It's Time ! - Page 3 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

roachboy · 07-11-2007, 07:51 AM

Quote:

1) Investigations at this point have failed to prove anything Illegal.
2) If there were illegal activities, they do not exist until proven.

tecoyah · 07-11-2007, 08:06 AM

While it may indeed seem I was expressing the obvious, taken in the context of my explanation I think it was acceptable, and fitting to do so.

roachboy · 07-11-2007, 08:10 AM

i should have been clear about this i guess:
the response was not directed at you, tec.
it was directed against the position you (accurately) summarized.

tecoyah · 07-11-2007, 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

i should have been clear about this i guess:
the response was not directed at you, tec.
it was directed against the position you (accurately) summarized.

No worries....just clarifying

aceventura3 · 07-11-2007, 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

i should have been clear about this i guess:
the response was not directed at you, tec.
it was directed against the position you (accurately) summarized.

I have written my opinions on various topics, I have made many points, I have provided support for some of my opinions, and I have asked many questions, and have responded to questions addressed to me countering my positions. I am always more that happy to enter into an exchange on a specific point I have made or respond to a challenge to a specific point.

If your comment is directed to me, why not put a specific issue on the table. I am not sure what to do with these many general backhanded comments. The same offer goes to DC or anyone else. I am here, I am not going to run and hide. Challenge my points and my opinions, address them or ignore them, but what is the point of backhanded comments?

host · 07-11-2007, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I have written my opinions on various topics, I have made many points, I have provided support for some of my opinions, and I have asked many questions, and have responded to questions addressed to me countering my positions. I am always more that happy to enter into an exchange on a specific point I have made or respond to a challenge to a specific point.

If your comment is directed to me, why not put a specific issue on the table. I am not sure what to do with these many general backhanded comments. The same offer goes to DC or anyone else. I am here, I am not going to run and hide. Challenge my points and my opinions, address them or ignore them, but what is the point of backhanded comments?

ace, I have to vehemently disagree with you. I posted a specific chain of events where, on an issue as serious as one where the US president claimed that revisions to laws restricting domestic surveillance were justified and required, because...in his words;

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bush

.....The bill I signed yesterday gives intelligence and law enforcement officials additional tools they need to hunt and capture and punish terrorists. Our enemies operate by highly sophisticated methods and technologies, using the latest means of communication and the new weapon of bioterrorism.

<h3>When earlier laws were written, some of these methods did not even exist. The new law recognizes the realities and dangers posed by the modern terrorist. </h3> It will help us to prosecute terrorist organizations -- and also to detect them before they strike....

..... Intelligence operations and criminal investigations have often had to operate on separate tracks. The new law will make it easier for all agencies to share vital information about terrorist activity.

Surveillance of communications is another essential method of law enforcement. <h3>But for a long time, we have been working under laws written in the era of rotary telephones. </h3> Under the new law, officials may conduct court-ordered surveillance <h2>of all modern forms of communication used by terrorists.</h2>

In recent years, some investigations have been hindered by limits on the reach of federal search warrants. Officials had to get a new warrant for each new district and investigation covered, even when involving the same suspect. As of now, warrants are valid across districts and across state lines.......

...... These measures were enacted with broad support in both parties. They reflect a firm resolve to uphold and respect the civil liberties guaranteed by the Constitution, while dealing swiftly and severely with terrorists.

<h2>Now comes the duty of carrying them out.</h2> And I can assure all Americans that these important new statutes will be enforced to the full.......

I provided quotes linked to the white house web site that proved that Bush and Atty. General Gonzales were still using the same, 2001 Bush excuses and justifications, re: "laws restricting domestic surveillance had not kept up with technological advances"....four and five years after Bush said, on Oct. 27, 2001. that the "problem" was solved when Bush signed that 2001 bill.

I provided this observation and a link to quotes of Gonzales's Dec/. 2005 statement on the white house website:

Quote:

http://www.anonymousliberal.com/2006...t-he-says.html

....<h2>Now comes the duty of carrying them out.</h2>
And I can assure all Americans that
these important new statutes will be
enforced to the full. Thank you for
listening.

Within months after making this assurance to the American people, President Bush authorized the NSA to ignore the requirements of the law he had just signed and which he assured the American people would be "enforced to the full." <h3>Now that he's been caught, what is his stated reason for disregarding the law? He tells us the law was too "old" and "outdated" and not designed to deal with the realities and dangers posed by the modern terrorist.</h3>

The actual text of my exchange with ace, here:

Ace, you claimed on this page;
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...ll#post2260614

....that Bush "Bush really say what he means and do what he says"

I posted this (post #16) in opposition to your opinion:

<h2>The Flip:</h2>

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0011026-5.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
<h2>October 26, 2001</h2>

Multi-front Operation, 2001 Video & Timeline President Signs Anti-Terrorism Bill
Remarks by the President at Signing of the Patriot Act, Anti-Terrorism Legislation
The East Room

... The changes, effective today, will help counter a threat like no other our nation has ever faced. We've seen the enemy, and the murder of thousands of innocent, unsuspecting people. They recognize no barrier of morality. They have no conscience. The terrorists cannot be reasoned with. Witness the recent anthrax attacks through our Postal Service.

Our country is grateful for the courage the Postal Service has shown during these difficult times. We mourn the loss of the lives of Thomas Morris and Joseph Curseen; postal workers who died in the line of duty. And our prayers go to their loved ones.

I want to assure postal workers that our government is testing more than 200 postal facilities along the entire Eastern corridor that may have been impacted. And we will move quickly to treat and protect workers where positive exposures are found.

But one thing is for certain: These terrorists must be pursued, they must be defeated, and they must be brought to justice. (Applause.) And that is the purpose of this legislation. Since the 11th of September, the men and women of our intelligence and law enforcement agencies have been relentless in their response to new and sudden challenges.

We have seen the horrors terrorists can inflict. We may never know what horrors our country was spared by the diligent and determined work of our police forces, the FBI, ATF agents, federal marshals, Custom officers, Secret Service, intelligence professionals and local law enforcement officials, under the most trying conditions. They are serving this country with excellence, and often with bravery.

They deserve our full support and every means of help that we can provide. We're dealing with terrorists who operate by highly sophisticated methods and technologies, some of which were not even available when our existing laws were written. The bill before me takes account of the new realities and dangers posed by modern terrorists. It will help law enforcement to identify, to dismantle, to disrupt, and to punish terrorists before they strike.

For example, this legislation gives law enforcement officials better tools to put an end to financial counterfeiting, smuggling and money-laundering. Secondly, it gives intelligence operations and criminal operations the chance to operate not on separate tracks, but to share vital information so necessary to disrupt a terrorist attack before it occurs.

As of today, we're changing the laws governing information-sharing. And as importantly, we're changing the culture of our various agencies that fight terrorism. Countering and investigating terrorist activity is the number one priority for both law enforcement and intelligence agencies.

Surveillance of communications is another essential tool to pursue and stop terrorists. <h3>The existing law was written in the era of rotary telephones. This new law that I sign today will allow surveillance of all communications used by terrorists, including e-mails, the Internet, and cell phones.

As of today, we'll be able to better meet the technological challenges posed by this proliferation of communications technology.</h3> Investigations are often slowed by limit on the reach of federal search warrants.

Law enforcement agencies have to get a new warrant for each new district they investigate, even when they're after the same suspect. Under this new law, warrants are valid across all districts and across all states. ......

....... It is now my honor to sign into law the USA Patriot Act of 2001. (Applause.)

(The bill is signed.) (Applause.)

END 10:57 A.M. EDT

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20011027.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
<h3>October 27, 2001</h3>

Radio Address of the President to the Nation

.....The bill I signed yesterday gives intelligence and law enforcement officials additional tools they need to hunt and capture and punish terrorists. Our enemies operate by highly sophisticated methods and technologies, using the latest means of communication and the new weapon of bioterrorism.

<h3>When earlier laws were written, some of these methods did not even exist. The new law recognizes the realities and dangers posed by the modern terrorist. </h3> It will help us to prosecute terrorist organizations -- and also to detect them before they strike....

..... Intelligence operations and criminal investigations have often had to operate on separate tracks. The new law will make it easier for all agencies to share vital information about terrorist activity.

Surveillance of communications is another essential method of law enforcement. <h3>But for a long time, we have been working under laws written in the era of rotary telephones. </h3> Under the new law, officials may conduct court-ordered surveillance <h2>of all modern forms of communication used by terrorists.</h2>

In recent years, some investigations have been hindered by limits on the reach of federal search warrants. Officials had to get a new warrant for each new district and investigation covered, even when involving the same suspect. As of now, warrants are valid across districts and across state lines.......

...... These measures were enacted with broad support in both parties. They reflect a firm resolve to uphold and respect the civil liberties guaranteed by the Constitution, while dealing swiftly and severely with terrorists.

<h2>Now comes the duty of carrying them out.</h2> And I can assure all Americans that these important new statutes will be enforced to the full.

Thank you for listening.

END

...and what is this....40 months later....could it be????
<h2>The Flop:</h2>

Quote:

http://www.anonymousliberal.com/2006...t-he-says.html

....<h2>Now comes the duty of carrying them out.</h2>
And I can assure all Americans that
these important new statutes will be
enforced to the full. Thank you for
listening.

Within months after making this assurance to the American people, President Bush authorized the NSA to ignore the requirements of the law he had just signed and which he assured the American people would be "enforced to the full." <h3>Now that he's been caught, what is his stated reason for disregarding the law? He tells us the law was too "old" and "outdated" and not designed to deal with the realities and dangers posed by the modern terrorist.</h3>

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0051219-1.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
<h2>December 19, 2005</h2>

Press Briefing by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and General Michael Hayden, Principal Deputy Director for National Intelligence
James S. Brady Briefing Room
......Q General, can you tell us why you don't choose to go to the FISA court?

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: Well, we continue to go to the FISA court and obtain orders. It is a very important tool that we continue to utilize. Our position is that we are not legally required to do, in this particular case, because the law requires that we -- FISA requires that we get a court order, unless authorized by a statute, and we believe that authorization has occurred.

The operators out at NSA tell me that we don't have the speed and the agility that we need, in all circumstances, to deal with this new kind of enemy. <h2>You have to remember that FISA was passed by the Congress in 1978. There have been tremendous advances in technology -- ......</h2>

And for some reason which I cannot begin to fathom, <h2>the press simply ignores all of his previous statements to the contrary.</h2>

...and seven months later, still....no, not more
<h2> Flop ?????</h2>

Mr. President....I thought that you boasted that the surveillance technology "gap" had been fixed....you took credit for fixing it....<b>59 months before you said this:</b>

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0060907-2.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
<h2>September 7, 2006</h2>

President Bush Discusses Progress in the Global War on Terror
Cobb Galleria Centre
Atlanta, Georgia

......Last year, details of the Terrorist Surveillance Program were leaked to the news media, and the program was then challenged in court. That challenge was recently upheld by a federal district judge in Michigan. My administration strongly disagrees with the ruling. We are appealing it, and we believe our appeal will be successful. Yet a series of protracted legal challenges would put a heavy burden on this critical and vital program. The surest way to keep the program is to get explicit approval from the United States Congress. <b>So today I'm calling on the Congress to promptly pass legislation providing additional authority for the Terrorist Surveillance Program, along with broader reforms in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.</b> (Applause.)

<h2>When FISA was passed in 1978</h2>, there was no widely accessible Internet, and almost all calls were made on fixed landlines. <h3>Since then, the nature of communications has changed, quite dramatically. The terrorists who want to harm America can now buy disposable cell phones, and open anonymous e-mail addresses. Our laws need to change to take these changes into account.......</h3>

<h2>The Flip:</h2>
Here is Bush, just weeks after he is alleged to have (by James Comey) directed Card and Gonzales to Ashcroft's ICU unit bed to sign an authorization that Ashcroft was no longer legally authorized to sign...he had relinquished his duties due to illness:

Quote:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwa...ges/print.html
And beyond McConnell's plainly false Op-Ed, the lies told by the Bush administration on the issue of eavesdropping have no equal. In light of the revelations from James Comey, just re-visit the statements from Alberto Gonzales in December 2005 -- five days before the New York Times revealed the warrantless eavesdropping program -- in which he assured his audience: "All wiretaps must be authorized by a federal judge." <h3>That is the same Alberto Gonzales who barged into John Ashcroft's hospital room to coerce his consent to their ongoing warrantless eavesdropping activities.

Worse, the President himself -- literally one month after the dispute with Comey and Ashcroft over warrantless eavesdropping -- one month -- ran around the country as part of his re-election campaign insisting that the only eavesdropping done by the government was one done with warrants:</h3>

Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. <b>Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so.</h3>

The same President who ordered warrantless eavesdropping -- and who almost had the entire top level of the DOJ resign as a result -- told Americans weeks later that the Government only eavesdrops with warrants. To call that "lying" is to understate the case. It really is to our great discredit that we have acquiesced to this level of presidential deceit.

<h3>McConnell's Op-Ed demonstrates that this level of deceit with regard to eavesdropping continues unabated. The notion that the administration would demand, and that Congress would entertain, further expansions of FISA under these circumstances is just staggering.</h3>

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0040420-2.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
April 20, 2004

President Bush: Information Sharing, Patriot Act Vital to Homeland Security
Remarks by the President in a Conversation on the USA Patriot Act
Kleinshans Music Hall
Buffalo, New York

.... Part of the problem we face was that there was laws and bureaucratic mind-sets that prevented the sharing of information. And so, besides setting up the Homeland Security Department and beefing up our air travel security, and making sure that we now fingerprint at the borders and take those fingerprints, by the way, and compare to a master log of fingerprints of terrorists and known criminals, to make sure people coming into our country are the right people coming into our country. I mean, we do a lot of things. But we change law, as well, to allow the FBI and -- to be able to share information within the FBI.

Incredibly enough, because of -- which Larry and others will discuss -- see, I'm not a lawyer, so it's kind of hard for me to kind of get bogged down in the law. (Applause.) I'm not going to play like one, either. (Laughter.) The way I viewed it, if I can just put it in simple terms, is that one part of the FBI couldn't tell the other part of the FBI vital information because of law. And the CIA and the FBI couldn't talk. Now, these are people charged with gathering information about threats to the country; yet they couldn't share the information. And right after September the 11th, the Congress wisely acted, said, this doesn't make any sense. If we can't get people talking, how can we act? We're charged with the security of the country, first responders are charged with the security of the country, and if we can't share information between vital agencies, we're not going to be able to do our job. And they acted.

So the first thing I want you to think about is, when you hear Patriot Act, is that we changed the law and the bureaucratic mind-set to allow for the sharing of information. It's vital. And others will describe what that means.

Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. <h3>Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so.</h3> It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.

But a roving wiretap means -- it was primarily used for drug lords. A guy, a pretty intelligence drug lord would have a phone, and in old days they could just get a tap on that phone. So guess what he'd do? He'd get him another phone, particularly with the advent of the cell phones. And so he'd start changing cell phones, which made it hard for our DEA types to listen, to run down these guys polluting our streets. And that changed, the law changed on -- roving wiretaps were available for chasing down drug lords. They weren't available for chasing down terrorists, see? And that didn't make any sense in the post-9/11 era. If we couldn't use a tool that we're using against mobsters on terrorists, something needed to happen.

The Patriot Act changed that. So with court order, law enforcement officials can now use what's called roving wiretaps, which will prevent a terrorist from switching cell phones in order to get a message out to one of his buddies.

Thirdly, to give you an example of what we're talking about, there's something called delayed notification warrants. Those are very important. I see some people, first responders nodding their heads about what they mean. These are a common tool used to catch mobsters. In other words, it allows people to collect data before everybody is aware of what's going on. It requires a court order. It requires protection under the law. We couldn't use these against terrorists, but we could use against gangs.

We had real problems chasing paper -- following paper trails of people. The law was just such that we could run down a problem for a crooked businessman; we couldn't use the same tools necessary to chase down a terrorist. That doesn't make any sense. And sometimes the use of paper trails and paper will lead local first responders and local officials to a potential terrorist. We're going to have every tool, is what I'm telling you, available for our people who I expect to do their job, and you expect to do their jobs.

We had tough penalties for drug traffickers; we didn't have as tough a penalty for terrorists. That didn't make any sense. The true threat to the 21st century is the fact somebody is trying to come back into our country and hurt us. And we ought to be able to at least send a signal through law that says we're going to treat you equally as tough as we do mobsters and drug lords.

There's other things we need to do. We need administrative subpoenas in the law. This was not a part of the recent Patriot Act. By the way, the reason I bring up the Patriot Act, it's set to expire next year. I'm starting a campaign to make it clear to members of Congress it shouldn't expire. It shouldn't expire, for the security of our country. (Applause.)

Administrative subpoenas mean it is -- speeds up the process whereby people can gain information to go after terrorists. Administrative subpoenas I guess is kind of an ominous sounding word, but it is, to put everybody's mind at ease about administrative subpoenas -- we use them to catch crooked doctors today. It's a tool for people to chase down medical fraud. And it certainly makes sense to me that if we're using it as a tool to chase medical fraud cases, we certainly ought to use it as a tool to chase potential terrorists.

I'll tell you another interesting part of the law that needs to be changed. Judges need greater authority to deny bail to terrorists. Judges have that authority in many cases like -- again, I keep citing drug offenses, but the Congress got tough on drug offenders a while ago and gave judges leeway to deny bail. They don't have that same authority to deny bail to terrorists now. I've got to tell you, it doesn't make any sense to me that it is very conceivable that we haul in somebody who is dangerous to America and then they are able to spring bail and out they go.

It's hard to assure the American people that we've given tools to law enforcement that they need if somebody has gone through all the work to chase down a potential terrorist, and they haul them in front of a court and they pay bail, and it adios. It just doesn't make any sense.

The Patriot Act needs to be renewed and the Patriot Act needs to be enhanced. That's what we're talking about. And it's better for others to explain to you how this Patriot Act works. After all, they're charged with protecting our citizens. They're on the front line. You see, I try to pick the best I can at the federal government and say, here's our mission -- our mission is to protect our country. I say that to the Defense Department -- our mission is to protect the country. I say it to the Justice Department, and to the FBI. After 9/11, I said to the Justice Department and the FBI, your job, your primary focus now is to prevent attack. Listen, I still want you chasing down the criminals; that's what's expected of you. But there's a new mind-set, and that is, because of what happened on 9/11, we've got to change the way we think, and therefore, your job now is to prevent attack.....

.... THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Attorney. (Laughter.) It's good I didn't break any rules. (Laughter.)

The point is, is that -- what he's telling you is, is that we needed to share this information throughout our government, which we couldn't do before. And it just doesn't make any sense. We got people working hard overseas that are collecting information to better help us protect ourselves. And what 9/11 was, is that -- said -- is that a threat overseas now must be taken seriously here at home. It's one thing to protect our embassies, and we work hard to do so. But now a threat overseas could end up being a threat to the homeland. And in order to protect the homeland, these good people have got to be able to share information.

Those who criticize the Patriot Act must listen to those folks on the front line of defending America. <b>The Patriot Act defends our liberty, is what it does, under the Constitution of the United States. (Applause.)</b> ...

......THE PRESIDENT: .... It's an honor to have been here today. I hope, as a result of this discussion, our fellow citizens have a better understanding of the importance of the Patriot Act and why it needs to be renewed and expanded -- <b>the importance of the Patriot Act, when it comes to defending America, our liberties, and at the same time, that it still protects our liberties under the Constitution.</b> But more importantly, I hope our fellow citizens recognize that there are hundreds of their fellow citizens working on a daily basis to do their duty to make this country as secure as possible. And for your work I say thank you, and may God continue to bless you. Thank you for coming. (Applause.)

END 10:33 A.M. EDT

Quote:

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/20/...aught-on-tape/
Bush Caught on Tape: “A Wiretap Requires A Court Order. Nothing Has Changed.”

Bush, April 2004:

Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. <b>Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires — a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we’re talking about chasing down terrorists, we’re talking about getting a court order before we do so.</b> It’s important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20060101.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
January 1, 2006

President Visits Troops at Brooke Army Medical Center
Brooke Army Medical Center
San Antonio, Texas

...Q In 2004, when you were doing an event about the Patriot Act, in your remarks you had said that any wiretapping required a court order, and that nothing had changed. <b>Given that we now know you had prior approval for this NSA program, were you in any way misleading?

THE PRESIDENT: I was talking about roving wire taps, I believe, involved in the Patriot Act. This is different from the NSA program. The NSA program is a necessary program.</b> I was elected to protect the American people from harm. And on September the 11th, 2001, our nation was attacked. And after that day, I vowed to use all the resources at my disposal, within the law, to protect the American people, which is what I have been doing, and will continue to do. And the fact that somebody leaked this program causes great harm to the United States.

There's an enemy out there. They read newspapers, they listen to what you write, they listen to what you put on the air, and they react. And it seems logical to me that if we know there's a phone number associated with al Qaeda and/or an al Qaeda affiliate, and they're making phone calls, it makes sense to find out why. They attacked us before, they will attack us again if they can. And we're going to do everything we can to stop them.

Yes, Ed. ...

....and your response was this (post #20):

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

hmmm....I don't think ace is yet convinced....

Here is text from winston Churchill's first speech as Prime Minister of England. It is full of hyperbole and symbolism. Generally when I listen or read speeches or statements from world and national leaders, I give them a little room for being a leader and attempting to put a pretty face on information. If you call that "lies" we are in 100% agreement.

Quote:

We have before us an ordeal of the most grievous kind. We have before us many, many long months of struggle and of suffering. You ask, what is our policy?

I can say: It is to wage war, by sea, land and air, with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us; to wage war against a monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the dark, lamentable catalogue of human crime. That is our policy.

You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word: It is victory; victory at all costs; victory in spite of all terror; victory, however long and hard the road may be. For without victory, there is no survival.

Let that be realized: no survival for the British Empire; no survival for all that the British Empire has stood for, no survival for the urge and impulse of the ages, that mankind will move forward towards its goal.

But I take up my task with buoyancy and hope. I feel sure that our cause will not be suffered to fail among men. At this time I feel entitled to claim the aid of all, and I say, "Come then, let us go forward together with our united strength."

http://www.school-for-champions.com/...lood_sweat.htm

<b>ace, I think that your last post on this thread pre-supposes that your "take" about the exchanges you have had with the rest of us, is an accurate one. You may be sincere......but in the example that I've provided in this post, your "Churchill comeback" did not begin to respond to or counter, the argument and the support for it...that I had posted. I've had the impression that you are indifferent as to whether you are "taken seriously" in our discusssions, but your last post confirms that you are not indifferent. Why don't you "raise the bar" by posting better supported opinions. I don't think that your Churchill quote, along with your opinion that Bush's and Gonzales's disingenuous excuses, over five years, that limiting surveillance laws were written in the "era of rotary dial telephones", years after Bush said that the laws had been updated, was taken as a serious challenge to the citations contained in my post to support my opinion. I welcome your challenges ace, but you have not done, in your challenges, what you claimed, in your last post. </b>

aceventura3 · 07-11-2007, 10:32 AM

I asked a question that you ignored, and the discussion stalled because of it in my opinion.

Quote:

I understand how you and others think Bush is a lier and immoral, all I wonder is - do you use the same standard for all historical leaders?

host · 07-11-2007, 11:18 AM

Yeah, you did ask that, ace....in post #29....quite a bit after you had attempted to counter the supported points in my post that "Bush does not say what he means and means what he sez"....and, just as you had in post #20, instead of admitting that the evidence....Bush quotes from the white house web site between 2001 and 2006, on the narrow subject of the need to "modernize" 1978 laws to "keep with the terrorists" use of communications technology, showed that Bush said in 2001 that the 1978 law had been modernized to his satisfaction. Instead of admitting that Bush and Gonzales, in 2004, 2005, and in 2006, were on record, saying the opposite of Bush's October 2001...twice repeated and twice documented assertions that the surveillance laws had been modernized to his satisfaction, you chose to post a 1940 Churchill quote about the threat Britain confronted on Churchill's first day as Prime Minister.

That's what you do, ace....that's how you attempt to deflect damning specifics to your arguments, instead of meeting them head on. I was the other party in our exchange. You chose not to engage me. You made no attempt to deal with the impact of proff that Bush and Gonzales used the same excuses to justify breaking the law, four years after Bush ahs used the same excuses to change the law that they went on to break....beginning just months after Bush claimed the law had been modernized to a point where Bush could legally conduct surveillance activities within it's restrictions.

The points discussed are not a game, ace. Why should the tactics of the discussion be reduce to a game? You get what you give here, ace. I'mm too skeptical of IBD editorials to learn much from them, but that is about all you've offered here, that is germane to discussions that you've engaged in.

You get what you give, ace. The potenital was there, in my example discussion, for you to post information to show me that I'd overlooked something, that...indeed....other instances had emerged where terrorists had used new technology to thwart provisions of the FISA laws that were not modernized in the 2001 revisions.....you chose instead to quote a 67 year old Churchill speech and then ask if other leaders hadn't embellished their rhetoric in the past.....

Do you think that you planted doubt in my mind as to whether or not Bush and Gonzales had made deliberately deceptive comments to justify breaking the law against unwarranted domestic surveillance?

aceventura3 · 07-11-2007, 12:22 PM

I stated directly the Bush used hyperbole and has made exaggerated statements. I also stated directly that he cherry picked intelligence information. It is convenient that you forget those clear and direct statements, isn't it? I just don't consider what he said lies. And I further said that I did not rely on his public statements as the basis for my support of the war.

host · 07-15-2007, 09:35 PM

If thousand were not killed and wounded as the direct result of these people's hubris (.....or is it their incoherence?) this "reporting" would be offensive.... pathetic, but, under the circumstances, it seems like the reporting of crimes by the criminals, themselves......

Quote:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...Y0YjAxYjdiMDk=
July 13, 2007 6:45 PM

He’s Not for Turning
Bush makes his case on Iraq.

By Kate O'Beirne & Rich Lowry

Forget the leaks and the speculation, President George W. Bush is not looking for a way out of the surge and the Iraq war. In a session with about ten conservative journalists Friday afternoon, a confident and determined president made it clear that he is going to see the surge through, and will rely on General David Petraeus’s advice on how to proceed come September, regardless of the political climate in Washington......

.......“How can he possibly do this,” he said, characterizing what critics of the war were thinking. “Can’t he see? Can’t he hear?” (At one point he acknowledged that these decisions aren’t easy — “You don’t know what it’s like to be commander-in-chief until you’re commander-in-chief,” he said.)

He explained “that last fall, if I had been part of this polling, if they had called upstairs and said, do you approve of Iraq I would have been on the 66 percent who said, `No I don’t approve.’ That’s why I made the decision I made. To get in a position where I would be able to say ‘Yes, I approve.’”

President Bush understands the public frustration with the war: “We put highly trained sophisticated military people in harm’s way and they battle $100 IEDs.” He worries about “exhaustion as we’re dealing with these radicals who have a lot of energy and who aren’t going to be tired.” But he said he has “tools” in the debate, including “the bully pulpit and the ability to convince the American people.” He wants both to convince them that success is still possible, and “remind my fellow citizens of what the consequences of failure will be.”.....

Quote:

http://www.samefacts.com/archives/ly...rge_w_bush.php

July 15, 2007
Shorter George W. Bush
Posted by Mark Kleiman

George Bush to the <a href="http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=M2VhMzIzNTZkNzBjMzQ0MDE5MWNhOGY0YjAxYjdiMDk=">Ten Tame Scribes</a>:

last fall, if I had been part of this polling, if they had called upstairs and said, do you approve of Iraq I would have been on the 66 percent who said, "No I don’t approve." That’s why I made the decision I made. To get in a position where I would be able to say "Yes, I approve."

In other words:

I'm not nearly as stupid as my supporters. Back when I was telling the world that things in Iraq were going well, and you folks were helping me by calling anyone who said otherwise a traitor, I knew we were all lying.

aceventura3 · 07-23-2007, 10:30 AM

Pretty interesting comparison.

http://www.townhall.com/funnies/cart...MichaelRamirez

pan6467 · 07-23-2007, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Pretty interesting comparison.

http://www.townhall.com/funnies/cart...MichaelRamirez

Come on Ace, stop trying to be as low as Limbaugh.

The fact of the matter is Iraq had nothing (but oil) and there was no way they could have hurt us. To even compare WW2 with this "war" is an insult not to others intelligences but yours man.

Argue your case, but to compare the 2 is idiocy.

WW2 = Pearl Harbor, Hitler's eradication of jews, Hitler and Japan wanting to conquer the world, it was us or them, we had very strong equal allies and did NOT do it alone

Iraq = absolutely no connection ever proven to Al Quida, 9/11, no WMDs found, Hussein couldn't even move without us threatening him, he was a danger to noone, the allies we do have, that haven't backed out are pretty much there because Bush made very lucrative trade agreements/concessions or bribes to them.

Don't even start with War on Terrorism bullshit..... Iraq had nothing to do with it and until the borders are secure and we have no illegals coming in then I'll take it seriously.... otherwise, again your editorial comic is just an insult to yourself.

Willravel · 07-23-2007, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Pretty interesting comparison.

http://www.townhall.com/funnies/cart...MichaelRamirez

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keith Olbermann

After the First Lord of the British Admiralty, Winston Churchill, authored and enabled the disastrous Gallipoli campaign that saw a quarter million Allied solders cut down in the First World War, Churchill resigned his office and took a commission as a front line officer in the trenches in France.

Only a complete fool calls failure a success. It's the honorable and brave who are able to admit that they were wrong and pay for their mistakes. If, in some bizarro alternate universe, Bush had developed morality, values, and honor such as Churchill, we would have pulled out and he would have resigned back in 2004 when he realized the war couldn't be won and would only cost lives. Calling a failure a failure and planning accordingly is right.

aceventura3 · 07-23-2007, 12:23 PM

I understand all the objections to our occupation of Iraq, I also understand the objections regarding our preemptive strike against Iraq, because I can appreciate thoughtful people disagreeing on military strategy and military priorities . The only thing about this that I don't understand is how anyone believes if we rolled up our military and brought them home that our enemies would end their war against us. It gives me comfort, that at least a few others and I are in agreement.

Willravel · 07-23-2007, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I understand all the objections to our occupation of Iraq, I also understand the objections regarding our preemptive strike against Iraq, because I can appreciate thoughtful people disagreeing on military strategy and military priorities . The only thing about this that I don't understand is how anyone believes if we rolled up our military and brought them home that our enemies would end their war against us. It gives me comfort, that at least a few others and I are in agreement.

That's the most simple answer of all: Iraq NEVER warred against us. They have neither the means nor the inclination to "bring the fight here". Of the non-Iraqi presence in Iraq, less than 5% are al Qaeda, who now have incredibly limited movement. Most are Saudis (like the Saudis blamed for 9/11, which was never addressed). Virtually none are Iranian.

If we left Iraq, we would be in less danger here in the US. That is a fundamental, undeniable fact.

aceventura3 · 07-24-2007, 04:12 AM

Here is a map of the ME:

I look at the map and see that Iraq is a high value military strategic location. I think it is important that Iraq have a government friendly and cooperative with us and our military.

You may not agree or like what this guy writes, but it is a view shared by many regarding the US strategy concerning Iraq, and its a source other than the White House or my point of view.

Quote:

n the aftermath of Desert Storm, three events transpired as follows.

* The Iraqi Army was expelled from Kuwait.
* Iraq was deprived of fatal weapons and its arsenal reduced, rendering it incapable of intimidating and threatening its neighbors.
* The United States signed a military treaty with Kuwait and assumed the position of Guardian of peace in the Middle East.

Prior to Desert Storm U. S. strategists considered two vital issues: how could the U.S. integrate the Middle East and especially the strategic Iraq within the global economy in New World Order, and by what means could the U.S. annex the Middle East and Iraq as integral parts of its global military strategy?

The first issue, the integration of the region in global economy is accomplished in the course of democratizing the region as done in Afghanistan and Iraq and carrying out U.S. regional policy that seeks to

* Keeping the sea lanes open for international trade.
* Maintaining the flow of oil at a reasonable price.
* Providing support for Israel and moderate Arab states.

The second issue, annexing Middle East and Iraq to U. S. global military strategy is achieved through the means pursued by the Administration to execute its global policy including the use of military power. So Desert Storm was neither an isolated event that did erupt randomly, nor a product of the hour. It was in fact a vital part of United States global defensive arrangements steadily elaborated to repel radical movements against the New World System.

The following are some of U. S. goals in the Region.

* Stationing of US troops in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.
* The installation of a Headquarters in Qatar for the Central Command.
* A long-term responsibility to maintain the status-quo in post cold-war and to control and administer the New World system.

United States objectives in the Middle East are basically the same as well as the strategy and Its vital interests depends on political and social developments outside its borders and in the rest of the World, that have direct Impact on the living standards of the Americans. The United States; therefore, is

* Preserving the status-quo or the world capitalist system.
* Opposing the ideas that are not responsive to the new global strategies.
* Using coalitions as resolved by the United Nations to quell aggression and promote peace and the new economic regime.

U.S. troops are still in Iraq, which is, just like other states in the region, included within United States global strategy under the Central Command. The other states involved are Egypt, Sudan, Ethiopia, Jordan, Israel, Iran, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Kenya, Somalia, Yemen, and the Gulf states.

United States uses its military to:

* Secure the flow of oil and other energy resources to U.S. and the other industrialized nations.
* Explore new markets for its products.

and in the course of executing its new Global policy, It

* Protects small nations against aggression
* Support peaceful missions delegated by the United Nations.
* Combat terrorism
* Destroy weapons of mass destruction
* Repel fundamentalism

With regard to Iraq, the United States aims were destroying weapons of mass destruction and forcing it to abide by International Law United Nations resolutions.

The policy of Iraq under Saddam Hussein after the Gulf war was not satisfactory to the U.S, nor was it in conformity with the global economy. Notwithstanding, the United States pursued peaceful means to make Iraq comply with United Nations resolutions, including diplomacy, economic sanctions, political pressure, covert operations and finally, the last resort, military power.

The immediate United States objectives in Iraq are

* A democratic and secular regime to protect and defend individual freedoms and to guarantee the political rights of its nationalities mainly the Arabs, Kurds, Assyrians, and Turkomans. The United States is already extending help to the Iraqi people in this respect.
* A peace-loving Iraq clear of weapons of mass-destruction; nuclear, biological, and chemical.
* A viable economy that provides jobs and employment to Iraqi citizens.

U. S. strategic objectives in Iraq are

* The annexation of Iraq to the global economy so U.S. can invest heavily in this oil-rich country.
* Including it under Central Command arrangements and promoting it as a vital political bastion of democracy in the region.

http://www.aina.org/guesteds/20050627100130.htm

And we have this from Al-Qaeda:

Quote:

Al-Qaeda’s Strategy

Al-Qaeda leaders have proclaimed Iraq a major front in their global terrorist campaign. This was made clear in a July 9, 2005, letter from Osama bin Laden’s chief lieutenant, Ayman al-Zawahiri, to Abu Musab Zarqawi, who was then leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq. The letter was intercepted by coalition forces and subsequently published by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which expressed the “highest confidence” in its authenticity. In the letter, Zawahiri underscored the centrality of the war in Iraq for the global jihad:

I want to be the first to congratulate you for what God has blessed you with in terms of fighting battle in the heart of the Islamic world, which was formerly the field for major battles in Islam’s history, and what is now the place for the greatest battle of Islam in this era…

Zawahiri cautioned Zarqawi to avoid the mistake that the Taliban made in Afghanistan of alienating the Afghan people, who joined the opposition and cooperated with U.S. forces to overthrow the Taliban. He reminded Zarqawi that al-Qaeda needs some semblance of popular support to realize its plans for Iraq once American forces are driven out:

The first stage: Expel the Americans from Iraq.

The second stage: Establish an Islamic authority or amirate, then develop it and support it until it achieves the level of a caliphate- over as much territory as you can to spread its power in Iraq, i.e., in Sunni areas, is in order to fill the void stemming from the departure of the Americans, immediately upon their exit and before un-Islamic forces attempt to fill this void, whether those whom the Americans will leave behind them, or those among the un-Islamic forces who will try to jump at taking power.

There is no doubt that this amirate will enter into a fierce struggle with the foreign infidel forces, and those supporting them among the local forces, to put it in a state of constant preoccupation with defending itself, to make it impossible for it to establish a stable state which could proclaim a caliphate, and to keep the Jihadist groups in a constant state of war, until these forces find a chance to annihilate them.

The third stage: Extend the jihad wave to the secular countries neighboring Iraq.

The fourth stage: It may coincide with what came before: the clash with Israel, because Israel was established only to challenge any new Islamic entity.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Iraq/wm1210.cfm

I think we need to take a long-term view of this issue and recognize what needs to be done in order to have a more peaceful tomorrow. We either get the job done now or we do it later. Doing it now seems to be more efficient.

dc_dux · 07-24-2007, 04:31 AM

ace.....your post demonstrates how you have been duped by WH and Pentagon propaganda to justify the invasion and occupation of Iraq:

Quote:

The U.S. military is conducting a propaganda campaign to magnify the role of the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq, according to internal military documents and officers familiar with the program. The effort has raised his profile in a way that some military intelligence officials believe may have overstated his importance and helped the Bush administration tie the war to the organization responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
...
For the past two years, U.S. military leaders have been using Iraqi media and other outlets in Baghdad to publicize Zarqawi's role in the insurgency. The documents explicitly list the "U.S. Home Audience" as one of the targets of a broader propaganda campaign.

Some senior intelligence officers believe Zarqawi's role may have been overemphasized by the propaganda campaign, which has included leaflets, radio and television broadcasts, Internet postings and at least one leak to an American journalist. Although Zarqawi and other foreign insurgents in Iraq have conducted deadly bombing attacks, they remain "a very small part of the actual numbers," Col. Derek Harvey, who served as a military intelligence officer in Iraq and then was one of the top officers handling Iraq intelligence issues on the staff of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told an Army meeting at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., last summer.

In a transcript of the meeting, Harvey said, "Our own focus on Zarqawi has enlarged his caricature, if you will -- made him more important than he really is, in some ways."

"The long-term threat is not Zarqawi or religious extremists, but these former regime types and their friends," said Harvey, who did not return phone calls seeking comment on his remarks.
....

The Zarqawi campaign is discussed in several of the internal military documents. "Villainize Zarqawi/leverage xenophobia response," one U.S. military briefing from 2004 stated. It listed three methods: "Media operations," "Special Ops (626)" (a reference to Task Force 626, an elite U.S. military unit assigned primarily to hunt in Iraq for senior officials in Hussein's government) and "PSYOP," the U.S. military term for propaganda work.

One internal briefing, produced by the U.S. military headquarters in Iraq, said that Kimmitt had concluded that, "The Zarqawi PSYOP program is the most successful information campaign to date."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...0900890_2.html

The sad fact is that 4 years later, with so many of the facts having been outed, there are still some diehards who believe the crap coming out of the WH.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I think we need to take a long-term view of this issue and recognize what needs to be done in order to have a more peaceful tomorrow. We either get the job done now or we do it later. Doing it now seems to be more efficient.

We need to take an honest and comprehensive view of the issue; something this administration has demonstrated again and again that it is unwilling to do if it flies in the face of its failed policies and actions to date.

aceventura3 · 07-24-2007, 04:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

ace.....your post demonstrates how you have been duped by WH and Pentagon propaganda to justify the invasion and occupation of Iraq:

You say I have been duped when I have come to my own conclusions from many different sources. I also held the view that we should have removed Saddam from power during the first Gulf War and that our unwillingness to do the job then caused us to finish the job later. Just like today, if we fail to finish what we have started we will have to finish the job in the future. This conflict is not going away simply based on our military leaving Iraq. Even a Hilary Clinton realizes that we need a military presence in Iraq.

The conclusions I have come to have had almost nothing to do with the rhetoric from the Bush administration. I am the first to admit that the rhetoric from any leader needs to be questioned and looked at carefully prior to supporting a war. From my point of view those who simply relied on the words from Bush when they voted for the war were negligent in their duties. Unfortunately that includes many Democrats who admit that they failed in their responsibility, yet your focus is on me in saying I have been duped. I think that is a strange way to look at this.

dc_dux · 07-24-2007, 05:28 AM

ace...I focused on you because the articles you posted from aina and heritage perpetuate the propaganda.

After the first gulf war, Iraq was not a threat to the US or the region.

The small contingent of al Queda in Iraq today is not a serious threat to the US.

If there is a threat to the US, it comes from the al Queda in Afghanistan/Pakistan that we allowed to reinvigerate in order to pursue the folly in Iraq.

aceventura3 · 07-24-2007, 08:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

ace...I focused on you because the articles you posted from aina and heritage perpetuate the propaganda.

Then you waste your energy saying I have been duped, I suggest you focus on Dr. Jasim's editorial or focus on the merits of the Al Qaeda letter referenced by the Heritage Foundation. I know myself pretty well and get no satisfaction from discussing my merits and faults. Why do you persist in making direct comments about me while ignoring the data I post? I am betting you can't help it. I think the reason is because of your form of arrogance. An arrogance that suggests that anyone who doesn't see things the way that you do has to be a victim of something or someone. As evidenced in some of your other posts and the role you think government should play, your common theme is that the average person is going to be better off if some elitist Washington insider makes their decisions. Perhaps it is time for you to really reflect on this issue that you have.

By the way there is no charge for that valuable piece of psychoanalysis.

Quote:

After the first gulf war, Iraq was not a threat to the US or the region.

But that was not the only issue. Didn't you read my post, didn't you look at the map. If you wanted a military stronghold in the ME, where would you have it? Or if you wanted to extend our influence in the region where would you have taken the next step?

Quote:

The small contingent of al Queda in Iraq today is not a serious threat to the US.

Al Qaeda if left unchecked would be a threat to the region. Do you think the stated goals of Al Qaeda were made up by the Bush propaganda machine?

Quote:

If there is a threat to the US, it comes from the al Queda in Afghanistan/Pakistan that we allowed to reinvigerate in order to pursue the folly in Iraq.

That sounds like a talking point. I wonder who is really being duped? I wonder how the Democratic strategy for the region is going to differ from the current strategy once the new Democratic President gets into office? Make your prediction now, and we can check in on it in a few years.

Here is my prediction: Clinton or Obama will be our next President. Our military will be in Iraq through their first term even though they will be elected with the understanding that ending the war, bring our troops home will be their number one priority. Clinton or Obama will serve only one term.

dc_dux · 07-24-2007, 08:15 AM

ace....you are conveniently ignoring all post 9-11 history.

The world supported the US after we were attacked by al Queda. Even most moderate muslim governments in the ME (Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan....) supported our response to take out the Talliban and al Queda.

And we abandoned that mission and invaded a sovereign nation in the ME that posed no direct threat to the US and was effectively marginalized in the region after the first gulf war.

The result has been a level of anti-Americanism in the ME and around the world never seen before and a recruitment tool for Muslim extremists so that the terrorist threat is greater and al Queda in Afghanistan/Pakistan is stronger than before.

The policy you support has failed at every level.

If we want influence in the region, we need friends in the region and the Bush policy (and your policy) has alienated every moderate leader in the ME.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

....I wonder how the Democratic strategy for the region is going to differ from the current strategy once the new Democratic President gets into office? Make your prediction now, and we can check in on it in a few years.

A Democratic strategy for the region will differ significantly from the failed Bush policy and is likely to include:

* a serious and ongoing high level commitment to the Israeli-Palestinian issue....Bush has done virtually nothing for six years.

* a policy that respects our treaty obligations and how we treat detainees only "suspected" of some questionable "terrorist" activity....rather than the Bush torture policy.

* serious diplomatic pressure on Saudi Arabia to remove islamic extremists from their government and extemists teachings in their schools and to provide greater cooperation in tracking down saudi terrorist....Democrats dont have family ties to the House of Saud.

* diplomatic and economic pressure on Egypt to move towards real democratic elections....Bush has only given it lip service.

* and talking with our enemies in the region to help create a stable Iraq.

aceventura3 · 07-24-2007, 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

ace....you are conveniently ignoring all post 9-11 history.

How about this: I make no connection between our invasion of Iraq and 9-11. Do you?

UN resolution 678 authorized doing whatever was needed to enforce subsequent resolutions involving the ME. Saddam was in violation of several of them. Bush was an opportunist. And let's not pretend that Congress was unaware of what Bush was doing. No one can really believe they were that stupid or perhaps they do. But some how they lead you to believe they were duped by Bush but are still worthy of your support. To that I say - they are truly skilled in the art of twisting truth.

Willravel · 07-24-2007, 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

How about this: I make no connection between our invasion of Iraq and 9-11. Do you?

UN resolution 678 authorized doing whatever was needed to enforce subsequent resolutions involving the ME. Saddam was in violation of several of them.

... so we went before the UN and made our case for invasion, riddled with blatant inaccuracies, rumor, and hearsay, and were overruled by the only body legally allowed to give permission to enforce their own resolutions. Go on...

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Bush was an opportunist. And let's not pretend that Congress was unaware of what Bush was doing. No one can really believe they were that stupid or perhaps they do. But some how they lead you to believe they were duped by Bush but are still worthy of your support. To that I say - they are truly skilled in the art of twisting truth.

This is about the impeachment of Bush, not the inability and/or corruption of Congress. Two wrongs don't make a right. They're both wrong, and both deserve to get crapped on.

dc_dux · 07-24-2007, 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

How about this: I make no connection between our invasion of Iraq and 9-11. Do you?

UN resolution 678 authorized doing whatever was needed to enforce subsequent resolutions involving the ME. Saddam was in violation of several of them. Bush was an opportunist. And let's not pretend that Congress was unaware of what Bush was doing. No one can really believe they were that stupid or perhaps they do. But some how they lead you to believe they were duped by Bush but are still worthy of your support. To that I say - they are truly skilled in the art of twisting truth.

ace...what the fuck?

Your typical response with an irrelevant question and a convenient way to ignore my last post that explained how the policy you supported has failed at every level.....the ME is less stable than any time in recent years....the terrorist threat is greater...and our reputation as a nation is at its lowest.

ratbastid · 07-24-2007, 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Do you think the stated goals of Al Qaeda were made up by the Bush propaganda machine?

Indeed, "Al Qaeda In Iraq" is made up by the Bush propaganda machine. They don't call themselves that. They have only tenuous links with anyone who was ever associated with Al Qaeda proper. There's NO Al Qaeda in Iraq, and there never has been. Saddam Hussein was vigilant about keeping them OUT, in fact.

aceventura3 · 07-24-2007, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

... so we went before the UN and made our case for invasion, riddled with blatant inaccuracies, rumor, and hearsay, and were overruled by the only body legally allowed to give permission to enforce their own resolutions. Go on...

This is about the impeachment of Bush, not the inability and/or corruption of Congress. Two wrongs don't make a right. They're both wrong, and both deserve to get crapped on.

Remember operation Desert Fox in December of 1998. Were you calling for the impeachment of Clinton?

Quote:

On Wednesday when U.S. and British forces launched strikes against Iraq, I stated that we were pursuing clear military goals. And as President Clinton has announced, we've achieved those goals. We've degraded Saddam Hussein's ability to deliver chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. We've diminished his ability to wage war against his neighbors. Our forces attacked about 100 targets over four nights, following a plan that was developed and had been developed and refined over the past year. We concentrated on military targets and we worked very hard to keep civilian casualties as low as possible. Our goal was to weaken Iraq's military power, not to hurt Iraq's people.

Since Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990, the United States and other countries have enforced the U.N. Security Council resolutions to contain Iraq from attacking its neighbors and from using weapons of mass destruction. That containment policy continues. We will maintain a strong, ready force in the Gulf to respond to any contingency. We will ensure that economic sanctions on Iraq stay in effect until Iraq complies with the Security Council resolutions and mandates. Saddam Hussein chose confrontation over cooperation. There's no pleasure to be had when a brutal dictator chooses to pit his people against the entire international community. Our quarrel is not with the Iraqi people. The United States has led in supporting the oil for food program which ensures that the money from the sale of Iraq's oil goes for food and other humanitarian needs and not for weapons or palaces.

We've taken great care to minimize casualties among innocent civilians in our strikes. I find no joy in watching a people in a land so long and rich in history endure deprivation from sanctions or suffering from attacks. To the extent that there are civilian casualties, only Saddam and his brutally destructive regime are to blame.

http://www.defenselink.mil/transcrip...nscriptid=1791

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

ace...what the fuck?

Your typical response with an irrelevant question and a convenient way to ignore my last post that explained how the policy you supported has failed at every level.....the ME is less stable than any time in recent years....the terrorist threat is greater...and our reputation as a nation is at its lowest.

I responded to the first item in your post. I can certainly respond to the others, I just seek resolution on items one at a time. Do you think 9-11 had anything to do with our invasion of Iraq? I don't, and I assumed you did not either. Your statement was a surprise to me. I was shocked by the implication that 9-11 was connected to the overthrow of Saddam.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

Indeed, "Al Qaeda In Iraq" is made up by the Bush propaganda machine. They don't call themselves that. They have only tenuous links with anyone who was ever associated with Al Qaeda proper. There's NO Al Qaeda in Iraq, and there never has been. Saddam Hussein was vigilant about keeping them OUT, in fact.

I agree that Saddam had no use for Al Qaeda in Iraq. However, after Saddam and his government was overthrown Al Qaeda has been making unsuccessful attempts at controlling the country. I also agree that Al Qaeda is a term that does not always accurately describe some of the people who share the Al Qaeda agenda.

Willravel · 07-24-2007, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Remember operation Desert Fox in December of 1998. Were you calling for the impeachment of Clinton?

Of course I was. Clinton had no legal right to unilaterally enforce a UN resolution. Even if you disregard the timing of the campaign, it was absolutely wrong. A lot of innocent people died. No where near as many as have died in the 2003-present Iraq war, of course.

You keep looking for double standards, as if that would excuse Bush. Even if I were hypocritical and supported Clinton in Desert Fox, would that make Bush right? Absolutely not. Absolutely not. Absolutely not.

aceventura3 · 07-24-2007, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

The policy you support has failed at every level.

Just read IBD's editorial, timely:

Quote:

War On Terror: Not listening to Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi, Iraqi Sunni and Shiite tribal leaders have formalized an alliance with U.S. forces and against al-Qaida. The Arab street is rising up, and they're on our side.

The cut-and-run Democrats have long argued that our presence in Iraq has merely stirred things up and given al-Qaida an effective recruiting tool. Well, we've certainly stirred things up — and thanks to the success of our surgin' general, David Petraeus, we have a bevy of new Iraqi recruits. Except they've got al-Qaida in their cross hairs.

On Saturday, members of the 1st Cavalry Division based near Taji brokered a formal agreement between Sunni and Shiite tribal leaders to join forces against al-Qaida and other jihadists. The Sunni and Shiite agreed to use members of more than 25 local tribes to protect the area around Taji, just 12 miles north of Baghdad.

The deal is just the latest example of the progress Democrats claim isn't happening in Iraq — a series of deals with various tribes and militia groups that at one point were part of the insurgency. But it's the first involving both Sunni and Shiite sheiks together.

After the agreement, soldiers from the 1st Cav's 7th Regiment could be seen walking calmly through the streets of nearby Falahal. "A month ago, every single one of these people were shooting at us," Sgt. Richard Fisk told the Washington Times as he pointed out places in Falahal were roadside bombs were once planted.

"Anbar was the worst place in Iraq through most of 2006," Jack Keane, a retired four-star general, told IBD recently. Al-Qaida terrorists under the leadership of Abu Ayyub al-Masri ruled with an iron fist. Now violence is down in Ramadi and the rest of the province, and al-Qaida is not welcome.

As recently as Jan. 30, CNN's Michael Ware, in an interview with Anderson Cooper, proclaimed that Ramadi, Anbar's capital, was "the true al-Qaida national headquarters." That was then, and this is now. Marine Maj. Jeff Pool reports that enemy incidents in Ramadi have declined from about 22 per week in April to about two per week now.

http://www.investors.com/editorial/e...70082876172616

O.k., let's try to focus. We already know the editorial staff at IBD are far right-wingers who support Bush and the war. They may even be "lackies" for Bush's propaganda machine, but they point to something that may be a positive development. So let's focus on what they comment on and not who or what they are.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Of course I was. Clinton had no legal right to unilaterally enforce a UN resolution. Even if you disregard the timing of the campaign, it was absolutely wrong. A lot of innocent people died. No where near as many as have died in the 2003-present Iraq war, of course.

You keep looking for double standards, as if that would excuse Bush. Even if I were hypocritical and supported Clinton in Desert Fox, would that make Bush right? Absolutely not. Absolutely not. Absolutely not.

I respect your consistency. We disagree on the underlying issue. Your consistency is rare, many simply make their arguments on the basis of their dislike of Bush.

I think there is and was a UN resolution authorizing us to take military action against Iraq. I supported military action after Iraq invaded Kuwait, Desert Fox and our latest invasion of Iraq. I also believe there has been a consistent concern about Saddam and Iraq's potential aggression using WMD and potentially developing nuclear weapons.

pan6467 · 07-24-2007, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I think there is and was a UN resolution authorizing us to take military action against Iraq. I supported military action after Iraq invaded Kuwait, Desert Fox and our latest invasion of Iraq. I also believe there has been a consistent concern about Saddam and Iraq's potential aggression using WMD and potentially developing nuclear weapons.

Ok, so with that logic, (there has been a consistent concern about Saddam and Iraq's potential aggression using WMD and potentially developing nuclear weapons) why have we not invaded Iran or North Korea yet then?

Saddam was locked tight and couldn't sneeze without us having him in our sights for noise pollution.

Iran has been and will be far more dangerous and yet we do nothing.

North Korea has threatened and has been saying they will develop missiles.

Saudi Arabia has closer ties to Al Quida than Iraq ever had.... and what have we done to them? Nothing but let oil prices skyrocket so that the King and his family can make more $$$.

Again, if this there has been a consistent concern about Saddam and Iraq's potential aggression using WMD and potentially developing nuclear weapons is your support and defense for the war, then where are your cries for us to invade Iran, Saudi Arabia and North Korea???????

Willravel · 07-24-2007, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I respect your consistency. We disagree on the underlying issue. Your consistency is rare, many simply make their arguments on the basis of their dislike of Bush.

I've only been a liberal for maybe 9-10 years. Before that, I was a big confusing mess of the opinions of people around me. Part of my introduction into politics was about being honest with myself. The honest truth us that on many fronts, Clinton was an excellent leader and president. He wasn't perfect, though. Allowing homosexuals in the military was a huge civil rights victory, but NAFTA was a huge mess. In dealing with Iraq, Clinton had inherited a military stance from Bush1, and instead of taking a more progressive, peace-oriented stance, Clinton decided that it would make him appear weak and, while in the midst of the Lewinsky circus, made a very difficult and incorrect decision.

When I say I dislike Bush, it's not on generalities. I'm a pretty easy going fellow, and I like to give people the benefit of the doubt. Bush had exhausted that before 9/11. He took endless vacations immediately preceding one of the greatest attacks on US soil. That was enough for me to go from "I didn't vote for him, but I'll support him" to "he's lost my trust". It was from there that virtually ever decision he has made has been wrong and has come with dire consequences not just for the government, not even just for the US, but for the whole world. "Dislike" isn't really the right way to put it. It's more like I think he's the wrong man for the job, and someone else should be in his office right now cleaning up his numerous messes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I think there is and was a UN resolution authorizing us to take military action against Iraq. I supported military action after Iraq invaded Kuwait, Desert Fox and our latest invasion of Iraq. I also believe there has been a consistent concern about Saddam and Iraq's potential aggression using WMD and potentially developing nuclear weapons.

There was one, and we took action, but each action requires UN permission. Had the US had it's own treaties and agreements with Iraq, we would have had the legal right to move on them unilaterally (depending on the treaties and/or agreements, of course). This was a UN resolution, and as such the UN was the organization to decide on any actions taken in response to their own resolutions. The US appeared before the security council, but was voted down.

If we had a concern about Saddam, then we needed to make a better case with real, hard evidence. Since that evidence didn't exist, there was no case to be made. Saddam, in reality, was no longer a threat to anyone. If you want proof of that, Saddam had changed all of the oil in Iraq to Euros. His plan, had the US not invaded, was to become a serious part of the European economy. Eventually that was about accumulation of more wealth, but that's several steps away from being a danger to anyone. The nice thing is that it's clear now that not only did Saddam not have the means to acquire or create any type of nuclear weapon, he didn't even try. Saddam had no WMDs, including nukes, and was not seeking to acquire them. Those were lies and factual errors.

aceventura3 · 07-24-2007, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

Ok, so with that logic, (there has been a consistent concern about Saddam and Iraq's potential aggression using WMD and potentially developing nuclear weapons) why have we not invaded Iran or North Korea yet then?

Saddam was locked tight and couldn't sneeze without us having him in our sights for noise pollution.

Iran has been and will be far more dangerous and yet we do nothing.

North Korea has threatened and has been saying they will develop missiles.

Saudi Arabia has closer ties to Al Quida than Iraq ever had.... and what have we done to them? Nothing but let oil prices skyrocket so that the King and his family can make more $$$.

Again, if this there has been a consistent concern about Saddam and Iraq's potential aggression using WMD and potentially developing nuclear weapons is your support and defense for the war, then where are your cries for us to invade Iran, Saudi Arabia and North Korea???????

I think we gave Iraq many opportunities and almost 10 years before we used military force to over through Saddam and his government. I also think North Korea, Iran and potentially a few other nations are carefully watching how we handle Iraq. If we fail, they will see that as weakness and take advantage of it. I think North Korea is on the verge of giving in to international demands in part because of they have concerns about the crazy cowboy in the White House. If we leave Iraq in chaos, Iran will attempt to stabilize the region in their own way to their own advantage. I don't want that, and I think many in the ME are concerned about that also.

All the above is just my take on the situation. I admit that I may be 100% wrong.

pan6467 · 07-24-2007, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I think we gave Iraq many opportunities and almost 10 years before we used military force to over through Saddam and his government. I also think North Korea, Iran and potentially a few other nations are carefully watching how we handle Iraq. If we fail, they will see that as weakness and take advantage of it. I think North Korea is on the verge of giving in to international demands in part because of they have concerns about the crazy cowboy in the White House. If we leave Iraq in chaos, Iran will attempt to stabilize the region in their own way to their own advantage. I don't want that, and I think many in the ME are concerned about that also.

All the above is just my take on the situation. I admit that I may be 100% wrong.

I respect what you say, but I firmly believe Saddam was of no concern and the #1 country we needed to invade if that was what we needed to do was in fact Iran. And I firmly believe we will regret that we did NOTHING to Iran.

On a side note, I predict, Afghanistan, will be more of a downfall for us than Iraq in the long run.

Willravel · 07-24-2007, 12:30 PM

Who says we needed to invade anyone? Iran is developing nuclear power, let em. They want to export their nuclear power to the rest of the ME and sell their oil to the East and West, strengthening their economy by leaps and bounds. They are, as far as I know, the only actual theocracy in the world. That seems to be their only real sin.

dc_dux · 07-24-2007, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

How about this: I make no connection between our invasion of Iraq and 9-11. Do you?

ace...if you have read anything I posted about the subject in the last year, you know that I said repeatedly that there was no connection between our invasion of Iraq (at least you properly called it an "invasion" ) and al Queda. It was a bullshit question you posed simply to avoid the more important issue of overall policy in the region

And yet, as late as today, Bush still makes a connection between our invasion/occupation of Iraq and 9/11 attack by al Queda:

Quote:

There's a debate in Washington about Iraq, and nothing wrong with a healthy debate. There's also a debate about al Qaeda's role in Iraq. Some say that Iraq is not part of the broader war on terror. They complain when I say that the al Qaeda terrorists we face in Iraq are part of the same enemy that attacked us on September the 11th, 2001. They claim that the organization called al Qaeda in Iraq is an Iraqi phenomenon, that it's independent of Osama bin Laden and that it's not interested in attacking America.

(what follows in the rest of the article is the standard propaganda)
http://www.iraqslogger.com/index.php...eda_Connection

DoD officials have said on numerous occasions that the so-called al Queda in Iraq possess little capacity to act outside the region and pose little real danger to the US homeland.

As to your IBD article, if you follow the actions of tribal leaders in Iraq, they have demonstrated on numerous occasions that they will make short term deals with anyone to save their positions...and then run to the other side when conditions change.

And the article propagates the fallacy that al Queda is the greatest threat to the stability of Iraq and the region when, again, numerous DoD and intel officials have said repeatedly that while al Queda in Iraq may still cause harm to US forces..the real danger is the sectarian divide and de facto civil war that unleashed religious extremists like al Sadr on the Shiia side and insurgent leaders on the Sunni side...as a result of our invasion.

Quote:

U.S. intelligence analysts, however, have a somewhat different view of al-Qaeda's presence in Iraq, noting that the local branch takes its inspiration but not its orders from bin Laden. Its enemies -- the overwhelming majority of whom are Iraqis -- reside in Baghdad and Shiite-majority areas of Iraq, not in Saudi Arabia or the United States. While intelligence officials have described the Sunni insurgent group calling itself al-Qaeda in Iraq as an "accelerant" for violence, they have cited domestic sectarian divisions as the main impediment to peace.

In a report released yesterday, Anthony H. Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies warned that al-Qaeda is "only one part" of a spectrum of Sunni extremist groups and is far from the largest or most active. Military officials have said in background briefings that al-Qaeda is responsible for about 15 percent of the attacks, Cordesman said, although the group is "highly effective" and probably does "the most damage in pushing Iraq towards civil war." But its activities "must be kept in careful perspective, and it does not dominate the Sunni insurgency," he said.

The article also described recent war games if/when we remove our troops...its not pretty, but neither is the current scenario...and the result is not a haven for al Queda:

What is perhaps most striking about the military's simulations is that its post-drawdown scenarios focus on civil war and regional intervention and upheaval rather than the establishment of an al-Qaeda sanctuary in Iraq.

For Bush, however, that is the primary risk of withdrawal. "It would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al-Qaeda," he said in a news conference last week. "It would mean that we'd be risking mass killings on a horrific scale. It would mean we'd allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they lost in Afghanistan."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...071601680.html

Bush just wont let go of the bullshit argument about al Queda in Iraq and the need to fight them there, so we dont have to fight them here.

And you still havent addressed how, as a result of the Bush (your) ME policy, the ME is less stable now....the terrorist threat is greater...and our reputation as a nation is at its lowest.

aceventura3 · 07-24-2007, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

ace...if you have read anything I posted about the subject in the last year, you know that I said repeatedly that there was no connection between our invasion of Iraq (at least you properly called it an "invasion" ) and al Queda. It was a bullshit question you posed simply to avoid the more important issue of overall policy in the region

I was writing about why I felt we used our military against Saddam and his government. You said I was ignoring post 9-11 information. My support to use military force to remove Saddam and his government from power predated 9-11. You brought up 9-11, let's at least agree on that.

Quote:

And yet, as late as today, Bush still makes a connection between our invasion/occupation of Iraq and 9/11 attack by al Queda:

DoD officials have said on numerous occasions that the so-called al Queda in Iraq possess little capacity to act outside the region and pose little real danger to the US homeland.

I believe there is a broad war on terror. A war being fought on multiple fronts. The primary location is currently Iraq.

I agree Al Qaeda is not a major threat. I think we disagree on the reasons why. I understand the circular nature of the argument, but I think our military efforts in Iraq have helped to control Al Qaeda. I know some would argue that our presence in Iraq hurt our efforts elsewhere and that our presence in Iraq has encourage more Al Qaeda like groups, but I think this is a real war, the war of our generation. I think our enemy clearly understands that, and I think they have clearly defined goals and objectives that include control of the ME to start. I don't think we should allow that to happen, and I don't think we can negotiate a peaceful resolution.

I think history will record this war in decades (perhaps starting in the 80's), not years. If true the minor ebbs and flows over the course of months won't matter much in the big picture.

Quote:

As to your IBD article, if you follow the actions of tribal leaders in Iraq, they have demonstrated on numerous occasions that they will make short term deals with anyone to save their positions...and then run to the other side when conditions change.

And the article propagates the fallacy that al Queda is the greatest threat to the stability of Iraq and the region when, again, numerous DoD and intel officials have said repeatedly that while al Queda in Iraq may still cause harm to US forces..the real danger is the sectarian divide and de facto civil war that unleashed religious extremists like al Sadr on the Shiia side and insurgent leaders on the Sunni side...as a result of our invasion.

IBD quoted the opinion of a general and a reporter. If those individuals have no credibility to you, then I understand your point.

Quote:

"Anbar was the worst place in Iraq through most of 2006," Jack Keane, a retired four-star general, told IBD recently. Al-Qaida terrorists under the leadership of Abu Ayyub al-Masri ruled with an iron fist. Now violence is down in Ramadi and the rest of the province, and al-Qaida is not welcome.

As recently as Jan. 30, CNN's Michael Ware, in an interview with Anderson Cooper, proclaimed that Ramadi, Anbar's capital, was "the true al-Qaida national headquarters." That was then, and this is now. Marine Maj. Jeff Pool reports that enemy incidents in Ramadi have declined from about 22 per week in April to about two per week now.

Willravel · 07-24-2007, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I believe there is a broad war on terror. A war being fought on multiple fronts. The primary location is currently Iraq.

Let's break this down:
Who is terror? Can you elaborate on what you consider to be the enemy, the goals of the enemy, and how we are to war against them and win? Who is "the enemy"?
The primary location is in Iraq? There were no terrorists in Iraq before 2003. There are almost none there now. The Iraqi insurgency is a rebellion and has virtually no connection to any so called terrorist organizations.

I think you missed something I posted, ace:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel, the magnificent

There was one, and we took action, but each action requires UN permission. Had the US had it's own treaties and agreements with Iraq, we would have had the legal right to move on them unilaterally (depending on the treaties and/or agreements, of course). This was a UN resolution, and as such the UN was the organization to decide on any actions taken in response to their own resolutions. The US appeared before the security council, but was voted down.

Read Articles 41 and 42 of the UN Charter. In order for a member state to take action, two votes by the security council are required: the first is a vote to explore all non-military possibilities, the second is needed to allow military action. The second vote was never reached. You see, the other nations on the Security Council were satisfied with the results of the UN inspections, and with the benefit of hindsight we all have no choice but to recognize that they were right. It is in this way that the invasion of Iraq was illegal.

ratbastid · 07-25-2007, 04:35 AM

I don't have anything to add specifically to the discussion at this point, but I want to point out that this is the first thread in a long time I can really see people grappling with issues and bringing their opinion to the table as opinion, and it's great to see. Such a breath of fresh air after all the talking-point shouting matches we've had around here. I particularly acknowledge and thank aceventura3 for the integrity and honesty he's bringing to this conversation.

host · 08-05-2007, 03:40 PM

This poor bastard..... (an ex-DOJ attorney) was "one of their own"..... and when they get far enough down the pecking order that they decide that it is time to shut some of us....here...up, do you think the "pay back" they give us, for some of our posted, "queer ideas", will be as gentle as what is described, below?

From '71 until '77, I was in the "waiting for a knock on the door", mode. I have that experience....and I'm getting accustomed to thinking that way again. Consider the possible consequences, to you, your family, your wallet, and your reputation, before you post what's on your mind.... Everything here ends up on the cache of "the google". I search it all the time....I'm sure that I have company....searching....searching....

Quote:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20121795/site/newsweek/

Aug. 13, 2007 issue - The controversy over President Bush's warrantless surveillance program took another surprise turn last week when a team of FBI agents, armed with a classified search warrant, raided the suburban Washington home of a former Justice Department lawyer. The lawyer, Thomas M. Tamm, previously worked in Justice's Office of Intelligence Policy and Review (OIPR)—the supersecret unit that oversees surveillance of terrorist and espionage targets. The agents seized Tamm's desktop computer, two of his children's laptops and a cache of personal files. Tamm and his lawyer, Paul Kemp, declined any comment. So did the FBI. But two legal sources who asked not to be identified talking about an ongoing case told NEWSWEEK the raid was related to a Justice criminal probe into who leaked details of the warrantless eavesdropping program to the news media. The raid appears to be the first significant development in the probe <h3>since The New York Times reported in December 2005 that Bush had authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on the international phone calls and e-mails of U.S. residents without court warrants.</h3> (At the time, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said of the leak: "This is really hurting national security; this has really hurt our country.")

A veteran federal prosecutor who left DOJ last year, Tamm worked at OIPR during a critical period in 2004 when senior Justice officials first strongly objected to the surveillance program. Those protests led to a crisis that March when, according to recent Senate testimony, then A.G. John Ashcroft, FBI Director Robert Mueller and others threatened to resign, prompting Bush to scale the program back. Tamm, said one of the legal sources, had shared concerns about he program's legality, but it was unclear whether he actively participated in the internal DOJ protest.

The FBI raid on Tamm's home comes when Gonzales himself is facing criticism for allegedly misleading Congress by denying there had been "serious disagreement" within Justice about the surveillance program. The A.G. last week apologized for "creating confusion," but Senate Judiciary Committee chair Sen. Patrick Leahy said he is weighing asking Justice's inspector general to review Gonzales's testimony.

The raid also came while the White House and Congress were battling over expanding NSA wiretapping authority in order to plug purported "surveillance gaps." James X. Dempsey of the Center for Democracy and Technology said the raid was "amazing" and shows the administration's misplaced priorities: using FBI agents to track down leakers instead of processing intel warrants to close the gaps. A Justice spokesman declined to comment.

-Michael Isikoff

aceventura3 · 08-06-2007, 06:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

This poor bastard..... (an ex-DOJ attorney) was "one of their own".....

I doubt that "this poor bastard" understands the possible impact his leak had on our nation's ability to gather intelligence on terrorists.

Then we have those who "get it" like some people in Congress, but then lead people to believe they are victims of the wily ways of the Bush administration:

Quote:

The White House bill not only fails to prohibit domestic surveillance, but opens a huge hole for just that purpose. It exempts from FISA scrutiny any communication that is "directed at" persons reasonably believed to be outside the U.S., and then leaves this phrase undefined and therefore wide open:

Quote:

For surveillance to come within this exemption, there is no requirement that it be conducted outside the U.S.; no requirement that the person at whom it is "directed" be an agent of a foreign power or in any way connected to terrorism or other wrongdoing; and no requirement that the surveillance does not also encompass communications of U.S. persons. Indeed, if read literally, it would exclude from FISA any surveillance that is in some sense "directed" both at persons overseas and at persons in the U.S.

If this is right, it means that Democrats caved in on a simple provision meant to prohibit domestic surveillance without a warrant. Under the White House bill, the only oversight against abuse of the "directed at" clause is the Attorney General's say-so, and the FISA court is required to accept the AG's reasoning unless it's "clearly erroneous." This is about as toothless as oversight comes.

Democrats pretty clearly got steamrolled on this. Until Thursday they were negotiating productively with Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell and had reached agreement on the bill's language. Nobody was making a big deal out of it because things seemed to be going smoothly. Then, at the last second, the White House rejected the language its own DNI had accepted and suddenly all hell broke loose. Democrats weren't ready for it, and with Congress about to adjourn and no backup strategy in place, they broke ranks and caved in. The only concession they got was a six-month sunset in the bill.

Was this the White House's strategy all along? To lull Dems into a stupor and then hit them over the head at the last minute with brand new demands? Hard to say, but it sure looks deliberate. Demorats are going to have to learn to play in the big leagues if they want to keep up.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...n3135604.shtml

Is Bush going to get what he wants? Why would the Democrats give in on this issue?

View Poll Results: Did Bush admit to committing an impeachable offense, as John Dean described?
No	5	22.73%
Yes	17	77.27%
Voters: 22. You may not vote on this poll

07-11-2007, 08:10 AM	#83 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	i should have been clear about this i guess: the response was not directed at you, tec. it was directed against the position you (accurately) summarized. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

07-11-2007, 12:22 PM	#89 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	I stated directly the Bush used hyperbole and has made exaggerated statements. I also stated directly that he cherry picked intelligence information. It is convenient that you forget those clear and direct statements, isn't it? I just don't consider what he said lies. And I further said that I did not rely on his public statements as the basis for my support of the war. __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

07-23-2007, 10:30 AM	#91 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	Pretty interesting comparison. http://www.townhall.com/funnies/cart...MichaelRamirez __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

07-23-2007, 12:23 PM	#94 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	I understand all the objections to our occupation of Iraq, I also understand the objections regarding our preemptive strike against Iraq, because I can appreciate thoughtful people disagreeing on military strategy and military priorities . The only thing about this that I don't understand is how anyone believes if we rolled up our military and brought them home that our enemies would end their war against us. It gives me comfort, that at least a few others and I are in agreement. __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

07-11-2007, 08:06 AM	#82 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	While it may indeed seem I was expressing the obvious, taken in the context of my explanation I think it was acceptable, and fitting to do so.

07-11-2007, 11:18 AM	#88 (permalink)
host Banned	Yeah, you did ask that, ace....in post #29....quite a bit after you had attempted to counter the supported points in my post that "Bush does not say what he means and means what he sez"....and, just as you had in post #20, instead of admitting that the evidence....Bush quotes from the white house web site between 2001 and 2006, on the narrow subject of the need to "modernize" 1978 laws to "keep with the terrorists" use of communications technology, showed that Bush said in 2001 that the 1978 law had been modernized to his satisfaction. Instead of admitting that Bush and Gonzales, in 2004, 2005, and in 2006, were on record, saying the opposite of Bush's October 2001...twice repeated and twice documented assertions that the surveillance laws had been modernized to his satisfaction, you chose to post a 1940 Churchill quote about the threat Britain confronted on Churchill's first day as Prime Minister. That's what you do, ace....that's how you attempt to deflect damning specifics to your arguments, instead of meeting them head on. I was the other party in our exchange. You chose not to engage me. You made no attempt to deal with the impact of proff that Bush and Gonzales used the same excuses to justify breaking the law, four years after Bush ahs used the same excuses to change the law that they went on to break....beginning just months after Bush claimed the law had been modernized to a point where Bush could legally conduct surveillance activities within it's restrictions. The points discussed are not a game, ace. Why should the tactics of the discussion be reduce to a game? You get what you give here, ace. I'mm too skeptical of IBD editorials to learn much from them, but that is about all you've offered here, that is germane to discussions that you've engaged in. You get what you give, ace. The potenital was there, in my example discussion, for you to post information to show me that I'd overlooked something, that...indeed....other instances had emerged where terrorists had used new technology to thwart provisions of the FISA laws that were not modernized in the 2001 revisions.....you chose instead to quote a 67 year old Churchill speech and then ask if other leaders hadn't embellished their rhetoric in the past..... Do you think that you planted doubt in my mind as to whether or not Bush and Gonzales had made deliberately deceptive comments to justify breaking the law against unwarranted domestic surveillance?

07-24-2007, 05:28 AM	#99 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	ace...I focused on you because the articles you posted from aina and heritage perpetuate the propaganda. After the first gulf war, Iraq was not a threat to the US or the region. The small contingent of al Queda in Iraq today is not a serious threat to the US. If there is a threat to the US, it comes from the al Queda in Afghanistan/Pakistan that we allowed to reinvigerate in order to pursue the folly in Iraq. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

07-24-2007, 12:30 PM	#113 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Who says we needed to invade anyone? Iran is developing nuclear power, let em. They want to export their nuclear power to the rest of the ME and sell their oil to the East and West, strengthening their economy by leaps and bounds. They are, as far as I know, the only actual theocracy in the world. That seems to be their only real sin.

07-25-2007, 04:35 AM	#117 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	I don't have anything to add specifically to the discussion at this point, but I want to point out that this is the first thread in a long time I can really see people grappling with issues and bringing their opinion to the table as opinion, and it's great to see. Such a breath of fresh air after all the talking-point shouting matches we've had around here. I particularly acknowledge and thank aceventura3 for the integrity and honesty he's bringing to this conversation.