘t care. You know, there‘s nothing—you know, the opposite of love isn‘t hate, it‘s indifference. It drives stalkers and some hard-core lefties crazy. He just doesn‘t care what they think about him.

CARLSON: Have you ever seen Dick Cheney give a speech? I mean, the contempt for the audience is palpable. He doesn‘t, he doesn‘t—he tells a joke that‘s written into his speech, he doesn‘t wait for them to laugh, he just blows right through it.

GOLDBERG: I know, I—see, I love that. He looks like he should be eating a sandwich while he‘s doing it, you know. I mean, it‘s just this sort of like matter-of-fact, eating lunch over the sink. Oh yes, and by the way, here is my view of the world. I love that.

CARLSON: Every time he speaks, I have the same thought. I can just see him yelling, hey you kids, get off my lawn. I love it. And I‘m glad to find someone else who will stand up for Dick Cheney. You are almost—you‘re almost alone in this nation of 300 million.

Jonah, I really appreciate you coming on, thank you.

GOLDBERG: You should come to our fan club meetings. There‘s lots of empty chairs.

(LAUGHTER)

CARLSON: Jonah Goldberg, thanks a lot.

GOLDBERG: Thanks, Tucker......

.....CARLSON: This is MSNBC, the place for politics.

....and....here is your "leader"..... the "decider"..... Where does he get his confidence....where do you get yours? Together, you've fucking ruined our country !!!! <h3>WTF ????</h3>

Quote:

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003575.php
Today's Must Read
By Spencer Ackerman - July 2, 2007, 9:57 AM

At least Lyndon Johnson was introspective. That's the takeaway from Peter Baker's big Washington Post <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/01/AR2007070101356.html?hpid=topnews">exploration</a> of George W. Bush's "tranquility" in the midst of the compounding disasters of his presidency, from Iraq to Katrina to Alberto Gonzales. Enduring what Baker calls "the most drastic political collapse in a generation," Bush holes up in the White House, turning down appearances where he might face public disapproval, as when he declined to throw out the first pitch for the Washington Nationals' opening day. Even when he calls historians to the White House to discuss precedents for Iraq war strategy or the "nature of good and evil in the post-Sept. 11 world," he remains surprisingly confident:

<b>In public and in private, according to intimates, he exhibits an inexorable upbeat energy that defies the political storms. Even when he convenes philosophical discussions with scholars, he avoids second-guessing his actions. He still acts as if he were master of the universe, even if the rest of Washington no longer sees him that way.

"You don't get any feeling of somebody crouching down in the bunker," said Irwin M. Stelzer, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute who was part of one group of scholars who met with Bush. "This is either extraordinary self-confidence or out of touch with reality. I can't tell you which."</b>

Stelzer is very generous, perhaps due to his personal audience with the president. Consider the origins of the surge. Josh Bolten, the White House chief of staff, had to "shock" Bush into recognizing that his Iraq strategy had failed after the GOP rout in the midterms. A less serene president might have interpreted Bolten's message to mean that it was time to, at the least, seek a path to extrication. Instead, Bush's "extraordinary self-confidence," in Stelzer's words, led him to... escalate the war. Bush shows every sign of believing that the GOP midterm massacre was, in reality, a mandate for him to deepen the U.S. commitment to the war.

Even the outside scholars Bush invites to the White House seem like enablers. Consider this frightening exchange:

<b>Stelzer said Bush seemed smarter than he expected. The conversation ranged from history to religion and touched on sensitive topics for a president wrestling with his legacy. "He asked me, 'Do you think our unpopularity abroad is a result of my personality?' And he laughed," Stelzer recalled. "I said, 'In part.' And he laughed again."

Much of the discussion focused on the nature of good and evil, a perennial theme for Bush, who casts the struggle against Islamic extremists in black-and-white terms. Michael Novak, a theologian who participated, said it was clear that Bush weathers his difficulties because he sees himself as doing the Lord's work.</b>

The piece doesn't list Stelzer or Novak's reactions to the way Bush conceives of the question of the world's rejection of the U.S. under Bush. But it would be a great credit to both men if they had said that the issue isn't so much Bush's "personality" but instead the way that he's taken America on a violent, imperial course, further destabilizing the Middle East and South Asia, without any ability to mitigate or even understand the consequences.

Conservatives are starting to understand as well that Bush's solipsism turns blunders into quagmires. A case in point is the president's take on the U.S. attorneys scandal:

<b>Bush remains convinced that his old friend did nothing wrong ethically in firing U.S. attorneys, and senior adviser Karl Rove angrily rejects what he sees as a Democratic witch hunt, according to White House officials. Yet beyond the inner circle, it is hard to find a current or former administration official who thinks Gonzales should stay.

"I don't understand for the life of me why Al Gonzales is still there," said one former top aide, who, like others, would speak only on the condition of anonymity. "It's not about him. It's about the office and who's able to lead the department." The ex-aide said that every time he runs into former Cabinet secretaries, "universally the first thing out of their mouths" is bafflement that Gonzales remains. ...

Beyond Gonzales, the discontent with the Bush presidency is broader and deeper among Republican lawmakers, some of whom seethe with anger. "Our members just wish this thing would be over," said a senior House Republican who met with Bush recently. "People are tired of him." Bush's circle remains sealed tight, the lawmaker said. "There's nobody there who can stand up to him and tell him, 'Mr. President, you've got to do this. You're wrong on this.' There's no adult supervision. It's like he's oblivious. Maybe that's a defense mechanism."</b>

If a consistent thread ties these episodes together, it's that, for Bush, his poor fortunes are the faults of lesser beings. One of his last remaining allies, Rep. Peter King (R-NY), describes Bush as concerned with how "100 years from now people will decide if he was right or wrong." Bob Woodward first captured that aspect of Bush in Plan of Attack, when Bush parried a question about history's verdict on Iraq by remarking, "We don't know. We'll all be dead." Like all truisms, it missed the point: history looks most kindly on those who correct their mistakes, rather than entrench themselves. It will take an energetic approach to historical revisionism to explain away the George W. Bush on display in Baker's piece this morning.

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...902258_pf.html

Three Cheers For Nervous Hand-Wringing

By Joel Achenbach
Sunday, July 1, 2007; B04

Here's who we need in Washington: Socrates. The Greek fella. We need him not because of what he knew, but because of what he knew he didn't know, which was pretty much everything. He was one of the all-time great doubters. Listen to Loyal Rue, a professor of science and religion at Luther College, describe him:

"He would say things like, 'How do you know that? What's the evidence for that? What do you really mean when you say that? Here's the implication of that claim. Here's the danger you get into if you try to generalize that claim and apply it to everyone.' "

Give Doubt a Chance: This could be a rallying cry for our troubled times.

Doubt has been all but outlawed in contemporary Washington. Doubt is viewed as weakness. You are expected to hold onto your beliefs even in a hurricane of contradictory data. <h2>Believing in something that's not true is considered a sign of character.</h2>

The president sets the tone: He told Bob Woodward that he relies on "gut instinct" and said, "I'm not a textbook player. I'm a gut player." Blogger Glenn Greenwald's new book, "A Tragic Legacy," opens with something Bush told journalists last September: <h2>"I've never been more convinced that the decisions I made are the right decisions."</h2> The smart bet: He'll become more convinced yet. He's not the type to slap his forehead and say, " What a bonehead I am!"

Then there's Dick Cheney, a one-man branch of government who, we can safely estimate, second-guesses himself as often as he re-roofs his house.

The certainty-mongering of the Bush administration has created an opening for political opponents. Al Gore's latest book criticizes Bush for his "seeming immunity to doubt." He has found a market for books with "Truth" and "Reason" in the title. Hillary Rodham Clinton, meanwhile, declares that Democrats are an "evidence-based" party. Of course, Gore and Clinton radiate a fair amount of certainty themselves. Politics isn't for equivocators. At the elite level, there's pressure to prove oneself the surest and smartest person in the room. Think of former House speaker Newt Gingrich: In your mind, you see him emitting certainties with the air of a man who is delighted (but not surprised) to be right once again.

And now even the doubters have become overly certain. Look at all the atheism books on the bestseller lists. In "God Is Not Great," Christopher Hitchens writes, "The person who is certain, and who claims divine warrant for his certainty, belongs now to the infancy of our species." But it's hard to think of a public intellectual more certain of himself than Hitch. (Carl Sagan was certainly no believer, but he once told me, "An atheist has to know a lot more than I know.")

But in an age of warring certainties, of dogmas gone ballistic, uncertainty is viewed as the shaky prelude to going wobbly. Confidence is what citizens look for in their leaders and, increasingly, in their pundits. The pros know that John Wayne never said, "On the other hand . . . " It's dangerous to change or modify a position. The worst thing you can say about a politician today is that "he was for it before he was against it."

Washington is full of alpha males (some of them female) who would no sooner express doubt than join a knitting circle. Their mantra is "Failure is not an option." But perhaps we might suggest (meekly) that sometimes failure needs to be an option -- which is to say, you ought to have a Plan B in case your initial indubitable judgment turns out wrong.

We need to rehabilitate doubt and uncertainty and recognize them as tools for cutting through mushy notions and wishful thinking. We need to stop elevating decisiveness over intelligence in the list of political virtues. We need leaders who think more like scientists, who know that knowledge is provisional, that today's orthodoxy might be invalidated tomorrow. We need to learn how to think again.

Jerome Kagan, professor emeritus of psychology at <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Harvard+University?tid=informline">Harvard</a>, says we've valued ultra-confident leaders since time immemorial. "The public is uncertain," he notes, "and they look to their leaders for certainty, for confidence. De Gaulle, Churchill, Roosevelt: In times of crisis, you want a person who appears to you to know exactly what he is doing. That's not recent or American. That's human."

But we should probably doubt our own talent for discerning competence from a distance. <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Princeton?tid=informline">Princeton</a> psychology professor Alexander Todorov has shown that we will reach a decision on whether someone looks competent in just one-tenth of a second. In another study co-authored by Todorov, test subjects looked at photographs of senatorial candidates. (If the subjects recognized any of the candidates, they were bumped from the study.) They had one second to reach a conclusion about which candidate was more competent. For the 2004 senatorial races, this snap judgment correctly predicted the outcomes of 69 percent of the races.

So sometimes we pick a guy because, at first glance, we like the cut of his jib. (Even when we're not exactly sure what a jib is.)

All of us -- citizens and senators and shopkeepers and scholars -- need to review the principles of "critical thinking." In 1990, psychologists Carole Wade and Carol Tavris listed eight elements of critical thinking:

1. Ask questions; be willing to wonder.

2. Define your problem correctly.

3. Examine the evidence.

4. Analyze assumptions and biases.

5. Avoid emotional reasoning.

6. Don't oversimplify.

7. Consider other interpretations.

8. Tolerate uncertainty.

This would get you instantly fired from many jobs in Washington. Asking questions is a time-waster in a culture that demands instant answers. Defining your problem correctly, examining evidence and contemplating biases can be extremely inconvenient. The media marketplace favors absolutism and hysteria.

But doubt, when properly managed, pays rewards. It gives you more information. It helps you create coalitions, which is necessary in a society designed to be coalition-based. And doubt prepares you for those inevitable moments when what you hoped was true turns out to be false.

Have there ever been leaders who were comfortable with uncertainty and doubt? <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/George+Washington?tid=informline">George Washington</a>, who was always the first to cite his lack of qualifications for a job (Continental Army commander, president), said in his farewell address that he did the best he could with a "very fallible judgment." No one today would dare say such a thing.

Other leaders also come to mind, some more politically talented than others: <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Dwight+D.+Eisenhower?tid=informline">Dwight D. Eisenhower</a>, who before D-Day wrote a statement taking the blame for the invasion's failure; Bob Dole, always more of a pragmatist than an ideologue; and <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Bill+Clinton?tid=informline">Bill Clinton</a>, who could talk through eight sides of every issue, often until his listeners passed out from information overload.

But these are particularly polarized times, and we're in a war (or three), and no one has much patience for a lot of maybe-this, maybe-that stuff. If you want to become president, you probably should act as though you've never had a doubt in your life. <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Rudolph+Giuliani?tid=informline">Rudy Giuliani</a> said the other day, "You face bullies and tyrants and terrorists with strength, not weakness." And strength means you don't sit around requesting more data.

This was driven home in the first Democratic debate, when <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Barack+Obama?tid=informline">Barack Obama</a> was asked what kind of military action he'd take if the United States were attacked again by terrorists. His answer was criticized as weak. He began by saying he'd check on the emergency response to the attack itself. Then:

"The second thing is to make sure that we've got good intelligence, (a) to find out that we don't have other threats and attacks potentially out there, and (b) to find out: Do we have any intelligence on who might have carried it out so that we can take potentially some action to dismantle that network? But what we can't do is then alienate the world community based on faulty intelligence, based on bluster and bombast."

Way too deliberative. Correct answer: I'd start killing lots of bad guys. (Better yet: Make pocketa-pocketa sound effects while pantomiming the machine-gunning of the enemy.)

Professor Rue reports that in Renaissance England, political jesters were allowed to poke fun at the alleged wisdom of the king, injecting a little doubt into the royal court. (Think Leno and Letterman and Stewart, live from the <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/The+White+House?tid=informline">Oval Office</a>.) In the medieval church, a devil's advocate would participate in the debate over whether a certain person deserved sainthood. And in ancient <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Rome?tid=informline">Rome</a>, the victorious general returning from battle would have a slave trotting by his side -- a reminder, Rue says, that the general was a mere mortal.

"Doubt motivates inquiry, but it is also a source of humility," Rue says.

So as a nation will we rehabilitate doubt? Will we suddenly pivot toward greater tolerance of uncertainty?

I doubt it.

<h3>This is the worst president in the history of the US, and polls indicated that 77 percent of you STILL support him....what is it.....confidence, pride, ego, principle...... what makes you do it?</h3>

Elphaba · 07-02-2007, 04:21 PM

Host, where did you get the stat that 77% still support Bush? I have a stat that 74% disapprove of Bush, and that's a few days old.

And friend, let's be honest with each other. You and I both had our "last straw" moment concerning Bush long ago. Bush commuting Libby's sentence was one of those rare moments that he was actually working within his authority. He and Cheney have done far worse that is worthy of impeachment and criminal prosecution. I continue to believe that Conyers and Leahy are systematically bringing charges to his doorstep.

cyrnel · 07-02-2007, 04:40 PM

Being the negative bastard I am, I always expected Libby's first day of jail would be the excuse for a pardon.

Now I can't help but think of the proximity of 7/4, and how it should be observed with flags at half-mast.

snowy · 07-02-2007, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cyrnel

Being the negative bastard I am, I always expected Libby's first day of jail would be the excuse for a pardon.

Now I can't help but think of the proximity of 7/4, and how it should be observed with flags at half-mast.

Well said, sir.

Elphaba · 07-02-2007, 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cyrnel

Being the negative bastard I am, I always expected Libby's first day of jail would be the excuse for a pardon.

Now I can't help but think of the proximity of 7/4, and how it should be observed with flags at half-mast.

Agreed. I think my father would refuse to raise his flag if he were still alive.

Seaver · 07-02-2007, 08:22 PM

I stopped supporting Bush a while back.... there I've said it.

pan6467 · 07-02-2007, 10:09 PM

Again, what is anyone doing besides posting and bitching?

Any of you trying to start a grassroots campaign?

Any of you writing letters to the editor, to your congressmen/women?

Any of you asking the 08 candidates questions via e mail to see who deserves your support?

WHAT IS IT YOU ARE DOING???????

It's ok to bitch, complain and point and it is easy to do so. However, to really effect change, to truly get answers and a government responsive and responsible and working to better the nation, one must work hard and posting, bitching and not trying to rally troops (so to speak), does nothing except maybe relieve some of your stress for a minute.

You want my respect, you want to do something? Stop bitching and truly organize, truly do what it takes to be heard.

If you do nothing but bitch and post and complain but effect no change, you are as guilty as those you talk about. Guiltier even because you are truly doing nothing to stop it.

(This isn't just for those who have posted, but those who are about to, or don't care enough to, or are scared to, or are too upset to.)

DO SOMETHING BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE AND YOU CAN'T DO ANYTHING!!!!!!!!!!

To quote IratePlatypus' sig......

Quote:

"If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

(ps I am not a leader, I am too emotional and too egotistical, but I can motivate and I WILL do what it takes for the right cause and with the right people............ (non violent demonstrations.))

Willravel · 07-02-2007, 10:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

I stopped supporting Bush a while back.... there I've said it.

Welcome to the rag tag team of liberals, centrists, and conservatives against Bush. There's always room for one more. Viva liberty.

One way or another, Bush needs to be tried for what has transpired in the past 7 years. He and his cohorts are responsible and need to be investigated and brought to impeachment asap. If congress can't do it, then a world court.

What I'm doing:
- Street-corner protests to spread information
- Writing and supporting those government officials, including Kucinich, who have the testicular fortitude to do what needs to be done.
- I plan on visiting DC with several other politically active friends in the next few months to join several protests.

What you can do:
1) Be Host. Accumulate massive amounts of information and hit people with an iron clad case for impeachment. See a W '04 bumper sticker? Hit them with a flyer jam packed with information. Need help finding information? Check Host's posting history.
2) Be me. Go do sit ins. Go to street corners. Go downtown. Scream at cars and make big colorful signs with catchy slogans. Get 12 of your friends (and don't forget to being water) and bring the noise to the apathetic people.
3) Be Pan. GET PISSED RIGHT NOW. This is our country and our world, and we, as members of a democratic society, are responsible for the actions of our government. Do you want to be responsible for the upwards of a million deaths in Iraq? Do you want to be responsible for 'extraordinary rendition'? Do you want to be responsible for torturing? Me neither. Get mad and allow that anger to be channelled into action.
4) Be Ephelba. So you think only men can be brilliant politicaly active people? Bull! I would be willing to bet there are more women in the anti-war movement than men. Look at Cindy Sheehan.
5) Be Cyrnal. This administration has not earned your trust. They have betrayed it again and again. Be skeptical of their bullshit.

host · 07-03-2007, 02:34 AM

For the last few years, trying to have a discussion with "the other side" has seemed like talking to political "Stepford Wives":
This seems to be "what it takes" to "buy in" to the entire post 9/11, republican supported, Bush - Cheney agenda:

Quote:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwa...ism/index.html

Glenn Greenwald
Friday June 29, 2007 10:09 EST
Tucker, Jonah, Elizabeth and Jillian

.....In the episode where Jillian first appeared, Brian's family invited Jillian over for dinner for the specific purpose of asking her questions to elicit stupid answers that would entertain them. The following exchange ensued:

Stewie: So Jillian, what are your views regarding Homeland Security? Do you think that we should support what the President's is doing?

<h3>Jillian: Well -- I just think -- for starters -- that sometimes the Government has things they can't tell us, and truth-ish-ly, we should just accept that. </h3>

Coincidentally, several days after that episode was broadcast, right-wing blogs were <a href="http://hotair.com/archives/2007/03/29/video-rosie-melts-down-on-the-view/">excitedly discussing</a> an argument that had taken place that day on the television program, The View, between Bush critic Rosie O'Donnell and Bush defender Elizabeth Hasselbeck, during which the following exchange occurred (at roughly 2:05 of the video):

<h3>Hasselbeck: I trust our government and I trust our allies much more than I trust our enemies on the War on Terror.</h3>

O'Donnell: Would you say you trust the Bush administration as much as you did when he first took office?

<h3>Hasselbeck: You know what -- in a time of war -- I think you are in a position where you have to trust your government.</h3>

This is a photo of the scene where Jillian (seated at left) expressed her views about the need for us all to accept that it is best when the Government operates in secret:
<center><img src="http://photos1.blogger.com/x/blogger/1794/1771/1600/607843/familyguy.jpg"><br>And this a photo of the scene where Hasselbeck (seated at right) expressed the same view:
<a http://href="http://www.youtube.com/...Dthe%2Dview%2F

<br><img src="http://photos1.blogger.com/x/blogger/1794/1771/1600/970217/view.jpg"></center><br>
Our government leaders know that they can act in complete secrecy -- and can act illegally -- because such a sizable portion of our population, and our press corps, not only accepts, but eagerly desires, such behavior in our Leaders. The authoritarian mind, by its nature, craves powerful government officials, the more powerful the better, because -- as Jonah made clear -- they place blind faith in the Goodness of those Leaders and crave an all-powerful figure whom they can follow and who, in exchange, will protect them.

And anything which diminishes that power -- whether it be the limits of the law, checks from other branches or the media, or even the basic obligation to govern out in the open -- will be opposed by the authoritarian follower, for whom maximizing the strength and power of the Leader is always the overriding goal. Conversely, anything which limits the power of the Leader is to be opposed.

Anyone observing our political culture over the last six years -- from the blithe acceptance of rampant government secrecy to those defending the President's right to act without legal limits -- ought to be able to infer that these are the premises motivating the Bush movement and their media enablers......

<h3>Yeah...I know...it's loonnnggg...but I didn't make this stuff up...this is the trail of what they've said, vs. what they've done. We don't know where it leads...., but the Randy Cunningham prosecutor, US Atty., Carol Lam, was fired...she requested more time to complete her cases...and was denied by DOJ.... and the LA US Atty looking into this, Deborah Yang, ended up working along side, Ted Olson, in the same law firm that is defending Rep. Jerry Lewis.....think....read....ask questions...always !</h3>

The DOD inspector General has issued a "report" which seems to be incomplete, and it creates more questions than it answers:

Reading my May 8, 2006 post in the "Why did Goss resign?"thread linked here: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...59&postcount=8

...should bring you up to speed on relevance of the IG's report:

Quote:

http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/arc...es/12local.htm
WASHINGTON, D.C.

Eshoo faults report regarding UCSC protest

Rep. Anna G. Eshoo, D-Palo Alto, faulted a report from the Department of Defense on Thursday for failing to thoroughly examine a program that collected and stored information on anti-war protests in Santa Cruz and around the country.

Eshoo requested the report in January 2006 after learning the Pentagon kept a database with information on anti-war protests, including a demonstration at UC Santa Cruz in April 2005. The Threat and Local Observation Notice, or TALON, was established in 2001 to collect reports and tips of suspicious activity around military bases.

<h3>The report "does not assess who is accountable for violations of Defense Department regulations or explain why they occurred in the first place," Eshoo said in a statement. "The report neglects to assess whether adequate safeguards are now in place to protect the public"</h3>

Eshoo's district includes the North Coast, San Lorenzo Valley, Scotts Valley, Corralitos and parts of Santa Cruz.

<h3>From the page following the Executive Summary Header:</h3>

Quote:

http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/dod/talon.pdf
• The Counterintelligence Field Activity did not comply with the 90 day
retention review policy required by DoD Directive 5200.27. We could not
determine whether the U.S. Northern Command complied with the policy
requirement <h3>because all TALON reports were deleted from their database in
June 2006 with no archives...</h3>

# The Cornerstone database that the Counterintelligence Field Activity used to maintain TALON reports did not have the capability to identify TALON reports with U.S. person information, to identify reports requiring a 90-day retention review, or to allow analysts to edit or delete the TALON reports.....

<b>I <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=107938">posted this</a>, last August:</b>

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...032301605.html
.....In 2004, three MZM employees served as staff consultants to the presidential commission investigating prewar Iraq intelligence, which was run by federal Judge Laurence H. Silberman and former senator Charles S. Robb (D-Va.). One of the three was retired Lt. Gen. James C. King, who then was a senior vice president of MZM for national security. King, who before joining MZM had been director of the National Imagery and Mapping Agency, played a consultant's role in the establishment of CIFA in 2002 before MZM received its first contracts from that agency.

The Silberman-Robb commission report in 2005 recommended that CIFA play a bigger role in the government's counterterrorism activities. In an interview, Silberman said King was not involved in the commission's recommendation that CIFA get more work. "That recommendation was not from King," Silberman said. .....

...on April 23, 2007, I posted about Cheney's long acquaintance with Wade and whether it was Cheney's office that granted MZM it's first GOV contract:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...3&postcount=17

<h3>But....on page 16...the Report states that illegally gathered Talon records were deleted even earlier:</h3>

Quote:

http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache...lnk&cd=1&gl=us

We could not determine whether USNORTHCOM complied with the DoD 90-day retention review policy <h3>because all TALON reports were deleted from JPEN on November 30, 2005<h3>, without being archived, and the system was turned off in June 2006....

CIFA "checked up" on this "suspicious", potential domestic "Threat":
http://patriotboy.blogspot.com/2005_...y_archive.html

...and then....there was this:

Quote:

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001319.php
Defense Domestic Spying Chief Out; Here's His Email
By Justin Rood - August 10, 2006, 5:30 PM

As the Washington Post's Walter Pincus <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/09/AR2006080901700.html">noted</a> today, the director and deputy director of the Pentagon's controversial domestic intelligence branch are stepping down simultaneously. In a very understated way, Pincus manages to raise an eyebrow at the fact both men decided to retire at exactly the same time, amid ongoing investigations that threaten to touch their operations.

The organization, known as "CIFA" -- for Counterintelligence Field Activity -- was first in hot water for keeping track of anti-war demonstrators and peace groups. Later, it became known that a company deeply involved in the Cunningham corruption scandal had played an important role in developing the center, and held numerous contracts to provide the center with staff, technology and support. It was created in 2003, largely through efforts by Burtt and James King, a senior executive at the scandal-linked company, MZM.

A friend of the site sent us a copy of Burtt's announcement to CIFA staff, which we've verified as authentic:

<b>From: Burtt, David (GOV)
Sent: Wed 8/9/2006 11:29 AM
To: All_CIFA
Cc:
Subject: A Message from the Director

For the past four years, I have been privileged to serve as your Director and be part of the CIFA family. It has been an honor to serve in that capacity. I am especially proud of all of you and what you have accomplished for the CI Community, for the overall CI mission, and for your co-workers here at CIFA.

Today, I want to share with you my decision to resign as Director and retire from government service. My last day in the office will be August 31. I did not make this decision without trepidation, but the time is right to move on to the next phase of my career.

Mr. Hefferon has also decided to retire, after over 31 years of federal service.

In the interim, Mr. Dan Baur will serve as Director, CIFA and Mr. John O'Hara will serve as Deputy Director.

Thank you all for your hard work and dedication.
-- Dave Burtt</p>

We're told Burtt and his deputy are spending their last days trying to figure out how to spy on their own going-away happy hour. (No, really. That's a joke.)

<h3>Background (nearly in chronological order....oldest to newest:</h3>

Quote:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10454316/

Is the Pentagon spying on Americans?
Secret database obtained by NBC News tracks ‘suspicious’ domestic groups
By Lisa Myers, Douglas Pasternak, Rich Gardella and the NBC Investigative Unit
Updated: 5:18 p.m. CT Dec 14, 2005

WASHINGTON - A year ago, at a Quaker Meeting House in Lake Worth, Fla., a small group of activists met to plan a protest of military recruiting at local high schools. What they didn't know was that their meeting had come to the attention of the U.S. military.

A secret 400-page Defense Department document obtained by NBC News lists the Lake Worth meeting as a “threat” and one of more than 1,500 “suspicious incidents” across the country over a recent 10-month period.

“This peaceful, educationally oriented group being a threat is incredible,” says Evy Grachow, a member of the Florida group called The Truth Project.

“This is incredible,” adds group member Rich Hersh. “It's an example of paranoia by our government,” he says. “We're not doing anything illegal.”

The Defense Department document is the first inside look at how the U.S. military has stepped up intelligence collection inside this country since 9/11, which now includes the monitoring of peaceful anti-war and counter-military recruitment groups.

“I think Americans should be concerned that the military, in fact, has reached too far,” says NBC News military analyst Bill Arkin.

The Department of Defense declined repeated requests by NBC News for an interview. A spokesman said that all domestic intelligence information is “properly collected” and involves “protection of Defense Department installations, interests and personnel.” The military has always had a legitimate “force protection” mission inside the U.S. to protect its personnel and facilities from potential violence. But the Pentagon now collects domestic intelligence that goes beyond legitimate concerns about terrorism or protecting U.S. military installations, say critics.

Four dozen anti-war meetings
The DOD database obtained by NBC News includes nearly four dozen anti-war meetings or protests, including some that have taken place far from any military installation, post or recruitment center. One “incident” included in the database is a large anti-war protest at Hollywood and Vine in Los Angeles last March that included effigies of President Bush and anti-war protest banners. Another incident mentions a planned protest against military recruiters last December in Boston and a planned protest last April at McDonald’s National Salute to America’s Heroes — a military air and sea show in Fort Lauderdale, Fla.

The Fort Lauderdale protest was deemed not to be a credible threat and a column in the database concludes: “US group exercising constitutional rights.” Two-hundred and forty-three other incidents in the database were discounted because they had no connection to the Department of Defense — yet they all remained in the database.

The DOD has strict guidelines (.PDF link), adopted in December 1982, that limit the extent to which they can collect and retain information on U.S. citizens.

Still, the DOD database includes at least 20 references to U.S. citizens or U.S. persons. Other documents obtained by NBC News show that the Defense Department is clearly increasing its domestic monitoring activities. One DOD briefing document stamped “secret” concludes: “[W]e have noted increased communication and encouragement between protest groups using the [I]nternet,” but no “significant connection” between incidents, such as “reoccurring instigators at protests” or “vehicle descriptions.”

The increased monitoring disturbs some military observers. .....

Quote:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10481600/
Senator demands investigation of spy database
Pentagon defends domestic intelligence collection, vows to cooperate
By Lisa Myers & the NBC Investigative Unit
Updated: 12:07 p.m. CT Dec 15, 2005

WASHINGTON, Dec. 14 — A Florida senator is demanding an investigation into a secret Pentagon database that collects information on American anti-war activists. As NBC News reported first on Dec. 13, the Pentagon has been monitoring anti-war groups across the country.

Wednesday, some members of a Florida anti-war group called "The Truth Project" demanded that the Pentagon turn over all information collected about their group.

And Florida Senator Bill Nelson wrote Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, asking how this peaceful group could be listed a "threat" in a previously secret Pentagon database.

"When the Pentagon starts going into a Quaker meeting house in Florida, then it's a question of invasion of privacy," says Nelson, R-Fla.

Wednesday, a Pentagon spokesman defended the collection of domestic intelligence in the database, which lists 1,500 "suspicious incidents" over a 10-month period. The spokesman said the military has "a legitimate interest in protecting its installations and... people, and to the extent that they use information collected by law enforcement agencies to do that, that's... appropriate."

Some incidents in the database do refer to FBI reports. But information on a weekly protest at an Atlanta recruiting station comes not from law enforcement, but from the Army's 902nd military intelligence group. So does a report on a protest at the University of California at Santa Cruz.

"This document, it's a clue that shows the level of surveillance, the level of domestic surveillance that the U.S. military is now involved in," says Bill Arkin, an NBC News military analyst.

The Pentagon still refuses to say how it's collecting this information, whether the military itself is spying on protest groups, or asking local law enforcement to do surveillance and report back.

Quote:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11751418/
<h3>Pentagon admits errors in spying on protesters
NBC: Official says peaceful demonstrators’ names erased from database</h3>
MSNBC and NBC News
Updated: 7:45 a.m. CT March 10, 2006

The Department of Defense admitted in a letter obtained by NBC News on Thursday that it had wrongly added peaceful demonstrators to a database of possible domestic terrorist threats. The letter followed an NBC report focusing on the Defense Department’s Threat and Local Observation Notice, or TALON, report.

Acting Deputy Undersecretary of Defense Roger W. Rogalski’s letter came in reply to a memo from Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., who had demanded answers about the process of identifying domestic protesters as suspicious and removing their names when they are wrongly listed.

“The recent review of the TALON Reporting System ... identified a small number of reports that did not meet the TALON reporting criteria. Those reports dealt with domestic anti-military protests or demonstrations potentially impacting DoD facilities or personnel,” Rogalski wrote on Wednesday.

“While the information was of value to military commanders, it should not have been retained in the Cornerstone database.”

Threats directed against Defense Department
In 2003, the Defense Department directed a little-known agency, Counterintelligence Field Activity (CIFA), to establish and “maintain a domestic law enforcement database that includes information related to potential terrorist threats directed against the Department of Defense.” Then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz also established TALON at that time.

The original NBC News report, from December, focused on a secret 400-page Defense Department document listing more than 1,500 “suspicious incidents” across the country over a 10-month period. One such incident was a small group of activists meeting in a Quaker Meeting House in Lake Worth, Fla., to plan a protest against military recruiting at local high schools.

In his Wednesday letter, Rogalski said such anomalies in the TALON database had been removed.

“They did not pertain to potential foreign terrorist activity and thus should never have been entered into the Cornerstone database. These reports have since been removed from the Cornerstone database and refresher training on intelligence oversight and database management is being given,” Rogalski wrote.

Rogalski said only 43 names were improperly added to the database, and those were from protest-related reports such as the Quaker meeting in Florida.

“All reports concerning protest activities have been purged,” the letter said.

TALON reports provide “non-validated domestic threat information” from military units throughout the United States that are collected and retained in the Cornerstone CIFA database. The reports include details on potential surveillance of military bases, stolen vehicles, bomb threats and planned antiwar protests. In the program’s first year, the agency received more than 5,000 TALON reports.

Nearly four dozen antiwar meetings listed
The Defense Department document provides an inside look at how the U.S. military has stepped up intelligence gathering since 9/11. The database includes nearly four dozen antiwar meetings or protests, including some that have taken place far from any military installation, post or recruitment center, according to NBC News’ Lisa Myers, who first wrote about the story in December.

Among those listed were a large antiwar protest in Los Angeles in March 2004 that included effigies of President Bush and antiwar protest banners, a planned protest against military recruiters in December 2004 in Boston, and a planned protest in April 2004 at McDonald’s National Salute to America’s Heroes — a military air and sea show in Fort Lauderdale, Fla.

The Fort Lauderdale protest was deemed not to be a credible threat, and a column in the database concludes: “U.S. group exercising constitutional rights.” Two-hundred and forty-three other incidents in the database were discounted because they had no connection to the Department of Defense — yet they all remained in the database.

The Department of Defense has strict guidelines (.PDF link ), adopted in December 1982, that limit the extent to which it can collect and retain information on U.S. citizens.

Still, the database includes at least 20 references to U.S. citizens or U.S. persons. Other documents obtained by NBC News show that the Defense Department is clearly increasing its domestic monitoring activities. One briefing document stamped “secret” concludes: “[W]e have noted increased communication and encouragement between protest groups using the Internet,” but no “significant connection” between incidents, such as “reoccurring instigators at protests” or “vehicle descriptions.”

Earlier domestic intelligence gathering
The military’s penchant for collecting domestic intelligence is a trend, Christopher Pyle, a former Army intelligence officer, told NBC News when the report was first broadcast.

During the Vietnam War, Pyle revealed the Defense Department monitored and infiltrated antiwar and civil rights protests in an article he published in the Washington Monthly in January 1970.

The public was outraged and a lengthy congressional investigation followed that revealed the military had conducted probes on at least 100,000 American citizens. Pyle got more than 100 military agents to testify that they had been ordered to spy on U.S. citizens — many of them antiwar protesters and civil rights advocates. In the wake of the investigations, Pyle helped Congress write a law placing new limits on military spying inside the U.S.

But Pyle said some of the information in the database suggests the military may be dangerously close to repeating its past mistakes.

“The documents tell me that military intelligence is back conducting investigations and maintaining records on civilian political activity. The military made promises that it would not do this again,” he said.
NBC News' Lisa Myers and the NBC Investigative Unit contributed to this report.....

Quote:

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/spyfile...s20061012.html

Documents Shed New Light on Pentagon Surveillance of Peace Activists <h3>(10/12/2006)</h3>

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: media@aclu.org

Defense Department Tracked Quakers, Student Groups

NEW YORK -- Documents released today by the American Civil Liberties Union reveal new details of Pentagon surveillance of Americans opposed to the Iraq war, including Quakers and student groups. The documents show that the Pentagon was keeping tabs on non-violent protesters by collecting information and storing it in a military anti-terrorism database.

"There is simply no reason why the United States military should be monitoring the peaceful activities of American citizens who oppose U.S. war policies," said ACLU attorney Ben Wizner. "When information about non-violent protest activity is included in a military anti-terrorism database, all Americans should be concerned about the unchecked authority this administration has seized in the name of fighting terrorism."

The documents come in response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the ACLU earlier this year after evidence surfaced that the Pentagon was secretly conducting surveillance of protest activities, anti-war organizations and groups opposed to military recruitment policies. The Pentagon shared the information with other government agencies through the Threat and Local Observation Notice (TALON) database.

The TALON database was intended to track groups or individuals with links to terrorism, but the documents released today show that the Pentagon gathered information on anti-war protesters using sources from the Department of Homeland Security, local police departments and FBI Joint Terrorism Task Forces.

Among the documents are reports on protest activities across the country organized or supported by the American Friends Service Committee (AFSC), a Quaker peace group. The source for the information is identified as "a special agent of the federal protective service, U.S. Department of Homeland Security," who is apparently on the AFSC e-mail list.

One document, which is labeled "potential terrorist activity," lists events such as a "Stop the War NOW!" rally in Akron, Ohio on March 19, 2005. The source noted that the rally "will have a March and Reading of Names of War Dead" and that marchers would pass a military recruitment station and the local FBI office along the way.

Also included in the documents is information on a series of protests mistakenly identified as taking place in Springfield, Illinois (the protests actually occurred in Springfield, Massachusetts). According to the document, "Source received an e-mail from the American Friends Service Committee (AFSC), e-mail address: [REDACTED] that stated that on March 18-20, a series of protest actions were planned in the Springfield, IL area… to focus on actions at military recruitment offices with the goals to include: raising awareness, education, visibility in community, visibility to recruiters as part of a national day of action."

"Spying on citizens for merely executing their constitutional rights of free speech and peaceful assembly is chilling and marks a troubling trend," said Joyce Miller, AFSC Assistant General Secretary for Justice and Human Rights. "Our country is built upon a system of checks and balances. The Pentagon’s actions violate the rule of law and strike a severe blow against our Constitution."

Another document provides further details of surveillance of a protest planned by the Broward Anti-War Coalition during the Fort Lauderdale Air & Sea Show, which was previously revealed in an NBC news report. The document released today reveals that the Miami-Dade Police Department provided the Defense Department with information on the protest, and that the U.S. Army Recruiting Command and the Joint Terrorism Task Force in Miami were also briefed on the planned protest, which was intended to "counter military recruitment and the ‘pro-war’ message with ‘guerrilla theater and other forms of subversive propaganda.’"

The ACLU said it is concerned that the Defense Department cites acts of civil disobedience and vandalism as cause to label anti-war protests as "radical" and potential terrorist threats in some of the TALON reports. In a document listing upcoming Atlanta area protests by the Georgia Peace and Justice Coalition, the Pentagon - citing the Department of Homeland Security as its source - states that the Students for Peace and Justice network poses a threat to DOD personnel.

To support that claim, the TALON report cites previous acts of civil disobedience in California and Texas, including sit-ins, disruptions at recruitment offices and street theater. Describing one protest in Austin, Texas, the document notes: "The protesters blocked the entrance to the recruitment office with two coffins, one draped with an American flag and the other covered with an Iraqi flag, taped posters on the window of the office and chanted, ‘No more war and occupation. You don’t have to die for an education.’"

"The Pentagon has gone too far in collecting information on Americans who pose no real threat to national security," said Wizner. "It is an abuse of power and an abuse of trust for the military to play any role in monitoring critics of administration policies."

The documents released today are online at:
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/spying/...l20060828.html (Florida protests)
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/spying/...l20060912.html (Georgia, California and Texas protests)
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/spying/...l20060912.html (AFSC protests in Massachusetts and Ohio)

More information on government surveillance of Americans is online at: www.aclu.org/spyfiles.

<h2>Nine Days after the ACLU Press Release....There was a "small" fire...:</h2>

Quote:

http://www.hometownannapolis.com/vau...G/10/25-13.HTM

Blaze guts spy unit's building at Ft. Meade
By RYAN BAGWELL and PAMELA WOOD Staff Writers
Subscribe to the Maryland Gazette
Army investigators are still looking for the cause of a six-alarm fire that ravaged the home of a military intelligence unit at Fort George G. Meade on Friday.
The blaze destroyed the roof of Nathan Hale Hall, a four-story brick building that houses offices of the Army's 902nd Military Intelligence Group.

Jennifer Downing, a spokesman for the post, and Christopher Grey, a spokesman for the Army's Criminal Investigation Division, said Monday that no cause or damage estimate had been determined.

Thick brown smoke billowed Friday for hours from Nathan Hale Hall, a four-story World War II-era building home to the 902nd, the Army's largest counterintelligence unit with more than 1,100 people.

Sixty-nine firefighters started streaming to the scene just after 3 p.m., said Lt. Russ Davies, a spokesman for the county fire department. Firefighters from Fort Meade and Anne Arundel, Howard and Prince George's counties battled the six-alarm blaze, according to Lt. Col. James Peterson, director of emergency services at Fort Meade.

Col. Peterson said part of the roof of the three-story building collapsed onto a lower floor before the fire was contained. Efforts to contain the flames were complicated by strong winds.

"We don't really know the cause. We just know it started on the roof of the structure," he said. He added that minor construction was under way in the area of the roof where the fire started.

The building was evacuated and everyone got out, he said, but one firefighter twisted his leg fighting the blaze.

Army CID representatives forced a reporter and photographer from the Maryland Gazette to leave the base about 30 minutes after they were allowed in. Officials told the photographer to erase all photos from his digital camera, and started ordering dozens of onlookers to clear the scene by about 5 p.m.

Nicknamed "The Deuce," the 902nd has been led by Col. Christopher L. Winne since July. It conducts "counterintelligence activities in support of Army commanders and to protect Army forces, secrets and technologies by detecting, identifying, neutralizing and exploiting foreign intelligence services and international terrorist threats," according to the Web site.

Its "core competencies" include espionage, computer forensics, surveillance and polygraph, the Web site states.

Hale Hall is named for Capt. Nathan Hale, a spy for the Continental Army who was hung by the British during fighting in New York in 1776. He's known for his famous last words: "I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country."

Staff Writer Scott Daugherty contributed to this story.

Quote:

http://cryptome.org/perfect-fire.htm

http://cryptome.org/902d-mig/902d-mig.htm

http://web.archive.org/web/200608210...02nd/index.asp

http://web.archive.org/web/200410130.../pamphlets.htm

Quote:

http://web.archive.org/web/200411011...iiac/index.htm

.....The CIIAC stood up on 1 November 2001, as the Army's Counterintelligence Analysis Control Element (CI ACE), with an initial focus on building the threat picture from a CI perspective for Force Protection and Counterterrorism missions in support of Homeland Defense.

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...112600857.html
Pentagon Expanding Its Domestic Surveillance Activity
Fears of Post-9/11 Terrorism Spur Proposals for New Powers

By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, November 27, 2005; Page A06

The Defense Department has expanded its programs aimed at gathering and analyzing intelligence within the United States, creating new agencies, adding personnel and seeking additional legal authority for domestic security activities in the post-9/11 world.

The moves have taken place on several fronts. The White House is considering expanding the power of a little-known Pentagon agency called the Counterintelligence Field Activity, or CIFA, which was created three years ago. The proposal, made by a presidential commission, <h3>would transform CIFA from an office that coordinates Pentagon security efforts</h3> -- including protecting military facilities from attack -- to one that also has authority to investigate crimes within the United States such as treason, foreign or terrorist sabotage or even economic espionage.....

The CIIAC has proven to be an effective force multiplier for the 902d and is expanding its role of developing the threat picture in the areas of Technology Protection, Foreign Intelligence Services and Computer Network Operations.....

....The CIIAC team is composed of both military and civilian analysts whose objective is to create a comprehensive situational awareness picture that will drive and direct CI operations.

Strength Through Vigilance

Group Distinctive Unit Insignia 902d Military Intelligence Group
Army CIIAC

<h3>Building 4553 Llewellyn Avenue</h3>
Fort George G. Meade, MD 20755-5910...

Quote:

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=Jen...p=mss&ei=UTF-8
#
Blaze guts spy unit's building at Ft. Meade - Top Stories
Jennifer Downing, a Fort Meade spokesman, would only confirm a fire was <h3>burning at 4554 Llewellyn Ave.</h3>, deep inside the west county Army post. ...
http://www.capitalonline.com/cgi-bin...6/10_21-25/TOP - 32k

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...102001641.html
Fire Damages Fort Meade Intelligence Building
Army's Losses From Quick-Spreading Blaze Won't Harm National Security, Official Says

By Steve Vogel and Raymond McCaffrey
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, October 21, 2006; Page B01

A Fort Meade building that houses Army counterintelligence activities was heavily damaged yesterday in a stubborn and spectacular six-alarm fire that burned for hours, generating thick clouds of smoke that streamed and billowed in a brisk wind.

The blaze broke out on the Army post in Anne Arundel County and 3:05 p.m. and continued to burn well after 10 p.m. The fire damaged upper portions of the sprawling three-story building, which is headquarters to the 902nd Military Intelligence Group and houses several contractors, officials said.....

......Peterson said the fire was largely contained to the building's attic, which is used as office space by the intelligence group. A portion of the roof collapsed, and parts of it were "a total loss," Peterson said.

<h3>The building remained intact.</h3> "The structure did not collapse, and there does not seem to be any danger of it," said Rich Lane, a spokesman for the post. Lane said that no estimates of damage were available but that he expected it would be significant structurally and monetarily.

The cause of the blaze, which apparently began on the peaked roof of the red-brick building, was not immediately known and was under investigation......

.....Downing declined to discuss the building's contents, calling them "sensitive in nature."...

.....Another official said most of the documents in the damaged section are locked in fire-resistant containers and backed up elsewhere. Nothing lost at the building would adversely affect national security, said Donald Shiles, director of the Technical Counterintelligence School at Fort Meade.........

As darkness fell, motorists on the Baltimore-Washington Parkway called U.S. Park Police to ask about the glow created in the sky by the flames. Park Police said no roads were reported closed, and rush-hour traffic was not affected.

At one point, flames appeared to leap from everywhere on the roof of a section near one end of the multi-wing building. Flaming portions of the roof were visible amid streams of water and clouds of black and gray smoke.

.........Anne Arundel firefighters, called immediately to help the post fire department, sent the amount of equipment and personnel that would be used to battle a four-alarm fire.

"We originally sent three engines and a truck, and it escalated from that," said Lt. Russ Davies, a spokesman for the Anne Arundel Fire Department. Before the blaze was under control, firefighters from Prince George's and Howard counties joined in the effort.

Firefighters in a ladder truck directed streams of water onto the blaze, which could be seen on an Army video.

Fort Meade is home to more than 30,000 workers.

<h3>The fire did not affect the National Security Agency, whose headquarters is also at the post.</h3>

As described on its Web site, the 902nd group conducts counterintelligence activities in support of Army commanders and protects Army forces, secrets and technology by detecting, identifying, neutralizing and exploiting foreign intelligence services and international terrorist threats

A number of military intelligence units are based at the post.

Staff writers Walter Pincus, Sandhya Somashekhar and Martin Weil contributed to this report.

<b>Lemme get this straight.....the fire started at "the peak of the roof"....wen from a 3 to a 6 alarmer.....burned for seven hours...the fire pictures arvailable in the link...two quote boxes back....but....the building is "intact"?</b>

Quote:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...64146505_x.htm
2007-04-26
Pentagon urged to close secret database

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Pentagon's new intelligence undersecretary is recommending the Defense Department shut down a controversial classified database that has been criticized for improperly collecting information on anti-war groups and citizens.

James R. Clapper Jr., who stepped into the job two weeks ago, "does not believe they merit continuing the program as currently constituted, particularly in light of its image in the Congress and the media," said Pentagon spokesman Maj. Patrick Ryder.

Clapper forwarded his recommendation to Defense Secretary Robert Gates last week, but no final decision has been made. Gates has been traveling in the Middle East and eastern Europe for most of the last two weeks.

Ryder said the Defense Department needs a way to assess potential threats, "but we must lay to rest the distrust and concern about the Department's commitment to civil rights that have been sustained by the problems found in the TALON reporting system."

The database has been under critical review since it was publicly disclosed in December 2005.

Quote:

http://public.cq.com/docs/cqt/news110-000002537553.html
CQ TODAY
June 21, 2007 – 10:43 p.m.
Fight Over Secret Satellite Program Is Revived
By Tim Starks, CQ Staff

It has been more than two and a half years since John D. Rockefeller IV and Ron Wyden took to the Senate floor to criticize a secret intelligence program that, they said, was inefficient, too expensive and, in any case, unnecessary.

The senators didn’t name the project, but at the time, it was widely identified as the successor to the “Misty” program of stealth satellites that cannot be detected in orbit. Republican leaders considered disciplinary action against the senators for talking about a secret program — even though they didn’t identify it.

Now, Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence, has done essentially the same thing the senators did back then: talked about a major spy program without indicating which one.....

.....A Rumsfeld-Backed Program

Former Defense Secretary Donald R. Rumsfeld and his intelligence undersecretary, Stephen A. Cambone, had been supporters of the system, sources said. So, too, was Florida Republican Porter J. Goss, the former chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and until last year the head of the CIA.

But McConnell and Cambone’s replacement at the Pentagon, James R. Clapper Jr., have turned a skeptical eye on the intelligence undertakings of Rumsfeld and Cambone. <h3>Clapper, for instance, began shortly after his confirmation in April to shut down the anti-terror database known as Talon</h3>, a controversial program that at one point had monitored anti-war groups..........

Quote:

http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t...087%250A&cid=0
News Analysis
Comparing Today’s Tactics With Those Used in the Past
By SCOTT SHANE
Published: June 27, 2007

.....Comparisons between different historical eras are always tricky. With an incomplete account of C.I.A. misdeeds in its first quarter century from the so-called family jewels, released this week with many redactions, and a presumably even more incomplete knowledge of the spy agencies’ actions since 2001, such a comparison is inevitably flawed.

But it is also irresistible. And it raises a provocative question: do the actions of the intelligence agencies in the era of Al Qaeda, which include domestic eavesdropping without warrants, secret detentions and interrogations arguably bordering on torture, already match or even eclipse those of the Vietnam War period?.....

........James Bamford, whose books on American intelligence cover the period from the Korean War to the Iraq war, took a similar view. Mr. Bamford said the scale of the National Security Agency’s interception of phone calls and e-mail messages of Americans and others in the United States in recent years — which prompted a lawsuit from the American Civil Liberties Union in which Mr. Bamford is a plaintiff — almost certainly dwarfs the electronic surveillance and the review of mail carried out by the N.S.A. and the C.I.A. in the 1960s.

If the collection details government spying on Vietnam War protesters, <h3>it has a contemporary echo in the Pentagon’s admission that a database called Talon improperly recorded the activities of Iraq war protesters, he said.</h3>

“These documents are supposed to show the worst of the worst back then,” Mr. Bamford said. <h3>“But what’s going on today makes the family jewels pale by comparison.”</h3>

The controversial activities of the campaign against terrorism took place despite the changes enacted after the scandals of the 1970s.

The Bush administration chose to bypass the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, created in 1978 to oversee eavesdropping on American soil. The Senate and House Intelligence Committees, created to make sure past abuses would never be repeated, did little to rein in the N.S.A. wiretapping program or to set limits on interrogation practices until news reports set off a furor....

[/quote]

Superbelt · 07-03-2007, 06:06 AM

Well, here's one of the better things you could start doing. Right now.
linky dinky
It's a blog post that lists the names and contact information for the Democratic members of the House Judiciary Committee. Help us inundate them with stern but respectful calls for impeachment proceedings.

I was against impeachment for the sole reason of it having not been in the best interest of the country to spend the last two years of his term trying to punish him for the past, and ignore our present and future.

But now with the ignoring of subpoenaes and violating his own rules for pardons to release a traitor to this country who likely was acting on Presidential orders anyway...
He's just laughing at us now while fucking us in the ass, using super-glue for lube.
Fuck him. It's impeachment time.

lankrypt0 · 07-03-2007, 06:18 AM

The problem, I think, is that there does not appear to be one concise place to go where people can go for information. I think it would be great to go to one site that has flyers you can download to hand or pass out. General information, talk points, etc. Unfortunately it seems we have a million people, all with angry voices, shouting different things. If there is any movement it has to be a million angry voices, shouting the message.

Seaver · 07-03-2007, 11:53 AM

Quote:

What you can do:
1) Be Host. Accumulate massive amounts of information and hit people with an iron clad case for impeachment. See a W '04 bumper sticker? Hit them with a flyer jam packed with information. Need help finding information? Check Host's posting history.
2) Be me. Go do sit ins. Go to street corners. Go downtown. Scream at cars and make big colorful signs with catchy slogans. Get 12 of your friends (and don't forget to being water) and bring the noise to the apathetic people.
3) Be Pan. GET PISSED RIGHT NOW. This is our country and our world, and we, as members of a democratic society, are responsible for the actions of our government. Do you want to be responsible for the upwards of a million deaths in Iraq? Do you want to be responsible for 'extraordinary rendition'? Do you want to be responsible for torturing? Me neither. Get mad and allow that anger to be channelled into action.
4) Be Ephelba. So you think only men can be brilliant politicaly active people? Bull! I would be willing to bet there are more women in the anti-war movement than men. Look at Cindy Sheehan.
5) Be Cyrnal. This administration has not earned your trust. They have betrayed it again and again. Be skeptical of their bullshit.

Um.. or none of the above.

1) I dont have the time to do Host-esque research.
2) My personal belief is the culture in America is currently in a situation that causes a stronger counter reaction to protests than the intended outcomes. I know these Bush=Hitler posters I've seen at anti-war ralleys didn't exactly work.
4) I'm not pissed and still believe Iraq is too pivitol a region to leave in its current state.
5) I'm not implying anything about Ephelba, but I believe Sheehan has been pissing all over her son's grave.
6) Maybe... but this generally implies or leads to 9/11 "tuthers".. and we know where I stand on that.

I just will simply vote for whichever "paleo"-conservative next election cycle runs. If not then I guess I'll waste my vote on Libertarians until the GOP can get back to it's roots.

Willravel · 07-03-2007, 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

Um.. or none of the above.

1) I dont have the time to do Host-esque research.

Host did it for you. All you need to do is hit print.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

2) My personal belief is the culture in America is currently in a situation that causes a stronger counter reaction to protests than the intended outcomes. I know these Bush=Hitler posters I've seen at anti-war ralleys didn't exactly work.

Tell that to Gandhi. Look at the polarized nature of India under British rule, and how the Muslims and Hindus were able to organize together against the occupying rulers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

4) I'm not pissed and still believe Iraq is too pivitol a region to leave in its current state.

You must be pissed that 3,584 brave men and women are dead. You must be pissed this is costing hundreds of billions of dollars that could be put towards defense or even things like education. You must be pissed that your children and possibly your children's children will have to pay for this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

5) I'm not implying anything about Ephelba, but I believe Sheehan has been pissing all over her son's grave.

The point was that gender means nothing when it comes to politics.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

6) Maybe... but this generally implies or leads to 9/11 "tuthers".. and we know where I stand on that.

A giant space laser?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

I just will simply vote for whichever "paleo"-conservative next election cycle runs. If not then I guess I'll waste my vote on Libertarians until the GOP can get back to it's roots.

Ron Paul sounds like the man for you, then. There's a way to become politically active. Ron Paul is amassing an army of devoted followers, many of which are very active politically. You could join up with them. Honestly, McCain is going broke and Rudy is dropping like a fly. The whole party is like a circus.

Frosstbyte · 07-03-2007, 12:22 PM

Ron Paul is a true conservative parading in libertarian clothing. His stance on marriage, sexuality and birth control is firmly traditional conservative though also quite rooted in a strict-constructionist view of the Constitution. He says a lot of things that I like, but it's simply inaccurate to call the man a Libertarian.

On the list of things he says that I don't like: returning to the gold standard and totally abolishing income tax. Returning to the gold standard seems totally anachronistic and silly, and abolishing the income tax seems like a process that would take, well, years. It's a well-entrenched system in this country and while I think it could use some simplification and adjustments, I think it's totally unrealistic to think that it's going anywhere. I'd much rather see a movement towards flat tax than to abolishing it entirely.

Willravel · 07-03-2007, 12:28 PM

Seaver is looking for a paleo-conservative. That's Ron Paul in a nutshell.

I'm not voting for him because he's too capitalist for my tastes and he won't take a hard stance on global climate change. His wish to abolish the Fed is courageous and worthy of much praise from anyone who loves America. I still hoping Gore will run and wipe the floor with Mitt or whatever idiot the Republicans choose that don't believe in evolution.

Seaver · 07-03-2007, 01:30 PM

Ron Paul is too conservtive socially, and FAR too libertarian politically for me. Gold standard and abolishment of the Fed would cause economic chaos in my opinion, and abolishment of the income tax woould cause a crippling of the Federal government (including the military) which would case economic chaos as a fallout.

I am looking for a true onsevative who believes understands that slow change is neded. Ron Paul has decent ideas but no vision concerning how to get them done.

Plus, I don't give a damn about gay marriage... and I slap my forehead anytime the GOP brings it up. Ron Paul is adamantly against it.

Strange Famous · 07-03-2007, 01:56 PM

I generally dont talk about politics, because my political views are radically to the left of most people here I would think... but how come no one care's about Enron anymore?

host · 07-05-2007, 11:27 AM

What an orderly, confident world Bush and his supporters inhabit. Too bad that it is tiny.....and, incoherent:

Quote:

Snow: Clinton Criticism of Commutation is "Chutzpah"
By Paul Kiel - July 5, 2007, 12:27 PM

From this morning's press gaggle:

REPORTER: Tony, why do you ... in your op-ed today you brought up the Clinton pardons, as well. Do two wrongs make a right? Is that the idea, like if Clinton did wrong ...

SNOW: Well, this is ... no, this is not a wrong, but I think what is interesting is perhaps it was just because he was on his way out, but while there was a small flurry, there was not much investigation of it. Now you've got President Clinton and Senator Clinton out complaining about this, which, I got to tell you, I don't know what our Arkansan is for chutzpah, but this is a gigantic case of it.

To refresh your memory on Hillary Clinton's remarks:

Quote:

"I believe that presidential pardon authority is available to any president, and almost all presidents have exercised it.... This (the Libby decision) was clearly an effort to protect the White House. ... There isn't any doubt now, what we know is that Libby was carrying out the implicit or explicit wishes of the vice president, or maybe the president as well, in the further effort to stifle dissent."

Quote:

...and (host adds...) here is what Libby's sentencing judge said:
http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline...isnt-sure.html

Judge isn't sure whether Libby can serve probation without prison sentence

Before the holiday, U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton asked lawyers on both sides of the Lewis "Scooter" Libby case to submit briefs outlining their positions as to whether the former White House aide should still be required to spend two years on probation now that President Bush has decided to overturn his 30-month prison sentence.

"Strictly construed, the statute authorizing the imposition of supervised release indicates that such release should occur only after the defendant has already served a term of imprisonment," Walton wrote Tuesday.

As a result, the judge wants to hear from the lawyers. The question: What's next?

As Lyle Denniston notes at SCOTUSblog, Walton would welcome some input from the West Wing, too.

"If either party believes that it would be helpful to solicit clarification from the White House regarding the President's position on the proper intrepretation of [the statute] in light of his Grant of Executive Clemency, they are encouraged to do so," the judge writes in a footnote to the order.

The rest of the gaggle is posted below.

The full excerpt:

Reporter: So, back on Libby. The President envisioned him serving parole time. But there's some confusion about that. What's the White House understanding now about whether ...

SNOW: The understanding is that this basically says, you now have ... he's got probation time, not parole time.

REPORTER: Probation, I'm sorry.

SNOW: Yes. So you treat it as if he has already served the 30 months, and probation kicks in. Obviously, the sentencing judge will figure out precisely how that works. But this ... I know that there has been some confusion about it, but it's our understanding that you treat it as if, okay, you've served your 30 months, now you're on probation, and the kind of conditions that would apply during normal probation would apply.

REPORTER: Well, the judge didn't think it was that clear.

SNOW: Well, again, we have a disagreement there.

REPORTER: Did the White House make a misstep here, I guess is what I'm asking.

SNOW: No, the White House did not make a misstep. And again, these sorts of determinations are always up to the sentencing judge.

REPORTER: But does this argue for why he should have run it past the Justice Department? Maybe a lawyer or ...

SNOW: No, and again ... you and I went through this the other day ... there's this notion that somehow there's a hard and fast process that requires the President to consult. Again, in this case, the Attorney General himself had been recused from it. We think that proper diligence was exercised in this case.

REPORTER: How could proper diligence be exercised if the judge is now saying, wait, the statute says you have to serve some jail time before you can actually get probation?

SNOW: Again, I think that is still a grey area in the law. We understand what the judge is saying. Our legal counsel looks at it in a different manner, and I don't think that that is a reflection on whether you have due diligence. There seems to be a disagreement here ... it does happen in law. The sentencing judge will make the final determination on it.

REPORTER: If there is a grey area, how do you know with certainty then ... I mean, on the one hand, you're saying there is a grey area; on the other hand, you're saying we're confident that this is all fine and he will serve probation.

SNOW: Well, I can't go any further for you on that, Ed. I mean, this is ... but on the other hand, you treat it as if ... it doesn't seem that it ought to be that complicated ... you treat it as if he served the 30 months, and you have a probationary period that follows.

REPORTER: What's the basis for that? Because the judge is saying there's a statute ... in the order he specifically says there's a statute that says that you have to serve some jail time.

SNOW: I will see if legal counsel can give you something a little more nuanced on that, but the fact is that this is something that will be determined by the trial judge. On the other hand, you've got a judge, also, who has had some of the verdict, some of the punishment taken away. My sense is that there are some disagreements here, but it's something that ... talking to Fred Fielding, he thinks that they're on strong legal ground that, in fact, this is something that can be imposed.

REPORTER: But, clearly, it was not the President's intention that probation not be served?

SNOW: That is correct. And that was very clear. Look ... and again, if you talk to attorneys around town and you ask them, is it a severe punishment to have your career taken away, the answer is, yes. By maintaining a felony conviction it has very profound impacts on what Scooter Libby can do in the future to provide a living for his family, and obviously, the fine is significant and so is probation.

Go ahead, Kelly.

REPORTER: Do you think that the judge is reacting in some way because he feels that ...

SNOW: I don't want to try to psychologize.

REPORTER: Why do you say that the President did not take politics into account, and if he had he would not have lifted a finger?

SNOW: Because you take a look at the polls ... the polls indicate that ... they've been recited ... people say, well, if you take a look at the polls, they wish he would have done nothing. So that's my reading of it.

REPORTER: That he would have done nothing because he's already so ... why?

SNOW: No, because, again, if you're taking politics into consideration, what you're saying is somebody trying to figure out politically what is going to be advantageous and popular with the American public. What the President thought in this ... what the President's approach was ... and I think you know him well enough to understand this ... is what is consistent with the dictates of justice? It is not something where he was consulting public opinion polls or asking what's going to play politically.

If you take a look at what has happened with some on the conservative side, they've been unhappy because they wanted a full pardon. The President thought that it was inappropriate to vacate the finding of the jury in this case. He ... after a long deliberation, they found Scooter Libby guilty of obstruction and perjury, and he thought it appropriate to maintain those convictions. He just thought that the punishment leveled by the court was excessive. You can take a look at Tim Noah's piece on Slate today where he also has taken ... he's gone through and read what the sentencing commission had to say and they seem to agree. So there's ... the President feels strongly that Scooter Libby's punishment was excessive, but on the other hand, he is also not willing to say, I'm going to forget the fact that you were convicted of a serious crime by a jury of your peers.

REPORTER: So why would he still be considering ... why wouldn't he rule out a pardon?

SNOW: Because all he's doing is ... he's not ruling anything in or out. But on the other hand, if you take a look at what he has said, he said that he is perfectly content ... not content ... he did the right thing. And there is still an option, people can always approach the pardon attorney. But the President thinks he's done the right thing.

REPORTER: If he thinks it's so important to keep jury deliberations and their rulings in effect, why does he ever pardon anybody?

SNOW: Well, there are some times when, obviously, there are some cases that may not be of sufficient gravity where he thinks that, in fact, a pardon would be called for.

This is a pretty serious case. And so, again, I think you can go back and look through the record of this administration. This is not where ... one where, for grave offenses, people have been handed out pardons.

REPORTER: So the hurdle for a pardon is pretty high, though not off the table?

SNOW: Again, I'm not going to get into speculating about the future, other than to say that the President thinks that he's done the right thing here. This is the right way to approach this case.

REPORTER: What about Conyers and his desire to have some sort of investigation of the use of the President's power in this instance?

SNOW: Well, fine, knock himself out. I mean, perfectly happy. And while he's at it, why doesn't he look at January 20th, 2001?

REPORTER: Tony, why do you ... in your op-ed today you brought up the Clinton pardons, as well. Do two wrongs make a right? Is that the idea, like if Clinton did wrong ...

SNOW: Well, this is ... no, this is not a wrong, but I think what is interesting is perhaps it was just because he was on his way out, but while there was a small flurry, there was not much investigation of it. Now you've got President Clinton and Senator Clinton out complaining about this, which, I got to tell you, I don't know what our Arkansan is for chutzpah, but this is a gigantic case of it.

REPORTER: That's all I need.

REPORTER:I think it's "chutzpah," but it was close.

SNOW: That's fine. Oy, oy, oy.

REPORTER: Tony, there were safeguards put into place after Clinton, and since you obviously feel there were abuses at the end of the Clinton administration ...

SNOW: I'm not just ... no, no, no. Look, the President has the constitutional authority and the constitutional power to practice clemency. So I don't ... all I'm saying is that this administration has been very careful about the way they approach it, and that would include in the case of Scooter Libby.

REPORTER: But because of perceived abuses by Clinton, there were changes made. Former pardon attorneys say there were a bunch of changes made to make sure it went through the proper channels.

SNOW: Right.

REPORTER: So then, since you feel so strongly ...

SNOW: So you're hung up ...

REPORTER: No, no, no. You feel so strongly that the Clinton pardons were abuses. You put that in your op-ed today; said there was a flurry of them. But ...

SNOW: I don't think I used the term "abuses." I think I had said that there was a flurry of them.

REPORTER: "Dizzying haste," you said.

SNOW: I believe that would be an accurate portrayal. If you take a look at news reports ... people scurrying about, clutching pieces of paper, running around ... I think those final hours were probably not timed of long chin-pulling reflection. But again ... look, Ed has got a reasonable point, which is to ask, do we think we've done wrong, do we think we've cut corners? The answer is, no.

REPORTER: Much of the complaint about this has been that this is not equal justice under the law; that Scooter Libby is getting a special break, and there are so many others who have asked for commutation, including an Iraq war veteran, who's got 33 years of prison ahead of him. Will ... doesn't Scooter Libby ...

SNOW: Thirty-three months, not years.

REPORTER: I'm sorry, 33 months. Does Scooter Libby's commutation fall under the same equal justice under the law there that everybody else gets?

SNOW: Look, if you're asking ... this provides a nice chance to go back and look at the Clinton pardons. Does that mean every drug dealer in America should have gotten off under the "equal justice under the law" logo? I mean, I think what you have here is that this was a special case. He had a special prosecutor. It was a unique case. I don't want to try to judge on merits of demerits of cases that may be pending, and frankly, I don't know whether this particular veteran has appealed to the pardon attorneys. I don't know any of those particular cases, so it's very difficult to respond to a broad, abstract assertion on other cases. This was, in fact, a unique case, but it was one that the President believes that he did right by the dictates of justice.

REPORTER: Well, was it not special in the sense that Scooter Libby is a former top aide who knew the President, worked for the President, and that gave him special access and special treatment?

SNOW: Well, no. I don't think he got special access in the sense that when he worked in the White House he had access. But on the other hand, there's been access since. So look, it is a special case because it was a special case ... highly publicized, a special counsel doing an investigation. So I think you can say it was a unique case. But on the other hand, again, this is the President trying to take a look, a hard look at a case. And in this particular instance, hastened by a decision by the 1st U.S. District Court of Appeals to go ahead and do what he thought was right.

REPORTER: Can I just come back to the probation thing again? Just to be clear, you're saying that Fred Fielding looked at this before the President signed it, signed off on it, said, oh, don't worry about this, sir.

SNOW: I don't know if ... I don't know if the President asked him specifically about it, but Fred did take a look at it, and he thought that it was appropriate.

REPORTER: Before ...

SNOW: Yes, of course, absolutely, absolutely.

REPORTER: Okay.

REPORTER: You and the President both said very, very clearly that the jury's verdict should be respected.

SNOW: That is correct.

REPORTER: Will you ever have to eat those words if he does grant Scooter Libby a pardon?

SNOW: Well, again, just wait and see if that happens, and then we'll answer the question.

REPORTER: Do you expect that the President would look at some other cases now? I know he's got a record of not ... a lot of these, but might he be open to looking to some of the other cases of people who did not have special access ...

SNOW: Kelly, I don't know precisely how the process works for bringing these cases before the President. As Ed has pointed out, they do have a process that they go and they look through these things, but I honestly don't know. My sense is that you don't adjust simply because people say, man, you got to look at a lot of other cases. My sense is that people do take a look at the cases pending. But I don't have any special details.

REPORTER: Did the pardon attorney play any role in this decision?

SNOW: I have no idea.

REPORTER: Could you find out?

SNOW: Yes, I don't believe that there have been any conversations with the pardon attorney.

REPORTER: Well, would that not make this the only occasion on which the President has granted executive clemency without the case going through the office of pardon attorney?

SNOW: Well, I will try to find out what I can get you on it. I just don't have anything on it.

<b>Judge Walton was so confused, by Bush's commutation of all of Libby's sentence before he served evena day in prison, contrary to Tony Snow's bullshit today...that the judge issued this order, on tues., July 3. Note footnote #1, at the bottom of the judge's order:</b>

Quote:

http://sentencing.typepad.com/senten...libby_3583.pdf

[1] "If either party believes that it would be helpful to solicit clarification from the White House regarding the President's position on the proper intrepretation of [the statute] in light of his Grant of Executive Clemency, they are encouraged to do so,"

<h3>So...who is making a mockery out of our system of justice, is it Judge Walton...an "anti-Libby, anti-Bush partisan", as powerclown and his posted Dershowitz oped piece, would have you believe....without any evidence to support that seemingly incoherent assertion......or is Bush making the mockery ?</h3>

dksuddeth · 07-05-2007, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

If congress can't do it, then a world court.

You'd have an awful lot of pissed off 2nd Amendment supporters bearing down on any foreign body that tried to instill their laws on this country. I'm one of them.

Willravel · 07-05-2007, 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

You'd have an awful lot of pissed off 2nd Amendment supporters bearing down on any foreign body that tried to instill their laws on this country. I'm one of them.

It's not their laws, it's ours. We're just apparently too retarded to do it ourselves. They broke FISA, they misled congress, they tortured. Those are OUR laws they broke.

Also, after Waco, it became totally clear that "2nd Amendment supporters" aren't doing anything. A house was bulldozed and a group of people brutally massacred because they happened to have guns. It was covered up completely by the FBI and ATF. No revolution. No guns a blazing. Let's not be silly. The 2nd amendment people aren't going to do anything.

dksuddeth · 07-06-2007, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

It's not their laws, it's ours. We're just apparently too retarded to do it ourselves. They broke FISA, they misled congress, they tortured. Those are OUR laws they broke.

Also, after Waco, it became totally clear that "2nd Amendment supporters" aren't doing anything. A house was bulldozed and a group of people brutally massacred because they happened to have guns. It was covered up completely by the FBI and ATF. No revolution. No guns a blazing. Let's not be silly. The 2nd amendment people aren't going to do anything.

I don't see you out there getting a gun and trying to rally the troops.

Willravel · 07-06-2007, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

I don't see you out there getting a gun and trying to rally the troops.

Bwahahha....yeah because it's me, not you, who loves guns and is always raring for an armed revolution. It's me who makes ominous threats about the government going too far.

It was you who spoke on behalf of the useless "pissed off 2nd Amendment supporters", suggesting that gun owners will somehow unite and stop a foreign body that would try to instill their laws on this country (fundamentally misunderstanding almost everything about my post the legality of the behavior of the Bush administration). Those pissed off 2nd Amendment supporters won't ever do anything with their guns but make empty threats. Empty threats aren't going to do anything.

tecoyah · 07-07-2007, 04:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

I don't see you out there getting a gun and trying to rally the troops.

I'm pretty sure, he has not indicated his willingness to do so in the first place whereas you seem more than willing to flaunt you artificial phallus as a means of backing up your manhood. One is left to wonder exactly what you think would be accomplished with your death at the hands of United States Military forces intent on removing your ability to be a threat? Do you actually believe an armed revolt would be effective should a state of martial law be proclaimed by the government?

Seriously, regardless of how big a man you are....your flesh is torn apart just as easily as mine.

dksuddeth · 07-08-2007, 06:29 AM

better to die on my feet a free man, than to live on my knees as a slave.

Willravel · 07-08-2007, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

better to die on my feet a free man, than to live on my knees as a slave.

Even in the context of the past few posts, this makes no sense.

How about this?
"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression." -- Thomas Paine

tecoyah · 07-08-2007, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

better to die on my feet a free man, than to live on my knees as a slave.

In other words,you fully understand the impotence of what you stand for?

I am confused, as it seems you want an armed population in the event the Government decides to go too far, yet you know the futility of such an uprising without the support of the military( who you would be taking up arms against). To me at least, this seems a very foolish stance, as it will end with you and all your posse dead, and serve only to piss off the soldiers doing the job they are charged to do.
It would also seem, you are so intent on keeping your guns, the issues that might lead up to you needing them are ignored completely. Go ahead and fight for your second ammendment rights....while so many others are worried about the the rest of them.

dksuddeth · 07-08-2007, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Even in the context of the past few posts, this makes no sense.

How about this?
"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression." -- Thomas Paine

I do this already, despite the huge amounts of scorn and derision you throw my way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tecoyah

In other words,you fully understand the impotence of what you stand for?

I am confused, as it seems you want an armed population in the event the Government decides to go too far, yet you know the futility of such an uprising without the support of the military( who you would be taking up arms against). To me at least, this seems a very foolish stance, as it will end with you and all your posse dead, and serve only to piss off the soldiers doing the job they are charged to do.
It would also seem, you are so intent on keeping your guns, the issues that might lead up to you needing them are ignored completely. Go ahead and fight for your second ammendment rights....while so many others are worried about the the rest of them.

You still are clueless about the whole issue it seems, but I'm beyond caring what you think anymore. When the war for our rights does happen, I'll look for which side you actually come down on.

Willravel · 07-08-2007, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

I do this already, despite the huge amounts of scorn and derision you throw my way.

You've lost touch. Most posts you make are either about guns despite the fact they're in a thread that has nothing to do with guns, or you make broad statements about liberty or something. Each and every one of these posts is threadjacking. I've avoided reporting you in the past because I don't think you know any better, but I would have hoped that you at least tone it down a bit... only it seems to be getting worse. Look in this very thread:

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

You'd have an awful lot of pissed off 2nd Amendment supporters bearing down on any foreign body that tried to instill their laws on this country. I'm one of them.

This was in response to my discussing possible options about how to bring Bush and Cheney to justice. Suddenly (dksuddenly?) it became about you and other gun owners? You have to realize that's a threadjack. Please tell me you realize this is a threadjack. Not only that, but it's just the latest of many threats of attacking people or organizations with guns. Think about that. You're on an online forum continually threatening people, often in hypothetical situations, with an armed attack.

Then you posted:

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

better to die on my feet a free man, than to live on my knees as a slave.

You don't give context, you don't explain this one bit, and it suggests that we're all slaves, specifically me. If you want to explain this, in an appropriate thread or PM, I'd be glad to debate the finer points of politics and/or slavery with you, but again you're threadjacking.

I don't want to report you because I honestly think you have a lot of interesting things to say. You probably have a great deal to teach me. I would hope that you can set aside the dead horse of gun rights or the pseudo-philosophical quotes and get down into it with the rest of us. Come, join in our reindeer games. You might just enjoy it.

/end threadjack

shakran · 07-08-2007, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tecoyah

I am confused, as it seems you want an armed population in the event the Government decides to go too far, yet you know the futility of such an uprising without the support of the military

Come on Tec. This one's easy. The pro-gun crowd that claims they need the guns to overthrow the government is full of crap and they know it. They're not buying guns to fight the government. That pearl-handled Colt with the custom engraving isn't going to be used to take on the feds. They're buying guns because they want them, not because they plan on fighting for our freedom with them. But they need to come up with a quasi-legit-sounding argument to convince everyone else to let them have their toys, and this is the best they can do.

07-02-2007, 04:21 PM	#2 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	Host, where did you get the stat that 77% still support Bush? I have a stat that 74% disapprove of Bush, and that's a few days old. And friend, let's be honest with each other. You and I both had our "last straw" moment concerning Bush long ago. Bush commuting Libby's sentence was one of those rare moments that he was actually working within his authority. He and Cheney have done far worse that is worthy of impeachment and criminal prosecution. I continue to believe that Conyers and Leahy are systematically bringing charges to his doorstep. __________________ "You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

07-02-2007, 04:40 PM	#3 (permalink)
cyrnel Adequate Location: In my angry-dome.	Being the negative bastard I am, I always expected Libby's first day of jail would be the excuse for a pardon. Now I can't help but think of the proximity of 7/4, and how it should be observed with flags at half-mast. __________________ There are a vast number of people who are uninformed and heavily propagandized, but fundamentally decent. The propaganda that inundates them is effective when unchallenged, but much of it goes only skin deep. If they can be brought to raise questions and apply their decent instincts and basic intelligence, many people quickly escape the confines of the doctrinal system and are willing to do something to help others who are really suffering and oppressed." -Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media, p. 195

07-02-2007, 08:22 PM	#6 (permalink)
Seaver Junkie Location: Fort Worth, TX	I stopped supporting Bush a while back.... there I've said it. __________________ "Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas

07-03-2007, 01:30 PM	#16 (permalink)
Seaver Junkie Location: Fort Worth, TX	Ron Paul is too conservtive socially, and FAR too libertarian politically for me. Gold standard and abolishment of the Fed would cause economic chaos in my opinion, and abolishment of the income tax woould cause a crippling of the Federal government (including the military) which would case economic chaos as a fallout. I am looking for a true onsevative who believes understands that slow change is neded. Ron Paul has decent ideas but no vision concerning how to get them done. Plus, I don't give a damn about gay marriage... and I slap my forehead anytime the GOP brings it up. Ron Paul is adamantly against it. __________________ "Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas

07-03-2007, 01:56 PM	#17 (permalink)
Strange Famous follower of the child's crusade?	I generally dont talk about politics, because my political views are radically to the left of most people here I would think... but how come no one care's about Enron anymore? __________________ "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered." The Gospel of Thomas

07-03-2007, 06:06 AM	#10 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Well, here's one of the better things you could start doing. Right now. linky dinky It's a blog post that lists the names and contact information for the Democratic members of the House Judiciary Committee. Help us inundate them with stern but respectful calls for impeachment proceedings. I was against impeachment for the sole reason of it having not been in the best interest of the country to spend the last two years of his term trying to punish him for the past, and ignore our present and future. But now with the ignoring of subpoenaes and violating his own rules for pardons to release a traitor to this country who likely was acting on Presidential orders anyway... He's just laughing at us now while fucking us in the ass, using super-glue for lube. Fuck him. It's impeachment time.

07-03-2007, 06:18 AM	#11 (permalink)
lankrypt0 Crazy Location: Aberdeen, NJ	The problem, I think, is that there does not appear to be one concise place to go where people can go for information. I think it would be great to go to one site that has flyers you can download to hand or pass out. General information, talk points, etc. Unfortunately it seems we have a million people, all with angry voices, shouting different things. If there is any movement it has to be a million angry voices, shouting the message.

07-03-2007, 12:22 PM	#14 (permalink)
Frosstbyte Winter is Coming Location: The North	Ron Paul is a true conservative parading in libertarian clothing. His stance on marriage, sexuality and birth control is firmly traditional conservative though also quite rooted in a strict-constructionist view of the Constitution. He says a lot of things that I like, but it's simply inaccurate to call the man a Libertarian. On the list of things he says that I don't like: returning to the gold standard and totally abolishing income tax. Returning to the gold standard seems totally anachronistic and silly, and abolishing the income tax seems like a process that would take, well, years. It's a well-entrenched system in this country and while I think it could use some simplification and adjustments, I think it's totally unrealistic to think that it's going anywhere. I'd much rather see a movement towards flat tax than to abolishing it entirely.

07-03-2007, 12:28 PM	#15 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Seaver is looking for a paleo-conservative. That's Ron Paul in a nutshell. I'm not voting for him because he's too capitalist for my tastes and he won't take a hard stance on global climate change. His wish to abolish the Fed is courageous and worthy of much praise from anyone who loves America. I still hoping Gore will run and wipe the floor with Mitt or whatever idiot the Republicans choose that don't believe in evolution.

07-08-2007, 06:29 AM	#24 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	better to die on my feet a free man, than to live on my knees as a slave. __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."