Does Bush really say what he means and do what he says - part II

[dc_dux]

Today, in a commencement speech at the Coast Guard Academy, Bush revealed classified intelligence about a 2005 order from Osama bin Laden instructing aides “to form a terrorist cell that would conduct attacks outside Iraq — and that the United States should be the top target.”

It makes me wonder how it fits with what he has said in the past:

"We can't have leaks of classified information. We're now in extraordinary times . . . and yet I see in the media that somebody feels that they should be able to talk about classified information. And that's just wrong."

"My administration will not talk about how we gather intelligence, if we gather intelligence, and what the intelligence says."

"... classified information must be held dear, that there's a responsibility, that if you receive a briefing of classified information, you have a responsibility.

I guess its only ok when it suits a political purpose....an attempt to further justify and defend a failed policy in Iraq.

Wouldnt a moral, truthful leader also declassify the intel that determined that the rise of al Queda in Iraq was a result of our invasion or the assessment that al Queda in Iraq only represents a very small percentage of the violence in Iraq and has little capability to expand it to the US?

[powerclown]

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Wouldnt a moral, truthful leader also declassify the intel that determined that the rise of al Queda in Iraq was a result of our invasion or the assessment that al Queda in Iraq only represents a very small percentage of the violence in Iraq and has little capability to expand it to the US?

I have to disagree with your assessment of al-Qaeda's capabilities outside of Iraq. They have clearly demonstrated the intent of attacking western interests worldwide, while the single most dangerous scenario facing the world today remains WMD in the hands of terrorists. I frankly don't think its much of a surprise to anyone that the Iraqi War has captured the attention of al-Qaeda, opportunistic vultures that they are. We also see them actively operating today in Lebanon, where they are seeking to overthrow that government in favor of an islamic republic in the Iran model.

As far as what Bush's motivations are, you can criticize the man for many things, but inconsistency isn't one of them.

[dc_dux]

Powerclown...i agree with your assessment of al Queda's capabilities in general...we lost our focus on al Queda and bin Laden when Bush abandoned Afghanistan before the job was done in order to purse the Iraq folly.

But I am talking about what Bush calls "al Queda in Iraq" which from the limited declassified summaries of intel that I have seen is a relatively small rag tag bunch with loose ties to bin Laden and with little capabilites beyond car bombings and IEDs in Iraq. BUt Bush hasnt declassified these NIEs or intel reports...they dont serve his political purpose.

And you dont the inconsistencies in his earlier statements about the need to keep intel classified and his actions this week?

[Willravel]

What I'm trying to figure out is where the line is drawn between masively stupid and too retarded to be put in jail. When my dog tries to eat on of the wastepaper basket, I get made but I realize that punishing him would be meaningless because he's not smart enough to realize what he's done wrong or the how what he does effects himself or others around him. I know that if he eats something dangerous, it can hurt or kill him.

Here's the thing, the puppy in question is president. Of course things are going to go downhill fast, as we saw in the 60% of the time vacation time in 2000, demoting top terrorism experts, not doing shit to stop 9/11, not using 9/11 to rally the world against the threat of governmentally independent militant extremist organizations, screwing the pooch in Afghanistan, lying to get into Iraq, wiretapping, etc. Obviously he should be removed from office immediately, but I'm trying to figure out if he belongs in prison or with special care people for mentally handicapped people. It's a fine line, and often special needs people are sent to prison, despite having a clear disability.

[ratbastid]

Originally Posted by dc_dux

But I am talking about what Bush calls "al Queda in Iraq" which from the limited declassified summaries of intel that I have seen is a relatively small rag tag bunch with loose ties to bin Laden and with little capabilites beyond car bombings and IEDs in Iraq.

For that matter, he doesn't own up to the fact that he named them that. What that group calls itself doesn't have anything to do with al Qaeda. That's a name made up by the administration and broadcast by the right-wing media.

[kutulu]

Wow, AQ wants to attack America. That sure is news.

[powerclown]

Originally Posted by willravel

"governmentally independent militant extremist organizations"

Oh jeez, you didn't just say that did you?
Quite the euphemism there...

[Rekna]

Well Bush has continually said he supports our troops but recently he opposed giving the troops an extra .5% raise. The dems wanted to give the troops 3.5% and Bush said no 3% is enough. So who is really supporting the troops?

[Willravel]

'Terrorist organization' means any organization that has the intent to terrorize. Governmentally independent militant extremist organizations are a more descriptive, if longer name. If you really want to get at it, you can call them governmentally independent militant extremist Muslim organizations that intend to evoke fear through violent acts of guerrilla warfare to the ends of removing Western cultural and military influence from the Arab (Muslim) Middle Eastern states (and probably want to destroy Israel, too), or:
Gimemotiteftvaogwtteorwcamifames-ism.

If Bush can pronounce that, I'll eat my hat.

[fastom]

Originally Posted by willravel

What I'm trying to figure out is where the line is drawn between masively stupid and too retarded to be put in jail.
.........
Obviously he should be removed from office immediately, but I'm trying to figure out if he belongs in prison or with special care people for mentally handicapped people. It's a fine line, and often special needs people are sent to prison, despite having a clear disability.

Jail, for life at least. Maybe making handicapped license plates.

[host]

Originally Posted by powerclown

..As far as what Bush's motivations are, you can criticize the man for many things, but inconsistency isn't one of them.

...powerclown.. I cannot believe that you believe <h3>that.</h3> The only things that I can depend on hearing from Cheney and Bush <h2>are lies and inconsistencies...THE ONLY THINGS: </h2>

http://democrats.senate.gov/newsroom...cfm?id=239725&

George Bush Then and Now: For a Timetable Before He Was Against One.

Then George Bush called for an exit strategy: "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is." [Houston Chronicle April 9, 1999]

Bush called for a timetable. “I think it’s also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn.” [Scripts Howard, June 5, 1999]

Now Bush changes course and says a timetable doesn’t make sense. “It doesn’t make any sense to have a timetable. You know, if you give a timetable, you’re — you’re conceding too much to the enemy.” http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20050624.html ..

..Bush: For Making the Capture of Osama Bin Laden Priority Number One Before Other Priorities Intervened.

..President Bush said Monday the United States wants terrorism suspect Osama bin Laden "dead or alive." "We will smoke them out of their holes," Bush said. He said prime suspect Osama bin Laden's days are numbered. "If he thinks he can hide and run from the United States and our allies he will be sorely mistaken." [AP, 9/15/01; 9/17/01]

Now
Porter Goss says he knows where Bin Laden is. In an interview Goss said, “I have an excellent idea of where he [Bin Laden] is.” [Time Magazine, 6/27/05]

But Goss worried about international obligations, not the capture of Bin Laden. Asked when we would get Osama, Goss changed the focus to the sovereignty of sanctuary states, blaming international obligations for the U.S.’s failure to capture him. “In the chain that you need to successfully wrap up the war on terror, we have some weak links. And I find that until we strengthen all the links, we're probably not going to be able to bring Mr. bin Laden to justice…when you go to the very difficult question of dealing with sanctuaries in sovereign states, you're dealing with a problem of our sense of international obligation, fair play.” [Time 6/27/05] ...

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...1&postcount=38
..When was the last time in our history when intelligence was either utterly wrong, on every level, when it came to justification for invading another country, Iraq, and then the POTUS gave the Director of Intelligence gathering and analysis, the highest civilian award, when did a POTUS ever "flip-flop" over the importance of apprehending a man who he earlier ordered the invasion of an entire country, Afghanistan, for that sole purpose, only to say the following, just months later? When...in what other presidential administration, after all of the blunders and contradictions, in challenges of the pre and post 9/11 magnitude, were only officials who objected to the mistakes, and the coverups, the ones fired..and the "fuck ups", kept in their jobs, or promoted, or given very public praise by the POTUS, and "merit awards"..

..and video of Fred Barnes on the preceding "topic".

<h2>IMO, the only possible explanation is that Bush is an incoherent incompetent.</h2>

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=109884

Can anyone explain how/why....there could be such a clear disconnect between what president Bush says to justify continued US military presence in Iraq, <h3>and what his wife believes that he says....and that he stands for?</h3>

<b>If what the president says about why we fight, doesn't matter, why do you think that that his "rhetoric" doesn't matter? Where does that leave the US families of Iraq war dead, and the soldiers who continue to serve?</b>

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...2&postcount=10

Ned Lamont Campaign Ad features Tony Snow, Joe Lieberman, Bush, and Cheney vowing to "stay the course" in Iraq... and Bush and Lieberman ..."flip flopping" on the their commitment to "stay the course".

Watch It:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EW8lDlgtuqI&eurl=

It seems to convey the message that these guys don't have a plan for the Iraq war. It's not too supportive of our troops who are stuck there, in Iraq, IMO.

If there is nothing to this "flip flop", why such desperate attempts to downplay the "about face", with such feeble and easily refuted responses? Doesn't Tony Snow realize that he is blowing an opportunity to be the newcomer to the Bush administration who has a reputation for giving the press accurate and reliable information? Are they so arrogant that they don't think trust and integrity matter, even to the families with the empty seats at the holiday dinner tables...some empty just for the coming holidays, and some seats empty forever?

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...3&postcount=19

<h2>

</h2>
To All readers, forgive me for doing this.....it seemed to achieve the result, after posting the facts over and over and over.....of stopping the ludicrous statements that "Saddam had WMD but....",

ace....I read what I've quoted from you, above, and my reaction is that it is as if I am not even here..as if I have not already posted the following:

Bush and Cheney are frequent liars, ace..on life and death matters concerning our national security:

<b>Curiously, on June 17, 2004, VP Cheney seems to have denied his own Nov. and Dec., 2001, publicly televised, videotaped, and officially archived statements:</b>

3 weeks later, last September, when some of the the determinations about Iraq of the Senate intel. committee were finally released, Mr. Cheney spoke to Tim Russert and said the opposite of what the Senate intel. report and the CIA had concluded. Cheney did the same thing this week, on April 5.....telling the same long disproved falsehoods that he told last September, and many times before that:

That was Cheney, this week, and this was Bush, himself, in 2002 and 2003:

....and Bush again, here:

From my Sept. 12, 2006 post:

Posted May 2, 2006:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...8&postcount=63
Posted May 2, 2006:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...0&postcount=64
Posted June 26, 2006:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...8&postcount=22
Posted Sept. 9, 2006:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...93&postcount=7
Posted Sept. 15, 2006:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...9&postcount=47
.....and this article:

Mr. Bush was talking about "take threats before they fully materialize"......and when the "Zarqawi was there" declaration is exposed as a lie what remains to justify the invasion of iraq aside from illegal aggressive war?

Note how the Bush administration reacted to Sen. Levn's damning September 8, 2006 statement:

The following is a compilaton of their reaction to Levin and the senate committee report. it is more or less in chronological order. i detailed more of it in the OP of this thread......

[tecoyah]

This is....quite possibly the very first time I have had the time and inclination to read an entire Host Post. I think I will try to make more time for this in the future as this was very damning, and well created.

But Damn Host..........my eyes hurt.

[aceventura3]

Originally Posted by tecoyah

This is....quite possibly the very first time I have had the time and inclination to read an entire Host Post. I think I will try to make more time for this in the future as this was very damning, and well created.

But Damn Host..........my eyes hurt.

Since you have read it, how about a Cliff Notes version?

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Since you have read it, how about a Cliff Notes version?

Bush and Cheney lie and are inconsistent constantly, and the proof is posted above.

[tecoyah]

Originally Posted by willravel

Bush and Cheney lie and are inconsistent constantly, and the proof is posted above.

Uh....Yeah...thats the jist. And in my opinion the data posted is indesputable.

[host]

Originally Posted by tecoyah

Uh....Yeah...thats the jist. And in my opinion the data posted is indesputable.

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

<h2>Ssssllllllaaaaappppp !!!!</h2>

ace: thenk youuuu sirrrr....I'd like another !!!

<h2>The Flip:</h2>

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

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 of all modern forms of communication used by terrorists.

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>

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>

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>

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

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.)

When FISA was passed in 1978, 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:

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>

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

<h2>The Flop:</h2>

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. ...

9/11......9/11......9/11......9/11......9/11......9/11......9/11......9/11......9/11......
9/11......9/11......9/11......9/11......9/11......9/11......9/11......9/11......9/11......

<h2>The Flip....and The Flop:</h2>

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/08/...ramoff-emails/
EXCLUSIVE EMAILS: Jack Abramoff Describes Relationship With President Bush

ThinkProgress has obtained emails written by Jack Abramoff in which the fallen lobbyist personally describes his relationship with President Bush. They depict a relationship far more extensive than has been previously reported.

The emails written by Abramoff was addressed to Kim Eisler, the national editor of Washingtonian magazine. The Washingtonian recently reported on the existence of several photographs showing Abramoff and Bush together. Eisler is also the author of Revenge of the Pequots, a book about tribal politics for which Abramoff was interviewed.

In the emails, Abramoff describes meeting Bush “in almost a dozen settings,” and details how he was personally invited to President Bush’s private ranch in Crawford, Texas, for a gathering of Bush fundraisers in 2003. Abramoff did not attend, citing a religious observance.

Abramoff emailed Eisler about his invitation to Crawford and his decision not to attend:

NO, IT WAS THAT I WOULD HAVE HAD TO TRAVEL ON SATURDAY (SHABBOS). YES, I WAS INVITED, DURING THE 2004 CAMPAIGN. IT WAS SATURDAY AUGUST 9, 2003 AT THE RANCH IN CRAWFORD.

The White House has continually downplayed the relationship between Abramoff and President Bush. At a January 26 press conference, <h2>President Bush said “You know, I, frankly, don’t even remember having my picture taken with the guy. I don’t know him.”</h2>

But according to Eisler, Abramoff told him that the two have met almost a dozen times, shared jokes, and spoke about details of Abramoff’s family:

HE HAS ONE OF THE BEST MEMORIES OF ANY POLITICIAN I HAVE EVER MET. IT WAS ONE IF [sic] HIS TRADEMARKS, THOUGH OF COURSE HE CAN’T RECALL THAT HE HAS A GREAT MEMORY! THE GUY SAW ME IN ALMOST A DOZEN SETTINGS, AND JOKED WITH ME ABOUT A BUNCH OF THINGS, INCLUDING DETAILS OF MY KIDS. PERHAPS HE HAS FORGOTTEN EVERYTHING. WHO KNOWS.

<b>Fasten yer seatbelts...Ladies and Germs....when (if....) this does come to public light.....the "mother" of all FLIP/FLOP campaigns from the lips of our "means what he sez", president...will bring "shock and awe" to this land:</b>

http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/p....cfm?id=274166
Rockefeller and Bond Announce Committee Completes Section of Phase II Looking at Accuracy of Pre-War Intelligence on Post-War Iraq

--Report to be Sent for Declassification and Could be Released Within Weeks--

Contact: Wendy Morigi (Rockefeller) (202) 224-6101;
Shana Marchio (Bond) (202) 224-0309
Tuesday, May 8, 2007

Washington, DC - The Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Senator John D. (Jay) Rockefeller IV, and the Vice Chairman, Senator Kit Bond, announced today that the Committee has adopted its Phase II report on prewar intelligence assessments about postwar Iraq. The Committee will submit the report to the Director of National Intelligence for classification review. Following declassification, the Committee will release the report to the public.

The Senate Intelligence Committee released their first report dealing with Intelligence Community failures related to Iraq's weapons capabilities on July 9, 2004. The findings and recommendations of that report were an important impetus leading to landmark legislation reforming the United States Intelligence Community.

Last fall, the Committee released reports on two of the five sections of Phase II: 1) the postwar findings about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and weapons programs and links to terrorism and how they compare with prewar assessments; and 2) the use by the Intelligence Community of information provided by the Iraqi National Congress.

[Willravel]

Jesus Christ....

[host]

Originally Posted by willravel

Jesus Christ....

It's complicated....lotsa details....too much to read....I'll just continue to position myself at the "receiving end" of the president "catapulting the propaganda"....not unlike a prisoner sharing a cell with a bigger inmate who enjoys taking me...."back there"...over and over....again and again... 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11. 9/11....FISA was written in 1978....9/11, 9/11...there's an enemy out there....9/11, 9/11.....

[Willravel]

The 'Jesus Christ' wasn't to the post length, it was to the information. You think you know how bad it is and then you get reminded again. It's kinda like being shot.

[aceventura3]

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.

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

[host]

Originally Posted by willravel

The 'Jesus Christ' wasn't to the post length, it was to the information. You think you know how bad it is and then you get reminded again. It's kinda like being shot.

Too bad it's "a time of war"....it makes all of it.....the outing of Plame, the hiring and naming of the key assistant to the most corrupt DC lobbyist in history, to be "special assistant to the POTUS", and his political advisor, Karl Rove, and placing her, for more than 5 years, just down the hall from the president's office: (While insisting that you don't even know the admitted felon):

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11733701
Report: Bush, Abramoff joked together
<b>President still denies knowing ex-lobbyist</b>; Vanity Fair reports otherwise
The Associated Press
Updated: 8:21 p.m. ET March 8, 2006

WASHINGTON - Convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff says President Bush knew him well enough to joke with him about weightlifting. “What are you benching, buff guy?” Abramoff said Bush asked him.

The president has said he doesn’t know Abramoff.

Abramoff said he finds it hard to believe Bush doesn’t remember the 10 or so photos he and members of his family had snapped with the president and first lady.

“He (Bush) has one of the best memories of any politician I have ever met,” Abramoff wrote in an e-mail, according to Vanity Fair’s April issue being released this week. “Perhaps he has forgotten everything. Who knows?”

Abramoff pleaded guilty Jan. 4 to charges that he and a former partner, Adam Kidan, concocted a fake wire transfer to make it appear they were putting a sizable stake of their own money into a multimillion-dollar purchase of SunCruz Casinos’ gambling fleet in 2000. Abramoff also has pleaded guilty to charges stemming from a probe into his ties with members of Congress and the Bush administration.

“I had my picture taken with him, evidently,” Bush said of Abramoff on Jan. 26. “I’ve had my picture taken with a lot of people.”

“I frankly don’t even remember having my picture taken with the guy,” Bush added. “I don’t know him.”

Abramoff: We met a dozen times
A few days later, Abramoff wrote to Washingtonian magazine that he had met briefly with the president nearly a dozen times and that Bush knew him well enough to make joking references to Abramoff’s family.

Abramoff told Vanity Fair that he once was invited to Bush’s Texas ranch, where he would have joined with other big Bush fund-raisers. Abramoff, an Orthodox Jew, said he didn’t go because the event fell on the Sabbath.

The lobbyist said that when Bush made a speech to fund-raisers in 2003, he sat just a few feet from the president. Abramoff, the only lobbyist on the dais, was seated between Republican Sens. George Allen of Virginia and Orrin Hatch of Utah.

Three former associates of Abramoff have told The Associated Press the lobbyist frequently told them he had strong ties to the White House through its deputy chief of staff, Karl Rove.

Asked about the former Abramoff associates’ accounts, the White House said Rove and Abramoff were leaders of a young Republicans group decades ago.

“Mr. Rove remembers they had met at a political event in the 1990s,” White House spokeswoman Erin Healy has said. “Since then, he would describe him as a casual acquaintance.”

According to Vanity Fair, Rove’s relationship with Abramoff was deeper.

After Bush took office, Susan Ralston, Abramoff’s administrative assistant, assumed the same post with Rove at the White House, where Abramoff met with Rove at least once, the magazine said.

Strong ties to Rove?
Rove dined several times at Abramoff’s former restaurant in Washington, Signatures, and was Abramoff’s guest in a luxury box at a basketball playoff game a few years ago, sitting for much of the game at Abramoff’s side, Vanity Fair reported.

The White House has not released any photos that Bush took with Abramoff, but acknowledged the authenticity of one that has been made public. In the 2001 photo, Bush is seen shaking hands with the leader of an Indian tribe that was an Abramoff client. The lobbyist is in the background.

Abramoff said he thought about, but decided against, selling his photos with the Bushes for money. Publications were making Abramoff offers that rose to the low seven figures, Vanity Fair reports.

He blames the Bush administration for the media attention.

“My so-called relationship with Bush, Rove and everyone else at the White House has only become important because instead of just releasing details about the very few times I was there, they created a feeding frenzy by their deafening silence,” Abramoff told the magazine.

“The Democrats, on the other hand, are going overboard, virtually insisting I was there to plan the invasion of Iraq.”

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/22/...unity-for-now/
http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the...r_henry_n.html
May 22, 2007
Shorter Henry: Nice Try, Brad Berenson

by emptywheel

There has been a lot of discussion already about the Ralston news from today--that she asked for immunity so she could testify about Abramoff contacts with the White House. What seems to be missing from those stories is the takeaway: Henry Waxman's not giving Ralston immunity anytime soon.

Waxman provides a helpful map of what happened. Ralston gave a deposition on May 10--over a month after Waxman first invited her to visit. While there, she "testified on a number of subjects unrelated to the Abramoff matter." [Note to Novak and Rove--that bit's just there to make you sweat.] But as for the rest, Waxman describes what sounds like an unsuccessful attempt on the part of designated firewall defense lawyer Brad Berenson to convince Waxman to give Ralston immunity for stuff she's still under investigation for with the DOJ probe. Henry helpfully shows us the roadmap Berenson laid out for us:

Susan is here this morning voluntarily. She wants to assist the committee in its investigation to the extent she is able to. She is not under subpoena. We understand that the purpose of this morning’s deposition is really twofold: first, for her to provide the information that she can provide on a couple of subjects where she can testify without precondition … and, secondly, to make a record for the committee of the subjects on which she does not feel she can testify without a grant of immunity based on concerns that the testimony may reasonably form some link in a chain of evidence that someone could regard as inculpatory of her.

The subjects this morning that she will be unable to testify to on those grounds are the subjects of the relationship between Jack Abramoff and his associates and White House officials, including Ms. Ralston, and the subject of the use by White House officials of political e-mail accounts at the RNC.

She has material, useful information about both of those subjects. She is more than willing to provide it to the committee. However, she will, as we have previously discussed, require a grant of immunity before she is comfortable going forward.

And if you can't read that road map, Henry gives you an even more specific one:

She was personal friends with a number of the individuals on Abramoff’s staff, and as the
committee’s own report makes clear, was frequently the recipient of communications from them, even if the substantive matters under discussion related only to activities by other officials in the
White House.

So let me read the road map for you all:

1. Ralston would incriminate herself if she talked about Jack Abramoff's contacts with the White House.
2. Ralston would incriminate herself if she talked about the political emails at the RNC.
3. Ralston got frequent emails from people on Abramoff's staff discussing activities relating to "other officials in the White House."

But, Waxman says, Ralston isn't going to get immunity to talk about these things--there are plenty of people (like Michael Scanlon or the other Abramoff lobbyists who have flipped) who can testify about these things.

Curiously, Waxman doesn't say how he's going to get to the RNC emails without Ralston. But since Ralston says that, too, will incriminate her, I suspect her non-testimony has renewed Waxman's interest in getting the emails.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&s...es&btnG=Search
The Abramoff Investigation :: Committee on Government Reform ...
White House Contacts. 485 lobbying contacts with the White House ... Jack Abramoff and his team had 485 lobbying contacts with White House officials between ...
oversight.house.gov/abramoff/index2.asp

Bush tells us an "enemy wants to attack us"....but no need for his key aids to use secure white house email....is there???

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/blogs/n...ompts_many.htm

....But just a week after E-mails in the U.S. attorneys case became a main focus of congressional Democrats probing the firings, several aides said that they stopped using the White House system except for purely professional correspondence.

"We just got a bit lazy," said one aide. "We knew E-mails could be subpoenaed. We saw that with the Clintons but I don't think anybody saw that we were doing anything wrong." ....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...032601979.html
Correction to This Article
A March 27 article incorrectly attributed to Susan Ralston a warning that e-mail messages by lobbyist Jack Abramoff should not be put into the White House e-mail system "because it might actually limit what they can do to help us, especially since there could be lawsuits, etc." The author of the 2003 e-mail citing the warning, Kevin Ring, said yesterday that the warning was issued not by Ralston but by Jennifer Farley, who was a deputy in the White House Office of Intergovernmental Affairs.
GOP Groups Told to Keep Bush Officials' E-Mails
Democrat Cites Investigation of Firings

By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, March 27, 2007; Page A03

<i>A Democratic House committee chairman yesterday told the Republican National Committee and the Bush-Cheney '04 campaign to retain copies of all e-mails sent or received by White House officials using e-mail accounts under their control, raising the political stakes in the congressional inquiry into U.S. attorneys' firings.</i>

......Waxman noted for example that J. Scott Jennings, the White House deputy director of political affairs, used a "gwb43.com" e-mail account last August to discuss the replacement of the U.S. attorney for Arkansas, Bud Cummins, according to e-mails released to Congress by the White House.

Barry Jackson, a deputy to Rove, in 2003 used a "georgewbush.com" e-mail account to consult with Neil G. Volz, then an aide to lobbyist Jack Abramoff, about nominating one of Abramoff's Indian tribe clients for a Medal of Freedom, according to a copy of an e-mail. Abramoff is now serving a prison sentence for bank fraud, and Volz plead guilty to conspiracy charges last year.

Susan B. Ralston, while she was executive assistant to Rove, similarly used "georgewbush.com" and "rnchq.org" e-mail accounts to confer in 2001 and 2003 with Abramoff, her former boss, about matters of interest to Abramoff's clients.

In a related e-mail, an Abramoff aide said Ralston had warned that "it is better to not put this stuff in writing in [the White House] . . . email system because it might actually limit what they can do to help us, especially since there could be lawsuits, etc."

Abramoff's response, according to a copy of his e-mail, was: "Dammit. It was sent to Susan on her rnc pager and was not supposed to go into the WH system."

Waxman said the exchange indicated that in some instances, White House officials were using nongovernmental accounts "specifically to avoid creating a record of communications" that are nonetheless subject to the committee's jurisdiction.

yup...it's "war time".....Bush tells us it's a long, long war....enemy lurking...blah, blah, blah....we have to be "right 100 percent of the time...", yet there is no "email security policy", or preservation policy, and....the president's "special assistant"...sitting just down the hall from his office...is engaging her former boss, the man she followed from one lobbying firm to the next....is continuing her contacts....boasting that they are insecure...with her soon to be convicted felon....former boss....who the president, "doesn't know", even getting a 50 percent raise from the "war president":

http://oversight.house.gov/Documents...0758-87640.pdf
HENRY A. WAXMAN, CAUFORNIA,
CHAIRMAN
TOM DAVIS. VIRGINIA.
RANKING MINOBTTY MEMBER

The White House
I 600 Pennsylvania Avenue
V/ashington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. Fielding:
I am writing to request information and a briefing regarding the e-mail policies of the
White House.
On Monday, I wrote to the Republican National Committee and the Bush Cheney'04
campaign directing them to preserve the e-mails of White House officials.r In those letters, I
cited multiple examples of the use of political RNC e-mail accounts by White House officials
conducting official government business. [n one example I cited, an associate of convicted
lobbyist Jack Abramoff was advised by a White House official not to send communications
through the official White House e-mail system because "to put this stuff in writing in their email
system ... might actually limit what they can do to help us."'
Since Monday, I have learned of new examples of the use of RNC and campaign e-mail
accounts by White House officials, including:</b>
o New Abramoff E-Mails. Susan Ralston, who was Karl Rove's executive assistant,
invited two lobbyists working for Jack Abramoff to use her RNC e-mail account to avoid
"security issues" with the White House e-mail system, writing: "I now have an RNC
blackbeny which you can use to e-mail me at any time. No security issues like my WH

Fred Fielding
March 29,2007
Page2

email."3 Ms. Ralston similarly wrote Mr. Abramoff: "I know [sic] have an RNC laptop
at the office for political use. I can access my AOL email when necessary so if you need
to send me something that I need to read, you can send to my AOL email and then call or
page me to check it."4</b>

New Scott Jennings E-Mails. Scott Jennings, the deputy director of political affairs in
the White House, and his assistant used "gwb43.com" e-mail accounts to communicate
with the General Services Administration about a partisan briefing that Mr. Jennings gave
to political appointees at GSA on January 26,2007.' When Mr. Jennings's assistant emailed
the PowerPoint presentation to GSA, she wrote: "It is a close hold and we're not
supposed to be emailing it around."o
o New Job Appointment E-Mails. Mr. Jennings also appears to have used his
"gwb43.com" account to recruit applicants for official government positions through the
"Kentucky Republican Voice," an internet site that describes itself as "the best source for
Kentucky Republican grassroots information." One posting from May 2005 advertised
17 vacancíes on assorted presidential boards and commissions.' A second posting from
May 2006 sought applicants for various boards within the Small Business
Administration.s In each case, these postings encouraged applicants to contact Mr.
Jennings at his "gwb43.com" address.
Moreover, U.S. News & ïlorld Reportreported yesterday thatmy letter on Monday to the
RNC may be driving official White House communications even further underground.
According to this report, at least two White House aides have now "bought their own private E-

Fred Fielding
March 29,2007
Page 3

mail system through a cellular phone or Blackberr)¡ server" to avoid the possibilities of
subpoenas. Another aide told U.S. News that he now communicates through "texting."e
<b>The statements of White House spokesperson Dana Perino at a press briefing this week
only further confused the issue. She said: "Of course, peopl.e^are encouraged, on official White
House business, to use their official White House accounts."'u But she did not cite any specific
policy or guidance issued to White House staff regarding the use of e-mail accounts and the
preservation of presidential records</b>, and she acknowledged that certain officials in the White
House have been given access to political e-mail accounts. When asked if a new directive had
been issued to White House staff reminding them to use their White House e-mails, she stated, "I
don't know of any new directive, but it is what we ask people to do."ll
Ms. Perino was also vague in her answers about whether the White House is ensuring the
security and preservation of offrcial communications that are sent through RNC and campaign email
accounts. She stated:
With respect to presidential records, an email that is sent to or from a White House email
address is automatically archived, even if the other person is not using a White House
email account. I believe well, I know that our White House Counsel's Office is in
communication with the RNC's general counsel to make sure that those archivings have
taken place.l2
To help the Committee understand the White House policies involving the use of
nongovertmental e-mail accounts by White House officials, I ask you to provide the following
information:
All policies, guidance, and other communications provided to White House officials
regarding appropriate use of nongovernmental e-mail accounts, particularly those
hosted by the Republican National Committee and other political organizations;
All policies, guidance, and other communications provided to White House officials
regarding the obligation to preserve e-mail records, including those created while
using nongoverTrmental e-mail accounts'....

http://www.philippinenews.com/news/v...194d4960b18353
Top Rove aide ‘critical’ in CIA probe
Rita Gerona Adkins, Nov 08, 2005
<img src="http://www.philippinenews.com/directory/getdata.asp?about_id=4997403295ea354107194d4960b18353-2">
.....But that incident also demonstrated Susan’s strength as an organized and systematic operator. Her message to the veterans was, “don’t make it difficult for us to help you; you don’t make it easy for us by causing us embarrassment.”

At 37, Ralston, a graduate of management, had worked as assistant to Jack Abramoff, a powerfully connected lobbyist, at the Preston Gates and Ellis and later at Greenberg Taurig law and lobbying firms. Story had it that Abramoff, indicted on alleged corruption charges involving, among others, former Republican majority leader Tom DeLay, had offered Ralston to Rove when the latter was looking for an efficient and trusted assistant.

Before working in the nation’s capital, she was an office administrator for a commercial and real estate firm in Chicago, Ill.

Ralston has been promoted to Special Assistant to the President and Assistant to the President Senior Adviser with an annual salary of $92,000. She is married to Troy Ralston, executive director of a graduate school of management.

Karl is an amazing person to work for. I feel very, very fortunate to be in an office where so much is happening,” Ralston told this reporter in a 2003 interview.

Goodness me....some of us trust in our president's every word....but I'm more suspicious than ever that Mr. Bush was not legitimately elected to office, either time, does not believe what he says about the "enemy that wants to attack us"....using that phony threat to consolidate his own power by legal or illegal means, and knows much more than he has disclosed about the 9/11 attacks, and the subsquent anthrax "attacks"....<h3>How can we all be exposed to the same information and reach such vastly different opinions?</h3>

[fastom]

The more you discover about him and his cronies the harder it is to believe that outlandish official story of 9/11.
It makes me wonder how he ascended the ranks in politics, is it all really that corrupt ?

More importantly... is it fixable?

[tecoyah]

It is.....but its gonna take about a year

[host]

Originally Posted by fastom

The more you discover about him and his cronies the harder it is to believe that outlandish official story of 9/11.
It makes me wonder how he ascended the ranks in politics, is it all really that corrupt ?

More importantly... is it fixable?

We're talking about the president of the United States of America. Polling results indicate that close to a third of American adults still trust him....support him.

Surely aceventura3's defense of president Bush....a quote from a famous WWII Winston Churchill speech that was used by ace to demonstrate that wartime leaders "lie" to inspire commitment to a "great cause" (I guess that was ace's point....he didn't offer a specific Churchill "falsehood" that could be compared to all of the false or misleading Bush pronouncements....posted up to that point in this discussion...) cannot be all that Bush's supporters have to post in his defense?

On May 23, on this thread, this was posted:

Originally Posted by powerclown

....As far as what Bush's motivations are, you can criticize the man for many things, but inconsistency isn't one of them.....

I view "inconsistency"....in his speech, and in his actions....as one of Mr. Bush's greatest faults....greatest failings. I think that I've posted convincingly to support that view.

Particularly disturbing are the things that Mr. Bush has lied about, and the timing....right after the 9/11 attacks, in the midst of a never solved "anthrax attack"....right before the invasion of Iraq, and anytime new evidence is disclosed of how he misled us "right before" the invasion of Iraq.....right after James Comey had his "showdown" with Bush dispatched Gonzales and Card...in Ashcroft's ICU room at the hospital.......and right after the NY Times Dec., 2005 "blockbuster" disclosure of the warrantless electronic surveillance of US residents. All of these periods of lies and misleading statements have come when it matters most....when Bush has gained/taken/falsely manipulated us into granting his executive branch unprecedented or extraordinary new authority to deal with perceived threat conditions to our national security....or when it has been discovered that he has taken even more new authority from us, without our prior knowledge of permission.

This makes it, IMO, even more important for defenders of Mr. Bush to respond to the examples of his false and misleading statements and assurances. The gravity of his failure to speak credibly to us, in the context of when he was telling us what he was telling us, while he was lessening our constitutionally guaranteed authority/rights, and increasing his own....if Bush's defenders are interested in being regarded as offering "reasonable" POV's.

I would think that it is important for conservatives to be regarded as "reasonable" political thinkers. Their silence begins to make me suspect that their support for Mr. Bush....knowing what we know, because of what he has said and done, in the context of the timing of his words and deeds, with the consistent result of the increase in his presidential authority and the decrease in the constitutional checks and balances...at the expense of the rest of us,
<b>....is unreasonable.</b>

If you've read through this thread, up to this point...does it seem reasonable to be of the opinion that my quote from powerclown above, or what ace has posted <b>are reasonable opinions....conservative opinions....if they "leave it at that"</b>....leave what they've already posted, to compete...."head to head", "side by side", with the "evidence" posted....Bush's own statements and those of his closest associates, in the context of the timing of the statements and actions?

I believe that you must speak coherently to seem credible. Courts use the principles of "probable cause" and what would a "reasonable" person do, say or believe, under a given set of circumstances. Would a "reasonable person" have "probable cause" to still believe that Mr. Bush "says what he means and does what he says"?

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2...efense-is.html

......So, in June, 2002, the Administration refused to support elimination of the very barrier ("probable cause") which Gen. Hayden claimed yesterday necessitated the circumvention of FISA. In doing so, the Administration identified two independent reasons for opposing this amendment. One reason was that the Justice Department was not aware of any problems which the Administration was having in getting the warrants it needed under FISA:....

........So as of June, 2002 -- many months after the FISA bypass program was ordered -- the DoJ official who was responsible for overseeing the FISA warrant program was not aware (at least when he submitted this Statement) of any difficulties in obtaining warrants under the FISA "probable cause" standard, and for that reason, the Administration would not even support DeWine's amendment. If - as the Administration is now claiming - they had such significant difficulties obtaining the warrants they wanted for eavesdropping that they had to go outside of FISA, surely Baker - who was in charge of obtaining those warrants - would have been aware of them. And, if the Administration was really having the problems under FISA, they would have supported DeWine's Amendment. But they didn't.

The second concern the Administration expressed with DeWine's amendment was that it was quite possibly unconstitutional:


The Department's Office of Legal Counsel is analyzing relevant Supreme Court precedent to determine whether a "reasonable suspicion" standard for electronic surveillance and physical searches would, in the FISA context, pass constitutional muster. The issue is not clear cut, and the review process must be thorough because of what is at stake, namely, our ability to conduct investigations that are vital to protecting national security. If we err in our analysis and courts were ultimately to find a "reasonable suspicion" standard unconstitutional, we could potentially put at risk ongoing investigations and prosecutions.


By that time, the Administration had already been engaging in eavesdropping outside of the parameters of FISA, and yet the DoJ itself was expressing serious doubts about the constitutionality of that eavesdropping and even warned that engaging in it might harm national security because it would jeopardize prosecutions against terrorists. Put another way, the DoJ was concerned that it might be unconstitutional to eavesdrop with a lower standard than probable cause even as the Administration was doing exactly that.

Two other points to note about this failed DeWine Amendment that are extremely important:

(1) Congress refused to enact the DeWine Amendment and thus refused to lower the FISA standard from "probable cause" to "reasonable suspicion." It is the height of absurdity for the Administration to now suggest that Congress actually approved of this change and gave it authorization to do just that -- when Congress obviously had no idea it was being done and refused to pass that change into law when it had the chance.

(2) DeWine's amendment would have lowered the standard for obtaining a FISA warrant only for non-U.S. persons -- whereas for "U.S. persons," the standard would have continued to be "probable cause." And, DeWine's amendment would not have eliminated judicial oversight, since the Administration still would have needed approval of the FISA court for these warrants.

That means that, in 2 different respects, DeWine's FISA amendment was much, much less draconian than what the Administration was already secretly doing (i.e., lowering the evidentiary standard but (i) eliminating judicial oversight, and (ii) applying these changes not just to non-U.S. persons but also to U.S. persons). Thus, Congress refused to approve -- and the DoJ even refused to endorse -- a program much less extreme and draconian than the Administration's secret FISA bypass program.

This has extremely significant implications for the Administration's claims made yesterday through Gen. Hayden as to why it was necessary to bypass FISA. The Administration's claim that the "probable cause" component of FISA was preventing it from engaging in the eavesdropping it needed is the opposite of what it told Congress when refusing to support the DeWine Amendment. And its claim that Congress knew of and approved of its FISA-bypassing eavesdrop program is plainly negated by the fact that the same Congress was debating whether such changes should be effectuated and then refused to approve much less extreme changes to FISA than what the Administration secretly implemented on its own (and which it now claims Congress authorized).

The Administration is stuck with the excuse given by Gen. Hayden yesterday as to why it had to eavesdrop outside of FISA, but that excuse is plainly contradicted by these events and by the Administration's own statements at the time.

Where do I "have it wrong"? What am I missing? How can this "stuff" be ignored...without being considered, without posting a point by point...(or ANY)...rebuttal?

[aceventura3]

Originally Posted by host

Surely aceventura3's defense of president Bush....a quote from a famous WWII Winston Churchill speech that was used by ace to demonstrate that wartime leaders "lie" to inspire commitment to a "great cause" (I guess that was ace's point....he didn't offer a specific Churchill "falsehood" that could be compared to all of the false or misleading Bush pronouncements....posted up to that point in this discussion...) cannot be all that Bush's supporters have to post in his defense?

If we start at the begining and look at Bush's first speech requesting authorization for war, which you say is based on lies, I then look at other historical leaders and look at what they said at the dawn of war. Chruchhill painted a picture of the enemy, that at the time was not proven true. He says without victory there is no survival. He talks about his plan, and it is simply to wage war. He says they will do what needs to be done, were there violations of civil liberties, did he stretch the spirit of their laws for what he though was the common good? What do you think? Or, do you need experts to connect the dots, and tell you what to think in relation to how leaders have conducted affairs during war.

[Willravel]

You're going to compare the second Gulf War to WWII?

[host]

Originally Posted by aceventura3

If we start at the begining and look at Bush's first speech requesting authorization for war, which you say is based on lies, I then look at other historical leaders and look at what they said at the dawn of war. Chruchhill painted a picture of the enemy, that at the time was not proven true. He says without victory there is no survival. He talks about his plan, and it is simply to wage war. He says they will do what needs to be done, were there violations of civil liberties, did he stretch the spirit of their laws for what he though was the common good? What do you think? Or, do you need experts to connect the dots, and tell you what to think in relation to how leaders have conducted affairs during war.

ace...the challenge for you is that "the beginning" is not "Bush's first speech requesting authorization for war". That is not a specific that you should see a need to explain, from your POV, to maintain the "reasonableness", of your position that Bush "says what he means". To accomplish that, you would have to explain how he could be reliably telling us that he did not "know" Abramoff, or how it could be that he could proclaim, in Oct., 2001 that he had the tools, in the Patriot Act that he was then signing into law, to cope with modern technological innovation for electronic surveillance of "terrorists", only to later use the gap between innovation and the 1978 technology that FISA was written to respond to, as the excuse to circumvent FISA, illegally....

Did Bush "mean what he said" in Oct., 2001, or on Sept. 7, 2006, with regard to justifying warrantless wiretaps?

ace, you make this debate much easier on me than it could be:

http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/...cfm?pageid=818

....Churchill's strength as a War Leader rested in his burning conviction, in the teeth of all the odds, that in our Island, we were unconquerable. Second, and equal to that, was his ability to communicate that spirit of resolution to the British nation. In the words of the American broadcaster Edward R. Murrow, later reiterated by President John F. Kennedy, Churchill "mobilised the English language, and sent it into battle." His wartime speeches at that turning-point of history, were as remarkable as they are memorable.

In his first address to Parliament, on becoming Prime Minister, he declared: <b>"I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat....You ask what is our policy? I will 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: Victory, victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory, however long and hard the road will be; for without victory, there is no survival."</b>

Within five weeks France had fallen and Hitler was free to direct all his might against Britain.....


....When, later, he reflected upon the momentous day, 10 May 1940, when he had become Prime Minister, Churchill recalled his feelings, as he went to bed in the early hours: <b>"I was conscious of a profound sense of relief....I felt as if I were walking with destiny and that all my past life had been but a preparation for this hour and for this trial."</b>

Of all the remarkable qualities of Winston Churchill there is none more amazing than his unshakable belief in his destiny. As a young man he once confided to Violet Asquith: "We are all worms. But I do believe that I am a glow-worm!" Indeed, even before that, while still a schoolboy at Harrow, he had already developed a keen sense of his purpose here on earth....

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...pagewanted=all
Winds of War

By JACOB HEILBRUNN
Published: October 15, 2006

......Far more interesting is Isikoff and Corn's exploration of the mental world that the administration inhabits. They recount that in December 2001, <b>Scooter Libby read aloud to a visiting journalist a famous passage from Winston Churchill's memoirs about being named prime minister: ''I felt as if I were walking with destiny, and that all my past life had been but a preparation for this hour and for this trial.'' Libby declared that these words could be applied to Cheney after Sept. 11.</b> Hubris? Megalomania may be more like it.

...the commonality of your megalomania with Libby's, and Cheney's, and Bush's....aside...

Wouldn't a "reasonable" response from you go something like,

I am persuaded that Bush was truthful when he declared, when asked about Abramoff, <b>"I don't know him"</b>, because it is common knowledge that, even though Abramoff's former key assistant, Ralston, was Bush's special assistant for 5 years, working at a desk just down the hall from the oval office, Ralston only spoke the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tagalog_language">Tagalog
language</a>...and Rove spoke it fluently....not Bush

...or:

Yes....bush did say, in October, 2001,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0011026-5.html

<b>"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.
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."</b>

....but, by 2006... 59 months later, the confining provisions of the FISA law had again been overtaken by leaps and bounds in technological development since way back in the autumn of 2001, so....what was Bush to do, except to say what he said on Sept. 7, 2006:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0060907-2.html

<b>"...When FISA was passed in 1978, there was no widely accessible Internet, and almost all calls were made on fixed landlines.
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..........."</b>

....and Gonzales backed Bush's sept., 2006 claims, after the NY Times Dec., 2005 warrantless wiretapping news story broke:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0051219-1.html

<b>......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.

You have to remember that FISA was passed by the Congress in 1978. There have been tremendous advances in technology -- ......</b>

....then, ace...you could post a conclusion like, ....

Bush was not lying in Sept., 2006.....Gonzales said the same thing in Dec., 2005, and.....Gonzales is the attorney general, and....so he wouldn't lie...

....but trying to compare the rhetoric that Churchill used on the day he took office in May, 1940...the same day that Germany was invading France....naw...ace....my example of how you could have tried to post a "reasonable" argument, is a more..
reasonable way for you to try to persuade us...that...you have a resonable POV, when it comes to the idea that Bush "says what he means"!

[ratbastid]

It's hard to say what you mean when you don't even know what you said.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/0...-say%e2%80%99/

Bush at a press conference on Saturday (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...70609-2.html):

Q: And on the deadline [for Kosovo independence]?

Bush: In terms of the deadline, there needs to be one. This needs to come — this needs to happen. Now it’s time, in our judgment, to move the Ahtisaari plan. There’s been a series of delays. You might remember there was a moment when something was happening, and they said, no, we need a little more time to try to work through a U.N. Security Council resolution. And our view is that time is up.

Bush at a press conference on Sunday (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...70610-1.html):

Q: Thank you, Mr. President. Yesterday you called for a deadline for U.N. action on Kosovo. When would you like that deadline set? And are you at all concerned that taking that type of a stance is going to further inflame U.S. relations with Russia? And is there any chance that you’re going to sign on to the Russian missile defense proposal?

Bush: Thanks. A couple of points on that. First of all, I don’t think I called for a deadline. I thought I said, time — I did? What exactly did I say? I said, “deadline”? Okay, yes, then I meant what I said.

At which point assembled reporters started laughing at him.

Kevin asked, “[I]s it really too much to ask the president of the United States to take his own policies seriously enough to actually know what they are?”

Apparently so.

[aceventura3]

Originally Posted by host

ace...the challenge for you is that "the beginning" is not "Bush's first speech requesting authorization for war". That is not a specific that you should see a need to explain, from your POV, to maintain the "reasonableness", of your position that Bush "says what he means". To accomplish that, you would have to explain how he could be reliably telling us that he did not "know" Abramoff, or how it could be that he could proclaim, in Oct., 2001 that he had the tools, in the Patriot Act that he was then signing into law, to cope with modern technological innovation for electronic surveillance of "terrorists", only to later use the gap between innovation and the 1978 technology that FISA was written to respond to, as the excuse to circumvent FISA, illegally....

Did Bush "mean what he said" in Oct., 2001, or on Sept. 7, 2006, with regard to justifying warrantless wiretaps?

ace, you make this debate much easier on me than it could be:



...the commonality of your megalomania with Libby's, and Cheney's, and Bush's....aside...

Wouldn't a "reasonable" response from you go something like,

...or:

....then, ace...you could post a conclusion like, ....
....but trying to compare the rhetoric that Churchill used on the day he took office in May, 1940...the same day that Germany was invading France....naw...ace....my example of how you could have tried to post a "reasonable" argument, is a more..
reasonable way for you to try to persuade us...that...you have a resonable POV, when it comes to the idea that Bush "says what he means"!

Host,

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?

What about FDR?

On February 19, 1942, soon after the beginning of World War II, Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066. The evacuation order commenced the round-up of 120,000 Americans of Japanese heritage to one of 10 internment camps—officially called "relocation centers"—in California, Idaho, Utah, Arizona, Wyoming, Colorado, and Arkansas.

http://www.factmonster.com/spot/internment1.html

Did he lie to the American people about the threat of American citizens of Japanese origin? Do you give FDR the label of being immoral?

[Willravel]

Speaking for myself, FDR made one of the biggest mistakes in the history of our country when he signed EO9066. It was racist and based on irrational fear and bigotry (it's possible that FDR was not, himself, a bigot, but the order is clearly racist) instead of reasonable thought.

The interesting thing is: this thread isn't about FDR. It seems like you're trying to rationalize and excuse current sins by calling on the sins of our past. That's not how it works. FDR can be wrong AND Bush can be wrong. FDR being wrong doesn't excuse or even lessen the sins of the current administration.

[tecoyah]

FDR did not Lie....but in hindsight was mistaken. Unfortunately, you do not seem to believe Bush also might be mistaken regardless of the obvious evidence continuously making its way into public view. There comes a time ACE, when defending someone so obviously in the wrong makes you wrong as well. I can understand why FDR made this decision out of fear....But I still dont think it was right. You seem to not only comprehend what this administration is doing, but also to support it.

That is certainly your right, but dont expect those in opposition to respect your stance.

[aceventura3]

The interesting thing is: this thread isn't about FDR. It seems like you're trying to rationalize and excuse current sins by calling on the sins of our past. That's not how it works. FDR can be wrong AND Bush can be wrong. FDR being wrong doesn't excuse or even lessen the sins of the current administration.

History will be the judge of Bush. I don't think he is a lier or immoral, I think he says and does what he thinks is in the best interest of the nation. I am beyond the point of trying to debate the minutia of what Bush said on one day to the next. Hind-sight is 20-20, so we can second guess his decisions and what intelligence he used or did not use, but it seems that the second guessing of Bush has never really been about constructive debate but mostly about bashing Bush.

Bush has made mistakes. We all know that. But at a time of war, people are upset that he is not an apologist. No world leader during war has been an apologist. The stakes are too high for Bush to send messages of weakness. He is going to be a "cowboy", an arrogant S.O.B., an unyeilding a$$hole. As a world leader during war, he does not have the luxury of being humble. I am not sure some here understand that.

Originally Posted by tecoyah

FDR did not Lie....

I guess my question is - did he exaggerate the threat? Did he misuse intllegence? Why did he do it? Why didn't he do it with German-Americans?

but in hindsight was mistaken.

This suggests that he did not know what he was doing was unconstitutional at the time he did it. I think he knew it was. I think he knew that virtually all were innocent and loyal the the US.

Unfortunately, you do not seem to believe Bush also might be mistaken regardless of the obvious evidence continuously making its way into public view.

Not true. I think Bush has made many mistakes. In my view mistakes are not the same as lies, or being immoral.

There comes a time ACE, when defending someone so obviously in the wrong makes you wrong as well. I can understand why FDR made this decision out of fear....

You think he made that decision solely or partly becuase of fear? Was he the man who said "we have nothing to fear but fear itself"? I think inpart he was sending a message to various audeinces.

But I still dont think it was right. You seem to not only comprehend what this administration is doing, but also to support it.

It is very difficult to discuss morality and war. During war leaders have to make decisions everyday that could be shown immoral or considered lies.

That is certainly your right, but dont expect those in opposition to respect your stance.

My stance is one of asking questions and challenging thoughts. If people don't respect questions or wimper at a challenge of their thoughts, so be it. As is a familiar pattern when people here want to avoid the point, you can try to make this about me but it is not.

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by aceventura3

History will be the judge of Bush.

The present is the judge of Bush, and that's more important because you can't stop history. I hope that's clear.

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I don't think he is a lier or immoral, I think he says and does what he thinks is in the best interest of the nation.

Doing what's best for one's country isn't synonymous with morality. Think of every great tyrant in history, namely the bigger tyrants of the 20th century.

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I am beyond the point of trying to debate the minutia of what Bush said on one day to the next. Hind-sight is 20-20, so we can second guess his decisions and what intelligence he used or did not use, but it seems that the second guessing of Bush has never really been about constructive debate but mostly about bashing Bush.

I don't think it's called second guessing or hindsight if people like me were right about the Iraq war being wrong from the beginning. Yes, fuck Bush, but more importantly, we need to fix that which has been broken. That's what the focus is on, at least speaking for myself. It's about more than constructive debate, it's about honest ideas of positive change. We need ideas ready to be carried out. That's not just what leaders should be doing, but any vigilant citizen who has more than one brain cell.

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Bush has made mistakes. We all know that. But at a time of war, people are upset that he is not an apologist. No world leader during war has been an apologist. The stakes are too high for Bush to send messages of weakness. He is going to be a "cowboy", an arrogant S.O.B., an unyeilding a$$hole. As a world leader during war, he does not have the luxury of being humble. I am not sure some here understand that.

No world leader has been an apologist when they were being attacked because they have nothing to apologize for. When that world leader is the aggressor, as is the current case, they SHOULD apologize because they're wrong. Bush is wrong. Adults are able to recognize a mistake and take steps to fix that mistake. Bush is staying the course and damning everything because he continues to be stubborn and ignorant. If you think it's a message of weakness to learn from your mistakes and pay for them, then you're not fit to lead anything. Bush must pay for his mistakes not only in the interest of justice, but to slow terrorism. Terrorism is up because of imperial behavior. If we send the emperor to the dungeon and leave their lands, then they will have less reason to attack, and rightfully so.

Bush should be in prison for fucking with pre-war intelligence and misleading congress into an illegal war of aggression against a nation that didn't represent any level of threat to the US or our allies. Bush should be in prison for being involved in illegally bypassing the FISA courts because he had no reasonable explanation for tapping the phones of US citizens. Many Bush administration officials should be in prison for everything from allowing torture despite it's being illegal under the Geneva conventions to the leaking of Valarie Plame's name in order to slander her husband for suggesting that pre-war intelligence was wrong (something they were correct about).

[aceventura3]

Originally Posted by willravel

The present is the judge of Bush, and that's more important because you can't stop history. I hope that's clear.

No it is not. I don't understand how you can give final judgement on a person's on activities without knowing their results.

Doing what's best for one's country isn't synonymous with morality.

i agree. The opposit is true as well.

I don't think it's called second guessing or hindsight if people like me were right about the Iraq war being wrong from the beginning. Yes, fuck Bush, but more importantly, we need to fix that which has been broken. That's what the focus is on, at least speaking for myself. It's about more than constructive debate, it's about honest ideas of positive change. We need ideas ready to be carried out. That's not just what leaders should be doing, but any vigilant citizen who has more than one brain cell.

I only asked if the rules used with Bush are the same used for other leaders, are they?

No world leader has been an apologist when they were being attacked because they have nothing to apologize for.

You lost me here.

When that world leader is the aggressor, as is the current case, they SHOULD apologize because they're wrong.

Please be clear. Is being aggressive wrong? Is a preemptive strike wrong? Or, do you look at the circumstances before making that judgement?

Bush is wrong. Adults are able to recognize a mistake and take steps to fix that mistake.

People can also fix mistakes without making a public statement about the mistake. Bush has done that many times.

Bush is staying the course and damning everything because he continues to be stubborn and ignorant. If you think it's a message of weakness to learn from your mistakes and pay for them, then you're not fit to lead anything. Bush must pay for his mistakes not only in the interest of justice, but to slow terrorism. Terrorism is up because of imperial behavior. If we send the emperor to the dungeon and leave their lands, then they will have less reason to attack, and rightfully so.

bush has made changes to his Iraq strategy. What has not changed is his underlying goal. Again be clear, he has not changes his underlying goal because he believes it to be correct. Reasonable people can disagree on the goal.

Bush should be in prison for fucking with pre-war intelligence and misleading congress into an illegal war of aggression against a nation that didn't represent any level of threat to the US or our allies. Bush should be in prison for being involved in illegally bypassing the FISA courts because he had no reasonable explanation for tapping the phones of US citizens. Many Bush administration officials should be in prison for everything from allowing torture despite it's being illegal under the Geneva conventions to the leaking of Valarie Plame's name in order to slander her husband for suggesting that pre-war intelligence was wrong (something they were correct about).

O.k., I get it. Bush is a war criminal. Why not hang him.

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by aceventura3

No it is not. I don't understand how you can give final judgement on a person's on activities without knowing their results.

You cannot undo the deaths of American soldiers, Iraqi civilians and Iraqi 'combatants'. I dare you to excuse those deaths.

Originally Posted by aceventura3

i agree. The [opposite] is true as well.

It's not a good argument. You should be able to explain why what you're doing is the right thing to do, not just say 'it's for *insert sympathetic group here*'. It's for the troops. It's for freedom. It's for the Iraqis. It's for our country. These are all meaningless without explaining why....and when you get down to it, almost nothing Bush has done is really in the best interest of the or any group he has named.

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I only asked if the rules used with Bush are the same used for other leaders, are they?

I haven't had the honor to shake the hand of President Clinton. I'll never get to shake the hand of Ike or Kennedy. Our presidents absolutely must be held to a higher standard than other world leaders because we are a great nation with great potential for global good. Bush is not only at a higher standard, he is less than most other world leaders. He's less than Angela Merkel. He's less than Jacques Chirac. He trails behind others and is only paid attention because he's the head of a superpower, much the same as his attention when he was governor of Texas. He has not brought intellect, honor, or dignity to his office, but has in fact brought dishonor, foolishness, stubbornness, and ridicule.

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Please be clear. Is being aggressive wrong? Is a preemptive strike wrong? Or, do you look at the circumstances before making that [judgment]?

Name an aggressor in history you believe to have been righteous. The attack on Iraq was especially bad because they had no way of being a threat to us or our allies. It was essentially an attack on an unarmed country.
[QUOTE=aceventura3]People can also fix mistakes without making a public statement about the mistake. Bush has done he's slowed his ignorant destruction in some areas, but I'd hardly call that a fix.

Originally Posted by aceventura3

bush has made changes to his Iraq strategy. What has not changed is his underlying goal. Again be clear, he has not [changed] his underlying goal because he believes it to be correct. Reasonable people can disagree on the goal.

Bush has not made changes to his 'Iraq strategy'. It was invasion and occupation, and we're still there. We've sent more troops, but that's not a change in strategy at all.

Originally Posted by aceventura3

O.k., I get it. Bush is a war criminal. Why not hang him[?]

I do not believe in state execution. Frankly, I don't believe in any form of taking life other than your own.

Bush (and Cheney, etc.) belongs behind bars after receiving a trial where all of the evidence is gathered (without bullshit interference from his administration) and he is found guilty by a group of his peers. That would be justice for all of the horrible wrongs he has committed.

[aceventura3]

For the record - at the end of the Bush administration and when we compare what he said and did relative to other Presidents or leaders of nations here is what we will conclude:

Bush made mistakes - all Presidents or leaders of nations have.
Bush made decisions that cost the lives of Americans - all war time Presidents and war time leaders have.
Bush used and managed information to support his causes - all Presidents and leaders of nations have.
Bush was not an apologist - No war-time President I have ever studied in detail has been an apologist - Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon.
Bush made decisions and took actions to increase the power of the executive branch of government and has tested the limits of the Constitution - Several Presidents have done that.
Bush has been guilty of hyperbole and exaggeration - most Presidents and learders of nations have done this.
Bush has shown favoritism in government to those who share his views - Every President and leader of nations has done this.
Bush has defended his decisions against his critics (some may say he went over the line, I don't) - Other Presidents in recent history have been better at this and more subtle about it, some of our more historical Presidents have not been.
Bush promised things during his campaigns that he did not deliver and in some cases could not deliver - I think this is true of every elected politician I have ever voted for.

So in the end will history say Bush says what he means and does what he says? I think yes, relative to other President and leaders of nations.

[tecoyah]

You forgot one little thing:

Bush has taken the above to an extreme never seen in the history of this country, and hopefully will never see again.

Case in point

“Despite engaging in the most pernicious of political activity prohibited by the Hatch Act, Administrator Doan has shown no remorse and lacks an appreciation for the seriousness of her violation,” Bloch wrote Bush, referring to the law barring executive branch employees from engaging in partisan political activity.

Because Doan is a political appointee and serves at the pleasure of the president, it is up to Bush to decide how to respond to Bloch’s recommendation, including ignoring it altogether. Bloch’s letter did not include a request for additional information or a formal response. The White House did not respond to calls for comment at press time.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/06/12/...g-lurita-doan/

Likely this individual will suffer no consequences for her actions,as it is assumed she was merely following orders from on high. This is of course a minor, and bt itself easily dismissed move, but when taken into the larger context of this administrations propensity for Kronyism.....it becomes very troubling.

[aceventura3]

Originally Posted by tecoyah

You forgot one little thing:

Bush has taken the above to an extreme never seen in the history of this country, and hopefully will never see again.

Above we already discussed FDR and what he did to Japanese-Americans. FDR issued an executive order in essence putting 120,000 American citizens in prison with no judicial recourse. It was unconstitutional and he knew it. FDR is commonly considered one our best President in history. Outside of simply hating anything Bush does, what did Bush do that was more extreme than that?

[tecoyah]

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Above we already discussed FDR and what he did to Japanese-Americans. FDR issued an executive order in essence putting 120,000 American citizens in prison with no judicial recourse. It was unconstitutional and he knew it. FDR is commonly considered one our best President in history. Outside of simply hating anything Bush does, what did Bush do that was more extreme than that?

....Uh....He Freakin' INVADED a country for unacceptable reasons (as if there are acceptable ones), cancelled habeus corpus, bypassed the long standing tradition of the Geneva Conventions, began a public torture practice sanctioned by the government, failed to competently use the U.S. Armed forces resulting in pointless deaths, placed completely unqualified people in charge of public safety resulting in many more pointless deaths, bastardized science to further a dismanteling of environmental protection, and generally screwed up the vast majority of anything he has touched (no we wont go into his multiple failures before becoming POTUS).

The Guy is a major f@ckup......Deal with it.

[aceventura3]

Originally Posted by tecoyah

....Uh....He Freakin' INVADED a country for unacceptable reasons (as if there are acceptable ones),

Kennedy, again considered a great President, authorized the Bay of Pigs invasion.

cancelled habeus corpus

See FDR reference.

, bypassed the long standing tradition of the Geneva Conventions, began a public torture practice sanctioned by the government,

I think the government has been involved in these practices in the past.

failed to competently use the U.S. Armed forces resulting in pointless deaths

I have studied many military battles. On a comparative basis our casualties in this war are at a record low.

, placed completely unqualified people in charge of public safety resulting in many more pointless deaths,

If you are talking about Katrina - I put the balme more on local and state government.

bastardized science to further a dismanteling of environmental protection,

Not sure this is true. Our environment is better today than it was 10, 20, 30, 40 years ago.

and generally screwed up the vast majority of anything he has touched (no we wont go into his multiple failures before becoming POTUS).

The Guy is a major f@ckup......Deal with it.

I take it that you just generally hate Bush and that there is nothing he could do that could possibly please you.