Newsvine
  • Welcome
  • Help
  • Report Bug
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
advertisement
Log In | Register
Close the Login Panel
Existing users log in below. New users please register for a free account.

New Users:

Existing Users:

E-Mail:
Password:
Forgot Password?
Please enter the e-mail address or domain name you registered with:
E-Mail/Domain:
Back to Login
Log Out
  • Top News
  • Local News
  • World
  • U.S.
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Business
  • Health
  • Odd News
  • More
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fashion
    • History
    • Home & Garden
    • Not News
    • Religion
    • Travel
What is Newsvine?

Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.

Get a Free Account
Help
Fun Stuff
  • Your Clippings
  • Leaderboard
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Top of the Vine
  • Newsvine Live
  • Newsvine Archives
  • The Greenhouse
  • Recommended Articles
  • Wall of Vineness
Put a Seed Newsvine link on your own site

Obama releases secret Bush anti-terror memos

Mon Mar 2, 2009 3:26 PM EST
politics, united-states, terror, justice-department, memos
Devlin Barrett, Associated Press Writer
< PreviousNext >
showing 1 of 2 photos
<p>Justice Department memos from 2001 are seen in Washington Monday, March 2, 2009. The Justice Department on Monday released a long-secret legal document from 2001 in which the Bush administration claimed the military could search and seize terror suspects in the United States without warrants. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)</p>

Justice Department memos from 2001 are seen in Washington Monday, March 2, 2009. The Justice Department on Monday released a long-secret legal document from 2001 in which the Bush administration claimed the military could search and seize terror suspects in the United States without warrants. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

advertisement

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration threw open the curtain on years of Bush-era secrets Monday, revealing anti-terror memos that claimed exceptional search-and-seizure powers and divulging that the CIA destroyed nearly 100 videotapes of interrogations and other treatment of terror suspects.

The Justice Department released nine legal opinions showing that, following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the Bush administration determined that certain constitutional rights would not apply during the coming fight. Within two weeks, government lawyers were already discussing ways to wiretap U.S. conversations without warrants.

The Bush administration eventually abandoned many of the legal conclusions, but the documents themselves had been closely held. By releasing them, President Barack Obama continued a house-cleaning of the previous administration's most contentious policies.

"Too often over the past decade, the fight against terrorism has been viewed as a zero-sum battle with our civil liberties," Attorney General Eric Holder said in a speech a few hours before the documents were released. "Not only is that school of thought misguided, I fear that in actuality it does more harm than good."

The Obama administration also acknowledged in court documents Monday that the CIA destroyed 92 videos involving terror suspects, including interrogations — far more than had been known. Congressional Democrats and other critics have charged that some of the harsh interrogation techniques amounted to torture, a contention President George W. Bush and other Bush officials rejected.

The new administration pledged on Monday to begin turning over documents related to the videos to a federal judge and to make as much information public as possible.

The legal memos written by the Bush administration's Office of Legal Counsel show a government grappling with how to wage war on terrorism in a fast-changing world. The conclusion, reiterated in page after page of documents, was that the president had broad authority to set aside constitutional rights.

Fourth Amendment protections against unwarranted search and seizure, for instance, did not apply in the United States as long as the president was combatting terrorism, the Justice Department said in an Oct. 23, 2001, memo.

"First Amendment speech and press rights may also be subordinated to the overriding need to wage war successfully," Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo wrote, adding later: "The current campaign against terrorism may require even broader exercises of federal power domestically."

On Sept. 25, 2001, Yoo discussed possible changes to the laws governing wiretaps for intelligence gathering. In that memo, he said the government's interest in keeping the nation safe following the terrorist attacks might justify warrantless searches.

That memo did not specifically attempt to justify the government's warrantless wiretapping program, but it provided part of the foundation.

Yoo, now a professor at the University of California at Berkeley School of Law, did not return messages seeking comment.

The memos reflected a belief within the Bush administration that the president had broad powers that could not be checked by Congress or the courts. That stance, in one form or another, became the foundation for many policies: holding detainees at Guantanamo Bay, eavesdropping on U.S. citizens without warrants, using tough new CIA interrogation tactics and locking U.S. citizens in military brigs without charges.

Obama has pledged to close the Guantanamo Bay prison within a year. He halted the CIA's intensive interrogation program. And last week, prosecutors moved the terrorism case against U.S. resident Ali Al-Marri, a suspected al-Qaida sleeper agent held in a military brig, to a civilian courthouse.

A criminal prosecutor is wrapping up an investigation of the destruction of the tapes of interrogations.

Monday's acknowledgment of videotape destruction, however, involved a civil lawsuit filed in New York by the American Civil Liberties Union.

"The CIA can now identify the number of videotapes that were destroyed," said the letter submitted in that case by Acting U.S. Attorney Lev Dassin. "Ninety-two videotapes were destroyed."

It is not clear what exactly was on the recordings. The government's letter cites interrogation videos, but the lawsuit against the Defense Department also seeks records related to treatment of detainees, any deaths of detainees and the CIA's sending of suspects overseas, known as "extraordinary rendition."

At the White House, press secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters he hadn't spoken to the president about the report, but he called the news about the videotapes "sad" and said Obama was committed to ending torture while also protecting American values.

ACLU attorney Amrit Singh said the CIA should be held in contempt of court for holding back the information for so long.

"The large number of videotapes destroyed confirms that the agency engaged in a systematic attempt to hide evidence of its illegal interrogations and to evade the court's order," Singh said.

CIA spokesman George Little said the agency "has certainly cooperated with the Department of Justice investigation. If anyone thinks it's agency policy to impede the enforcement of American law, they simply don't know the facts."

The details of interrogations of terror suspects, and the existence of tapes documenting those sessions, have become the subject of long fights in a number of different court cases. In the trial of Sept. 11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui, prosecutors initially claimed no such recordings existed, then acknowledged after the trial was over that two videotapes and one audiotape had been made.

The Dassin letter, dated March 2 to Judge Alvin Hellerstein, says the CIA is now gathering more details for the lawsuit, including a list of the destroyed records, any secondary accounts that describe the destroyed contents and the identities of those who may have viewed or possessed the recordings before they were destroyed.

But the lawyers also note that some of that information may be classified, such as the names of CIA personnel who viewed the tapes.

The separate criminal investigation includes interrogations of al-Qaida lieutenant Abu Zubaydah and another top al-Qaida leader. Tapes of those interrogations were destroyed, in part, the Bush administration said, to protect the identities of the government questioners at a time the Justice Department was debating whether or not the tactics used during the interrogations were legal.

Former CIA director Michael Hayden acknowledged that waterboarding — simulated drowning — was used on three suspects, including the two whose interrogations were recorded.

John Durham, a senior career prosecutor in Connecticut, is leading the criminal investigation, out of Virginia, and had asked that he be given until the end of February to wrap up his work before requests for information in the civil lawsuit were dealt with.

___

Associated Press Writers Pamela Hess and Philip Elliott contributed to this report.

© 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top | Front Page

Published to:

  • Devlin Barrett's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: none
  • Regions: United States , Washington DC
  • Public Discussion (532)
Jump to discussion page: 1 2 3
Arad

"First Amendment speech and press rights may also be subordinated to the overriding need to wage war successfully,"

Something tells me this is only scratching the surface of what was written in the memos...

  • 28 votes
#1 - Mon Mar 2, 2009 4:14 PM EST
Eric AlbertDeleted
Aalaf Alot

And yet, Obama, Eric Holder are still not prosecuting the Bush War criminals, spineless, class appeasers, imperial appeasers, as always.

A trial for warcrimes for Bush and company may tear this country apart.

Remember, there are hard core right wing Republicans that does not see Bush and company has done anything wrong. E.G. Limbaugh, Coulter, Robertson, to name a few people. They think Bush actions is justified. Do whatever it takes?

It seem the new Mantra of Republicans - Do whatever it takes to keep the status quo?

  • 15 votes
#1.2 - Mon Mar 2, 2009 8:43 PM EST
jbird

This lack of accountability is why I am forseeing a future where I will vote for whatever non republican comes out on top in the primary, so long as that someone isnt Obama. If the liberal choice IS Obama, I simply wont vote at all.

    #1.3 - Mon Mar 2, 2009 9:09 PM EST
    Division by Zero

    And yet, Obama, Eric Holder are still not prosecuting the Bush War criminals, spineless, class appeasers, imperial appeasers, as always.

    There is no precedent for prosecuting a former president, vice president, or cabinet member for war crimes. That, I assure you, is a precedent that we do not want to establish. The ramifications would be incalculable.

    • 22 votes
    #1.4 - Mon Mar 2, 2009 9:13 PM EST
    winsomecowboy

    if the pursuit of justice tears the country apart what's the point in it holding together?

    You want your comfort at that cost? Bollocks. You seem to forget individuals have literally been blown apart for those freedoms.

    • 35 votes
    #1.5 - Mon Mar 2, 2009 9:36 PM EST
    Gnostix1

    And yet, Obama, Eric Holder are still not prosecuting the Bush War criminals, spineless, class appeasers, imperial appeasers, as always.

    Earth to Eric: Obama's been in office all of 5 weeks, and has had a few things on his plate.

    Presuming that some sort of legal processes are forthcoming against BushCo, would you prefer that they take their time and get it right or rush into prosecutions and have the perps walk on technicalities?

    • 17 votes
    #1.6 - Mon Mar 2, 2009 9:36 PM EST
    landspirit

    I do not think that the steps taken to allow surveillance had anything to do with subvert intentions to destroy civil liberties. I think that it was done to be able to find terrorists that were in the United States before they killed again. I admit it is a very narrow line and could be easily crossed. I think though the government had to find a way to fight a war against a people with no morals, no ethics and that would kill violently and cruelly without conscience.

    I am still trying to decide if the 'War on Terrorism' was trumped up. If it was, then the worst criminals and the most evil were in our government. I do not think that the war was trumped up though. The look on Bush's face when he was told about the situation on Sept 11 was one of complete shock and even fear. He was not expecting it. That look could not have been faked. Our civil liberties were reduced, but they can be restored. Right now I would still prefer to have suspect conversations tapped, then to have my children killed. I never found a reason to be upset with the tapping. They were tapping to find terrorists. I am not a terrorist or involved in any criminal activity. So it did not really bother me at all. It is not a Big Brother scenario. It is a government trying to protect its innocent civilians. I think Obama is going the right way in releasing all the documents. We have a right to know what happened and why. True motivation may be delineated as time goes by and more is revealed.

    • 9 votes
    #1.7 - Mon Mar 2, 2009 9:39 PM EST
    Blearc

    The documents pertain to more than just surviellance. Its covers many differeent aspects of what it means to be an American.

    • 13 votes
    #1.8 - Mon Mar 2, 2009 10:02 PM EST
    Division by Zero

    They were tapping to find terrorists. I am not a terrorist or involved in any criminal activity. So it did not really bother me at all. It is not a Big Brother scenario. It is a government trying to protect its innocent civilians.

    By definition we are all suspects until we prove ourselves innocent, and even then we still might be up to something. Intent and the means to carry out that intent are no longer necessary. They only need suspicion of intent.

    • 18 votes
    #1.9 - Mon Mar 2, 2009 10:19 PM EST
    Karl_

    Aalaf Alot,

    A trial for warcrimes for Bush and company may tear this country apart.

    I think so too. The tension is palpable throughout the country and nerves are stretched to the snapping point. There is such a thing as being "Dead right": You are right, and die uselessly to make the point.

    It is a time for pragmatism. Hold that war crimes thought. Now is certainly NOT the time to table that issue. There is enough on the agenda to shake the country already.

    • 3 votes
    #1.10 - Mon Mar 2, 2009 11:20 PM EST
    ComSen

    if the pursuit of justice tears the country apart what's the point in it holding together?

    So those that were pursuing Communists with the McCarthy trials were doing the right thing? The guy that speeds to take an injured person to the hospital should get a speeding ticket?

    Justice is a community standard. That's why the things that the far left and right may get up in arms about are ignored by the majority.

    • 6 votes
    #1.11 - Mon Mar 2, 2009 11:20 PM EST
    Nancy-400923

    OMG-Mindspirit; you've perfectly described the big corporations: " I think though the government had to find a way to fight a war against a people with no morals, no ethics and that would kill violently and cruelly without conscience. " (Not to mention Wall Street).

    • 3 votes
    #1.12 - Mon Mar 2, 2009 11:43 PM EST
    Tom Joad

    Nancy - That was hilarious! Well said, lady.

    Now, folks, I want to point something out here. The Rule of law is what our country was based on, and were it to be tossed aside, and President Bush not held accountable, that would be worse for this country than any other scenario I can imagine. It would mean that the socio's have truly taken over, and that there's no hope for decent folk like you and I out there.

    So many things that are wrong with this country have culminated with the 8 years that Bush was in office. Declining valuation of the dollar, a predatory corporate lending machine, outrageously expensive health care, tax issues, and various other things need to be fixed. I say begin with Bush. Make an example of him. Tell people that he is not above the law, and that if he is found guilty of war crimes, he will be held accountable.

    Respectfully,

    Joe Rogers

    • 11 votes
    #1.13 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 12:03 AM EST
    samin3269Deleted
    samin3269Deleted
    ScubaJasonDeleted
    The Original Mac

    To those of you that are so hell bent to prosocute bush, regardless of the billions it will cost, regardless of the innocent that simply followed orders. regardless of how it will tear at the very fabric of our country. the dismissing of all else as long as you gain that which you want. Or of how it will effect the over all health of our nation by dragging the decisions of an administration faced with a situation that only a day before was inconceivable. With no care how it will damage the United State in the long run. As long as you get what you want?

    You are no better then what you perceive bush to be.

    • 4 votes
    #1.17 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 1:31 AM EST
    ARCHON-PRIME

    Obama releases secret Bush anti-terror memos

    Obama should release HIS secret college applications, Term Papers, and his REAL Birth Certificate-with the names of the Hospital, Doctor and Nurses that delivered him written on it.

    • 11 votes
    #1.18 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 2:00 AM EST
    winsomecowboy

    You are no better then what you perceive bush to be.

    What a good dramatic line, pity it's not based in reality.

    Trying to blame those of us who want to actually do the presidents job, the armed forces job and simply defend the constitution, and charging that WE are tearing at the fabric, that WE are wasting billions. [I doubt it actually, pretty open and shut case] that our selfishness in our defense of the foundation on which the country rests and defines itself, is somehow detrimental to that same country.

    Well I'd say nice try but it's asinine, emotional and irrational.

    So you think the countries character should rest solidly on the avoidance of a fuss?

    Pitiful. truly pitiful. to equate the 'overall health of the nation' on letting it's leaders break the law with impunity.

    Right, real healthy.

    The trial, if it ever happens, will bring to the fore people much like yourself who put short term convenience above the rule of law.

    if your view prevails America as it has always defined itself, will cease by definition to exist. Every sacrifice ever asked of it will have been in vain and it's future will be one without principle.

    The fact that you seem OK with that I would think brands you as a collaborator in the now 8+ year war against the constitution.

    What is a constitution if it is not inforced. I'll tell you, a marketing device for the easily led.

    You honor the constitution or you honor convenience. How trite, how shallow, how times have changed so quickly that you could even suggest that the constitution was secondary to your own comfort. perhaps America is as you suggest, the husk of a dead dream.

    Pity it if you get your way but until it's writ in stone somewhere, pity you.

    "regardless of the innocent that simply followed orders."

    what a good little german you are.

    • 23 votes
    #1.19 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 2:04 AM EST
    JustinPM

    Obama should release HIS secret college applications, Term Papers, and his REAL Birth Certificate-with the names of the Hospital, Doctor and Nurses that delivered him written on it.

    Yeah, because that's on par with this, huh? Really? You still can't believe that? Find me George Bush's and we'll see where we can go from there.

    • 11 votes
    #1.20 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 2:11 AM EST
    The Original Mac

    winsomecowboy what a good little german you are.

    Bite my ass.

    perhaps America is as you suggest, the husk of a dead dream.

    Where do I Suggest that? Sounds like you work in Hollywood

    avoidance of a fuss

    I guess you see death as only a set back? you joke.

    The trial, if it ever happens, will bring to the fore people much like yourself who put short term convenience above the rule of law.

    if your view prevails America as it has always defined itself, will cease by definition to exist. Every sacrifice ever asked of it will have been in vain and it's future will be one without principle.

    You understand nothing which I am trying to relay. you simply wish to be a Newsvine troll. There are people who will run in to the path of a moving train to see bush be prosecuted. Problem is, they want to SEE it. But they can't, because the train killed them. There are also many who will blow up an entire room of people to get the "bush gang". This mentality make these patriotic individuals no better then those that flew planes into our buildings.

    They say words speak louder then words. I am a United states war Veteran. You? Let me answer the question. a guy that's never even lassoed a cow.

    Go ahead. rant your tantrum. I will waste no more time on the likes of you.

    • 1 vote
    #1.21 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 2:45 AM EST
    winsomecowboy

    fair enough I apologise, I over-reacted. [I have lassoed a sheep, this week in fact]

    I wrote what I wrote and then scrolling down I saw that you were coming at this from various angles and thought "hold on, is this the same guy I just went off at?

    So whether you waste time on the likes of me or not. I'm sorry I over-reacted.

    I still don't understand what you put ahead of the defense of the constitution though.

    That puzzles me. You may well simply be a pragmatist while I'm an idealist.

    • 8 votes
    #1.22 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 2:52 AM EST
    The Original Mac

    That's better. I also apologize, for calling you a joke and a troll.

    It is late. Good night.

    • 4 votes
    #1.23 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 3:09 AM EST
    Paul William Tenny

    There is no precedent for prosecuting a former president, vice president, or cabinet member for war crimes. That, I assure you, is a precedent that we do not want to establish. The ramifications would be incalculable.

    Speak for yourself, I definitely want that precedent to be established. The ramifications are that the people who committed war crimes will go to prison, and no future president will ever dare commit war crimes again.

    • 12 votes
    #1.24 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 3:54 AM EST
    George-369262

    Obama appears to view the previous administration as a greater enemy than the people who have repeatedly attacked us, killed thousands of Americans, and would doubtless do so again if possible.

    • 1 vote
    #1.25 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 4:35 AM EST
    Tom Joad

    What is it with you people. Worried about the billions it will cost to prosecute? It won't cost billions...and even if it did, those billions are WORTH being able to preserve the moral fiber of this country. I am not an Obama freak...I do not follow blindly. I'm already pissy about the stimulus and how a few things were handled. That's not the issue, though...

    The issue is whether W. committed war crimes. I say he did. I say we investigate, try, and if found guilty, sentence his ass so that future Presidents know NOT TO F*** with We The People!

    How is that difficult to get?

    • 12 votes
    #1.26 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 7:41 AM EST
    iconoclasm

    If it does come down to anyone going to court for actual "war crimes" they won't be on trial here. That is what the International Criminal Court is for.

    Anything short of actual "war crimes" shouldn't be bothered with. I think Ford made the right choice pardoning Nixon. A conviction would not have done anyone any good. A history already redered that verdict.

    • 1 vote
    #1.27 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 8:29 AM EST
    Great Greg

    All you wusses, and idiots, remember these terrorist bombed us.. Bush did what he had to do to protect our country ... The only war crimes he did was to kill the bastards that tried to kill us.

    • 5 votes
    #1.28 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 8:33 AM EST
    JustinPM

    In Iraq Greg?

    • 8 votes
    #1.29 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 9:08 AM EST
    Fumler

    Another act of TREASON by OBAMA!

    • 6 votes
    #1.30 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 9:22 AM EST
    JustinPM

    Seriously look up what constitutes treason and get back to us.

    • 4 votes
    #1.31 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 9:26 AM EST
    Coolcat-727046Deleted
    Mars313

    A trial for warcrimes for Bush and company may tear this country apart.

    I agree with WinSome, if it's the pursuit of justice that finally tears this country apart, then we are a failed experiement. I couldn't care less about partisan feelings. I don't care if 40% of this country doesn't think that war-crimes are crimes. I don't care that the simplest of our citizenry is scared @!$%#less of Muslims and are willing to sacrifice our nation's credibility for a false sense of security.

    And if Obama commits war-crimes, lock his ass up too! If we find that Bush Sr or Clinton commited war-crimes, let's go snatch them away from their life of luxury and lock them up too!

    We, the people, lose our rights daily when we break laws, and Presidents are not above the citizens, they are servants. Let's treat them as such.

    • 10 votes
    #1.33 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 9:43 AM EST
    Great Greg

    Well Mars313, you say the pursuit of justice... what justice is it when illegal aliens can sue us. ILLEGAL lost it's meaning in our country and what is it when our corporations have to fill spots with UNQUALIFIED help in order to meet so called quotas. and what justice is it when Obama's Economic Adviser say there going increase employment in our country except for WHITE MALE construction workers.. If the U.S.A ever fails it will be from the parasites within.

    • 2 votes
    #1.34 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 10:22 AM EST
    Mars313

    Well Mars313, you say the pursuit of justice...

    And you read it! Yay!!!! Good boy!

    what justice is it when illegal aliens can sue us.

    Really? This is what you use your soapbox for? So because an illegal alien can sue an American, you think Bush should get away with his crimes? Sounds like you're making up excuses in order to justify letting a politician off the hook simply because you are a puppet for his party.

    ILLEGAL lost it's meaning in our country and what is it when our corporations have to fill spots with UNQUALIFIED help in order to meet so called quotas.

    Ahhh, I get it. "Why shouldn't we commit war-crimes when we have affirmative action?" Poor poor white people, such an oppressed minority. Get off your 1996 talking-points and get back to the topic.

    and what justice is it when Obama's Economic Adviser say there going increase employment in our country except for WHITE MALE construction workers..

    HAHAHAHAHAHA Jesus Christ! Sorry, I don't pseudo-debate with kids or senile old folks, either way you're disqualified. Find someone else to cry to. I refuse to show sympathy towards bull@!$%# rhetorical claims from GOP Emails.

    • 9 votes
    #1.35 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 10:29 AM EST
    Tom Joad

    Greg, you're trying to distract from the issue, which is a poor way to make a point.

    • 4 votes
    #1.36 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 10:39 AM EST
    Great Greg

    Mars313 go to Google if you know what it is and type" robert reich white construction work" and see what he said on C-Span ...

    • 1 vote
    #1.37 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 10:42 AM EST
    Mars313

    Mars313 go to Google if you know what it is and type" robert reich white construction work" and see what he said on C-Span ...

    I will, if I ever engage in a discussion on the matter, which I probably won't, because I really don't give a @!$%#.

    Either make a point that is on topic, or go elsewhere. Simple enough?

    • 7 votes
    #1.38 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 10:53 AM EST
    Eric AlbertDeleted
    Great Greg

    Wow Mars , who cares if you give a @!$%# or not..

    • 3 votes
    #1.40 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 11:04 AM EST
    Mars313

    Wow Mars , who cares if you give a @!$%# or not..

    I do. If I don't give a @!$%# (and I don't) I won't engage in your pathetic attempts at changing the subject due to your lack of an intelligent argument. I'm not going to sit here and pretend to care about your GOP talking-points, I'll leave that to the other kids. Now run along and play, boy.

    • 3 votes
    #1.41 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 11:17 AM EST
    Great Greg

    Bye bye Brown noser

    • 2 votes
    #1.42 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 11:32 AM EST
    Mars313

    LOL

    oh how gracefully the slugs slither away!

    • 3 votes
    #1.43 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 11:39 AM EST
    Brian-657672

    The justice of the matter is this to me: The constitutionally of Obama being in the oval office needs to be addressed first. http://www.obamacrimes.info/

    The politics of the situation is of the utmost concern to constructionists. http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/citizen.asp

    Bush can be thrown under the bus After WE find out the truth about Obama, Period!

      #1.44 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 12:22 PM EST
      Vis Major

      Brian will be opening at the Comedy Store this Friday and Saturday. Please tip your waitresses.

      • 8 votes
      #1.45 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 12:24 PM EST
      Brian-657672

      Vis the lemming society is serving refreshments at the cliffs before the show. Your free ticket is there.

        #1.46 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 1:19 PM EST
        Marine 56

        Bush's lie killed over 4000 Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's and others.

        I'm not going to get into this argument again. I just wish that when people make statements they have their facts straight.

        Americans that died in Iraq from all cause's combat related and not 4247

        United Kingdom deaths 179

        All other coalition forces 139

        These were the counts as of about a week ago!

        Iraqi deaths 81,000 to 88,500. This include deaths related to US activities, Terrorist activities and just plain murder of Iraqi's by Iraqi's. Please do research before making statements you know nothing about.

        This count includes "and others"

        These are the death counts from day one To Jan 2008 for Iraqi's and others. No where near hundreds of thousands.

        Take 2007 as an example. 20,000 to 24,000 Iraqi's were killed only 1,250 are attributable to any US actions. The rest ore due to terrorist, Extremists and Iraqi's killing Iraqi's. Including many be headings. SAD DAM would scoff at such low numbers. he liked gassing entire communities at one time.

        Argue all you want one way or the other! Just please get the facts right first.

        • 2 votes
        #1.47 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 2:41 PM EST
        ripit22

        Gentlemen. The rules of war are governed by UCMJ and the Geneva Convention and I doubt any of you know what these rules are. Stop with the witch hunt. I spent 18 mos in Iraq with the 82nd as a scout (Search and Seizure). I bet you would like to arrest me for fighting an illegal war.

        • 2 votes
        #1.48 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 3:04 PM EST
        ripit22

        If cutting the fingers off a murderer that wears civilian clothes and makes war (violation of the Geneva Convention) would have saved the lives of the people on 9/11, you can bet your a** I would do it then as I would do it now. For all of the idiots that read that pansy Air Force interrogator's book that said torture does not bring good information, let me just say that he is full of crap. If you want me to prove it, let me know and sign a waiver.

        • 1 vote
        #1.49 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 3:13 PM EST
        JustinPM

        By choosing not to enforce the Geneva Conventions you leave yourselves open to not being afforded it. This not being an actual war means that the insurgents won't submit to them, but to go against it is a bad precedent. If so, you might as well whip out your DD-Form 2 and take a sharpie to the Geneva Conventions category, it wouldn't matter anymore.

        If you submit to terrorism, it's successful. If you pick the pieces up and keep moving, it's not.

        • 1 vote
        #1.50 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 3:23 PM EST
        iconoclasm

        "The rules of war are governed by UCMJ and the Geneva Convention"

        Which the adminstration felt did not apply but the miltary as a whole did.

        "I doubt any of you know what these rules are."

        Change that to most.

        "Stop with the witch hunt."

        The witch hunt part is uneeded. The goal is for the judical branch to render a verdict and for congress to control future executive actions.

        "I spent 18 mos in Iraq with the 82nd as a scout (Search and Seizure). I bet you would like to arrest me for fighting an illegal war. "

        The miltary did what they have always done. They went in without being given enough people or resources into murky objectives and yet somehow pulled off a miracle again. (You guys really have to start being so super ... it's like being the mouthy little brother to a professional boxer ... we don't learn how to play well with other nations with your ability) Anyone who targets the miltary personel for this is ... ok I'm not going to go there .. I don't want to be banned. At least there is none of that "baby killer" BS like in the past.

        Most of the issues come from non-combat situations where there is time to time.

        As for the VERY few personnel that got out of control even in the eyes of the past administration they have been dealt with and do not represent the whole of the service. In the same way that not every cop is bad, or every priest a molestor. In any group 1 in 100 are nuts and 1 in 10000 are "evil" and it's impossible to tell them from anyone else.

        • 2 votes
        #1.51 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 3:28 PM EST
        Paul William Tenny

        Obama appears to view the previous administration as a greater enemy than the people who have repeatedly attacked us, killed thousands of Americans, and would doubtless do so again if possible.

        That must be why he has bent over backwards to prevent the previous administration from being prosecuted for their crimes against America.

        Another act of TREASON by OBAMA!

        What, you don't subscribe to the Nixon/Bush theory of the unitary executive? Bush and Nixon said it clearly: if the president does it, that means it is not illegal.

        • 5 votes
        #1.52 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 5:49 PM EST
        Patriotic Dissenter

        "What, you don't subscribe to the Nixon/Bush theory of the unitary executive? Bush and Nixon said it clearly: if the president does it, that means it is not illegal."

        Nixon, maybe. GWB? I think it was the constitution that made what GWB did legal. He wanted the best for his country. Yep, according to the Left, that would make him the enemy.

        • 2 votes
        #1.53 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 7:58 PM EST
        vertigo923

        Nixon, maybe. GWB? I think it was the constitution that made what GWB did legal. He wanted the best for his country. Yep, according to the Left, that would make him the enemy.

        what????????

        gwb wanted 'what's best for his country'?

        gwb wanted 'what was best for those that got him elected', which is exactly what he did, they profited greatly from his administration....

        and he got to show daddy he could take down saddam hussein. leaving the next president to deal with the results. it should be of utmost importance to at least understand the demographics and mechanics of the country you are invading.

        but, to say he wanted what was best for this country....if he did, he certainly did a horrid job of actually DOING what was best for his country.

        • 3 votes
        #1.54 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 9:26 PM EST
        Patriotic Dissenter

        Are you still alive? Has this country suffered another attack here? We won the war in Iraq (the war, naysayers, was the capture of Baghdad. The rest of this is the cleanup) So yes he absolutely he did what he thought was best for our country. But what was the Left saying? Harry Reid declaring we lost or Dicky Turbin equating US servicemen to the Soviets and their Gulags. Did the leaders of our congress want was best for their country is a better question to ask. For that I agree with you and say no they did not want was best.

        • 2 votes
        #1.55 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 9:45 PM EST
        The Original Mac

        Bo, Any one with good sense knows he did what he thought was best for the country. what you, as all law makers across this great nation, need to understand is that there is a possibility that in doing what "He thought was best" he violated his sworn oath.

        At no time do we ask a President to take care of us. We are a free people. We take care of ourselves. We are not subjects of a king.

        What we ask of our President is to protect and preserve our Constitution and our rights that come from being a FREE people.

        If it turns out that President Bush, or those in power during his administration, or any administration for that matter, violated the very fabric that defines us? Then yes. There should be repercussions for their actions

        Should all evidence be brought forth before sentence is carried out? Again yes.

        I remember saying to my Father only a few short months after 9/11, "Our greatest challenge we will face, as a nation, is not becoming the very evil which we seek to destroy.

        I implore my fellow Americans. If you want to charge Former President Bush, do so in accordance to the Constitution of the United States. And remember it is better to not charge him then to rush to make laws that will make him a law breaker. For if you do this you go down the same path as the accused.

        "We may be tossed upon an ocean where we can see no land-nor, perhaps, the sun and stars. But there is a chart and a compass for us to study, to consult and to obey. The chart is the Constitution"

        Daniel Webster

        • 7 votes
        #1.56 - Wed Mar 4, 2009 12:40 AM EST
        winsomecowboy

        so if he has sworn to uphold the constitution and subsequently is shown to have systematically weakened, defaced, eroded, whatever. [which is pretty self evident, he put the nations safety ahead of the constitution, it would be hard to argue otherwise. when his lawyer's advice is in the public domain and his actions on that advice is a matter of record.

        Then what law presently on the books has he in fact broken?

        Is there precident? Has any president previously withdrawn constitutional rights from the entire population and been charged?

        • 5 votes
        #1.57 - Wed Mar 4, 2009 3:41 AM EST
        Paul William Tenny

        Nixon, maybe. GWB? I think it was the constitution that made what GWB did legal. He wanted the best for his country. Yep, according to the Left, that would make him the enemy.

        Really? The constitution made GWB ignore the 4th amendment of the constitution when he ordered the NSA to spy on its own people without warrants? The constitution made GWB imprison an American citizen in a military brig without charges or a trial?

        Have you read any of the recently released DoJ memos?

        Bush was actually worse than Nixon, and yes, both of them were enemies of the United States. What else would you call someone that is elected to uphold and defend the constitution that turns around and immediately begins violating it at will?

        • 5 votes
        #1.58 - Wed Mar 4, 2009 6:06 AM EST
        Patriotic Dissenter

        The constitution made GWB ignore the 4th amendment of the constitution when he ordered the NSA to spy on its own people without warrants?

        Do you have any idea how our 4th amendment rights were violated during WW II? There was such a fervor here that Nazi-Americans were working to take down America from within. There was phone tampering on a wholescale level. Where is the outrage??? Where is the outrage when FDR gathered up the Japanese?? As soon as we bring FDR and his administration to task for the blatent violations he perpetrated than I will take all this crapola seriously. All the left likes to do is pick and choose who they consider evil and GWB is now your guy. I think that because the repubs impeached that embarrassment Clinton the Left has been just aching to do the same. Anywhoo, show me evidence that there was phone tampering just for the kicks of it and not to ferret out terrorism.

        • 1 vote
        #1.59 - Wed Mar 4, 2009 9:59 AM EST
        determined0a1

        Original Mac,

        I am looking forward in 4 years that the new Republican administration throw to the Holy NYTimes all what Obama's administration DID or DIDN'T DO.

        That will be fun.

        • 1 vote
        #1.60 - Wed Mar 4, 2009 11:51 AM EST
        davetopper

        I do not condone what FDR did in any way shape or form, but the war we were fighting then was a real war, with real enemies. That excuses FDR about as much as it excuses GWB, in any case it doesn't excuse FDR at all.

        It was a crime what FDR did to those people, and that was his response, an internment camp? Are we always destined for an eye for an eye? At least the US didn't kill these people but for what they lost, homes and more importantly their freedom, that was truly a tragedy for them. Not to mention, the use of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were over the top. That was the answer to the Japanese for attacking a naval base.

        About wiretaps...

        In actuallity Clinton did indeed have the NSA wiretap phones, didn't do much good in the long run because the NSA didn't share its information with the CIA, and the FBI, but they did get enough information from the intel to put together a strong case for an attack using commercial jet liners.

        This information was shared with the next administration, and their to this day and always will be holes in the ground as a sad testament as to what GWB did with this intel.

        There was a PBS special, NOVA I believe that covered all this, and I tell you what it made a strong case for wiretapping and getting clandestine information. Strong indeed. It also made a case for transparency.

        Clinton had an affair in the White House, lied about it and was impeached, Nixon wiretapped his offices, lied about it and had actually did the bravest thing he could have done, resigned.

        Bush on the other hand may have sent thousands of soldiers to an early grave on "fixed" intel. That is a crime that has YET to even be investigated.

        Obama is being tried by right wing political opinion on things he has yet to do. And Clinton was tried by right wing political opinion on an affair.

        And liberals pick and choose?

        In any case I think we owe the soldiers and their families a little more than what they have been fighting and dying for. I think they need an answer that has yet to be fully reckoned with....

        Reason.

        • 3 votes
        #1.61 - Wed Mar 4, 2009 4:38 PM EST
        USAF Vet-923294

        Well Dave, I appreciate the sentiment. However, let me tell you about what Clinton did and what Bush did.

        I am a disabled vet who spends a lot of time at the VA Hospital. Under Clinton the VA budget was slashed deeply. I would go to the Doctor and have to wait for several hours to see one. In one case I waited all day and had to come back the following day. I would also be rushed out the door as fast as possible once I did finally get inside.

        I had been given a medication in the USAF while they were treating me and evaluating me for disability retirement. This medication was $1 a pill and it helped. They had already tried me on a cheaper and less expensive medication that was about $.50 a pill an another one that was $.10 a pill. Neither of these pills did anything to help.

        When the VA took over my care I was stuck with the .$10 pill and my Doctor could not get authorization for the $1 pill.

        When it came to many different test the VA could not do them and I would be scheduled to go to a hospital downtown or to a hospital out of state. Some of these took months just for an appointment. I had to go all the way to New Mexico just to have an ultra sound (there was money in the travel budget but not in the contract medical procedures budget, so they sent me to another VA to save money) when the same test is done at a hospital that is literally across the street.

        These are only a few examples. There are others under Clinton.

        Under Bush: I was approved for a medication that cost $25,000 a dose (when I started on it - now it is down to about $10,000). It has been a tremendous help and I have improved more then at any other time (yes the medication was on the market during the Clinton Admen). I actually have pain free days now.

        More Doctors were hired, more Technicians, more equipment and improvements to the facilities. Now I go to the Doctors and I see one within 15-30 minutes. The doctor spends all the time that is needed to discuss my medical in detail and he actually asks me questions about other health needs or new medications.

        And yet, I still find some good things about Clinton and some bad things Bush.

        • 3 votes
        #1.62 - Wed Mar 4, 2009 11:55 PM EST
        The Original Mac

        What else would you call someone that is elected to uphold and defend the constitution that turns around and immediately begins violating it at will?

        Would that be immediately after taking office or immediately after someone flew a plane into our most regarded military post? Not arguing, just keeping you in the real world.

        I am looking forward in 4 years that the new Republican administration throw to the Holy NYTimes all what Obama's administration DID or DIDN'T DO.

        That will be fun.

        Don't you ever grow tired of the games?

        Where is the outrage when FDR gathered up the Japanese?

        Quite right. If FDR was in charge the last 8 years there wouldn't be 200 in Gittmo. There would 2,000,000. And a lot of empty Arabic neighborhoods in the US. Not that I would or would not disagree with him.

        when his lawyer's advice is in the public domain and his actions on that advice is a matter of record.

        You don't honestly think that all of Former President Busch's conversations with his attorney, whether during his term in office or after, are available for public record do you?

        Then what law presently on the books has he in fact broken?

        So far as I can tell... none. I know there are alot of Americans that don't want to hear that, but sometimes the truth hurts. Even if a true crime were to be found it would never go to court. Oh boy, I'm gonna get hell for that one.

        • 1 vote
        #1.63 - Thu Mar 5, 2009 12:51 AM EST
        1 number from the powerball PA.

        I don't know what VA heath care system you go to.I enrolled in the system in 1999 because of a service connected disability.I have seem it go down hill during the bush years to the point where I started using private doctors instead of waiting forever for an appointment then being told They didn't have a specialist there(wilkes-barre) And I would have to go to Philadelphia or Manhattan It wasn't until 2007 when the Dems took control of the congress that the VA started to be funded properly for the 1st time in many years.By the way during the Clinton years the republicans controlled the congress.

          #1.64 - Thu Mar 5, 2009 6:19 AM EST
          Tom Joad

          Do you have any idea how our 4th amendment rights were violated during WW II? There was such a fervor here that Nazi-Americans were working to take down America from within. There was phone tampering on a wholescale level. Where is the outrage???

          When I learned about that occurrence in my history class in high school, I was upset. It was wrong. It happened over 60 years ago. Let's work with what we've got in front of us, to make sure it never happens again...shall we?

          • 1 vote
          #1.65 - Thu Mar 5, 2009 1:17 PM EST
          The Original Mac

          Those who do not learn from history or bound to repeat it.

          • 2 votes
          #1.66 - Sat Mar 7, 2009 4:48 PM EST
          Paul William Tenny

          I am a disabled vet who spends a lot of time at the VA Hospital. Under Clinton the VA budget was slashed deeply.

          USAF Vet-923294,

          So you choose to blame President Clinton for signing a bill that a Republican Congress drafted? Why do they get a free pass?

          Under Bush: I was approved for a medication that cost $25,000 a dose (when I started on it - now it is down to about $10,000). It has been a tremendous help and I have improved more then at any other time (yes the medication was on the market during the Clinton Admen). I actually have pain free days now.

          Yes, under Bush the Republican Congress went on a spending spree that set records for budget deficits. Some things were worth it, some were not. But if under Bush things were so much better, how did this happen: "Soldiers Face Neglect, Frustration At Army's Top Medical Facility"

          Dana Priest won a Pulitzer for exposing what the all-Republican government did to Walter Reed.

          Would that be immediately after taking office or immediately after someone flew a plane into our most regarded military post? Not arguing, just keeping you in the real world.

          The Original Mac,

          Show me where in the constitution it says enforcement is mandatory only during times of peace. Just reminding you that if you violate all the principles of democracy under duress, it's not actually a democracy.

          It's a dictatorship.

          It's at times like 9/11 that we need a strong constitution and protection of our civil liberties the most. Think about it, while dimwitted Republicans were justifying war against countries that did nothing to us with crys of "they want to take away our freedom", the Bush administration systematically took away our freedom, and you're cheering it on. 9/11 isn't justification for destroying everything that is great and unique about this country, it's the very thing that was supposedly so worth defending.

          Only Bush "defended" it by stepping in place of the terrorists by doing something they could never do: he took away our freedom.

          bin Laden killed us, but Bush is the one who used our own military to arrest American citizens and legal residents and hold them in captivity without charges or trial. Bush is the one who was the larger threat to our freedom.

          That's not rhetoric, it's a fact. Read some of the Bush DoJ memos coming out. Bush asserted the right to declare any American citizen a terrorist and the subsequent right to kill them using our own military inside the United States. Excuse me for saying so, but I find the prospect of an American president that claims the powers of a King -- the right to unilaterally kill his own subjects with their own military -- far more threatening and evil than anything that bin Laden has done to us.

          • 4 votes
          #1.67 - Mon Mar 9, 2009 12:30 AM EDT
          USAF Vet-923294

          Paul,

          So everything is the Republicans' fault? You argue that it wasn't Clinton's fault, yet he could have Vetoed the bill. Just as he did in October of 1995 when the Republicans tried to decrease federal funding for research. Was Clinton right in doing this? If he was right, then he was wrong for not vetoing the cuts to VA Health Care.

          I speak of the Department of Veteran's Affairs and you compare it to the Department of Defense. An increase or decrease in the budget to the Medical of either department does not effect the budget of the other. It effects those that are Military or those that are Veterans.

          Consider this, I was retired from the USAF PDRL (Permanent Disability Retirement List)during the Clinton Presidency. That means that the more expensive pill was allowed under Clinton in the military and then disallowed under Clinton in the VA. So, which one is right?

          When you point to the Republican's and speak of it not being Clinton's fault and then point to the Republicans and say that it is the Republicans fault you are not making a connection. It becomes a matter of cherry picking what supports your argument.

          For example, the largest increases in public debt under Bush was done while the House was controlled by Democrats and the largest decreases of public debt under Clinton was done by a Republican controlled House. Under our Constitution all spending starts there.

          Yet, Clinton defended the Veteran's medical cuts in his proposed budget by stating that WWII veterans were becoming fewer and fewer and the need was no longer there. I accepted that explanation until I saw what happened from it. It wasn't that cuts were not needed or should not have been done. It was that those cuts went too far.

          Bush defended his VA cuts also, until Bush's head of Veteran's Affairs made a plea to congress pointing to the problems created from past cuts. This led to three separate increases that were not on the budget and yes, increases to the deficit.

          Now, do I think that Clinton was a bad president? Actually, no. Do I think the problems that happened were Clinton's fault? Actually, no. It was just another case of bad information that lead to problems.

          Do I think that makes Bush a great President? Again, no. Bush made many mistakes and the only thing that changed VA health care was the man over the VA pleading to congress, not Bush himself. Bush simply signed it into law, which was his approval. Just as Clinton's signing was his approval.

          BTW, I can give you examples of poor medical care in the military under Democrat and Republican Presidents and under Congresses that were controlled by either party. Yet, it is not necessarily all their fault for poor care. Several States where "giving" temporary Medical License to Dr's in the military. As long as they stayed in the Military, they were allowed these license. That meant one state pulls a practitioners license for malpractice and they could join the military and continue to practice. Legislation that had a good intention with bad results.

            #1.68 - Mon Mar 9, 2009 11:33 AM EDT
            Reply
            lvh-865640

            Does anyone remember their feelings on that September 11th? I do.

            • 7 votes
            #2 - Mon Mar 2, 2009 4:59 PM EST
            lacto

            What is your point?

            • 10 votes
            #2.1 - Mon Mar 2, 2009 6:35 PM EST
            Stop the ignorance.

            Do you remember how you felt when you found out that the Bush administration lied about the reasons for war in Iraq but did it anyway?

            Better question: Do you care?

            You were played by the Bush administration along with the rest of America and just think, all it costed you were your civil liberties.

            • 28 votes
            #2.2 - Mon Mar 2, 2009 6:45 PM EST
            Stop the ignorance.

            Do you remember how you felt when you found out that the Bush administration lied about the reasons for war in Iraq but did it anyway?

            Better question: Do you care?

            You were played by the Bush administration along with the rest of America and just think, all it costed you were your civil liberties.

            • 6 votes
            #2.3 - Mon Mar 2, 2009 6:46 PM EST
            Stop the ignorance.

            Do you remember how you felt when you found out that the Bush administration lied about the reasons for war in Iraq but did it anyway?

            Better question: Do you care?

            You were played by the Bush administration along with the rest of America and just think, all it costed you were your civil liberties.

            • 2 votes
            #2.4 - Mon Mar 2, 2009 6:47 PM EST
            Blearc

            Does anyone remember their feelings on that September 11th? I do.

            Sadness

            Do you remember what it feels like to be an American? The greatest country on earth, proud, just, and respected. You proud of the last 8 years?

            • 23 votes
            #2.5 - Mon Mar 2, 2009 6:50 PM EST
            lvh-865640

            lacto No point just a question. No pro or con anything..just a simple question. That's all!

            Stop the ignorance. I wasn't "played" by anyone. What the heck's with "do you care"?I just asked a simple question.

            Blearc, Sadness was the answer I was kinda looking for.

            Gosh ! I must have pushed a button Sorry!

            • 5 votes
            #2.6 - Mon Mar 2, 2009 7:59 PM EST
            firsty

            Does anyone remember their feelings on that September 11th? I do.

            the point of law and order is that it applies even when we would otherwise be overcome by irrational feelings.

            • 14 votes
            #2.7 - Mon Mar 2, 2009 8:51 PM EST
            jbird

            Sorry. I didnt trade my rational constitutional leanings for irrational emotionalism on 9/11. That would be immoral to an extent, if not irresponsible.

            • 13 votes
            #2.8 - Mon Mar 2, 2009 9:12 PM EST
            winsomecowboy

            you didn't ask a simple question, you asked a question that, in this discussion, is a very slanted one. My question to you is, "why did you ask that question"

            If it were a simple question you would have forgotten how you felt and wished to be reminded of how people felt.

            You interject a question that goes to the very root of all justifications of what the Bush admin did to the constitution afterwards. How dare you presume us so stupid as to believe. "It was just a simple question."

            • 19 votes
            #2.9 - Mon Mar 2, 2009 9:41 PM EST
            Nofluer

            On 9/11/01 I stopped at a gas station on my way home from work that was attempting to get almost $5 a gallon for gas. (I'd just filled up for $1.75 or so at a different station.) I went into the store and asked them why they were trying to charge $5 a gallon and the clerk said "the boss called and said to do that."

            I told her that I understood that she was just a clerk, and so not to take it personally, but she was to tell her boss that it was a low, scummy thing to do to try to profit from a terrorist attack, it was un-American, and I felt that for doing so, he was scum. I said that neighbors pull together when bad things happen, they don't try to screw each other. So until the store was owned by a different person, I would not again set foot in it.

            Once a couple of years ago I heard that someone else had bought the store. I poked my head (no feet) into the door and asked, but they said, "Nope. the deal fell through." so I left again, and have kept my word. I haven't set foot in that store for over 8 years.

            He did get fined by the State for price gouging, ($1500) but I didn't think it was enough. He still had the stores.

            • 9 votes
            #2.10 - Mon Mar 2, 2009 9:50 PM EST
            biggerthebetter-620467

            I remember my feelings on September TWELFTH. They were that something was wrong and our gov't was lying. There is no way the gov't could have pinpointed the 19 supposed highjackers that quickly, complete with names and all kinds of photos of them, when the airlines didn't even have those names on their manifests.

            Those were MY feelings.

            • 11 votes
            #2.11 - Mon Mar 2, 2009 9:58 PM EST
            armywife-678770

            I want to answer your question. First I felt shock when the first plane hit, then scared when the next hit and the next and when they finally reported the last one, but then I was angry at those that did this to our country.

            • 3 votes
            #2.12 - Mon Mar 2, 2009 10:43 PM EST
            iconoclasm

            I remember how I felt in 2005

            'Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves; and, under the rule of a just God, cannot long retain it', President Bush inauguration speech, January 20, 2005

            It's a quote from Lincoln.

            I also remember this-

            "He invoked Lincoln. Whenever a president is going to get us in serious trouble, they always use Lincoln." --Victor Milson, space adviser to the U.S. president, reporting ominous news from home to his friend Dr. Heywood Floyd (who is in the vicinity of Jupiter). - from the movie 2010

            [To be fair Obama uses Lincoln alot]

            That was a far cry from

            "Fellow citizens, we'll meet violence with patient justice, assured of the rightness of our cause and confident of the victories to come. " - from the 9/21/01 Bush speech

            • 2 votes
            #2.13 - Mon Mar 2, 2009 11:03 PM EST
            Kim-298921

            Does anyone remember their feelings on that September 11th? I do.

            I do too. Deep deep sadness and anger and fear and like something was broken that could never truly be fixed. I felt the same way after Katrina.

            I also remember my feeling of rage and despair and betrayal and sadness that the wrong country was invaded because of 9/11. There are hundreds of thousands of people dead, or wounded, displaced, bereaved, shattered, because of Bush's lies. There is not a horrible enough Hell for him.

            • 8 votes
            #2.14 - Mon Mar 2, 2009 11:23 PM EST
            JustinPM

            On Sept 11th 2001 I was on Peterson AFB in my dorm room. It was my day off so I slept in and I heard a knock on the door, it was two of my coworkers. They asked if I'd been watching the news, I told them I hate that show (seriously, I did) and then they told me to turn on the TV. There wasn't much laughter for the next few days to be honest. If you were in the military at that time, there is the military before 9/11 and the one since 9/11, it's really that different.

            The thing that shook me was about a year and some change earlier me and my dad were in one of the towers on a 4-H trip. That was the first thing he brought up when I called him too.

            At the time of Sept 11th, I was 19. I wasn't involved in politics in the least, I didn't care about them in the least. The things that I've seen since then have made me active in at least researching politics. For that matter, I want people to be active in politics, to question things, because if anything it should be an American's right to question the government, and the government should answer to them, not vice versa.

            • 6 votes
            #2.15 - Mon Mar 2, 2009 11:47 PM EST
            Tom Joad

            As I read this, and remember that day, I've begun to weep. What I remember is an emotion too powerful for words to describe. I slept in, as well, Justin. The girl I was living with and I were moving, and we got up, came out to the car, and turned it on. The DJ's were talking about the WTC Towers being blown up, and as I realized what they were saying, the only thing I could think about was the 1940's broadcast of "The War of the Worlds". It was a radio program meant for entertainment, but it caused a panic. I wanted to believe that this was just someone's idea of entertainment, and not a serious news event.

            As the day progressed, I remember seeing footage of a man and woman jumping to avoid death by fire, and holding hands as they fell to their deaths. So many died, burned by fire, killed by falling rubble, or when the planes plowed into various buildings. The shock, and horror took some time to set in, but underneath it was a steely determination. "I am an AMERICAN!" something inside me cried out "and I shall not let this happend while I stand idly by!" September 12 I spent moving, and September 13 I was in the recruiter's office for the United States Army. Having been rejected from military service previously because of an eye condition, I was rejected again.

            I'm ok with that, and I have every intention of eventually being one of the hands that shapes the military and it's policy, rather than just part of the tool itself. My hat and heart are in my hands every time I hear of a widowed wife and mother, and fist over chest when I think of the boys and girls who do it every day around the world for you and I.

            I think on the concept of honor often and long these days. It is not a concept that many talk about, or seem to understand. There are few who can define it, instead providing synonyms for the word, rather than a definition. Meanwhile, this is a concept that wars have been fought for, and men and women have thrown themselves to their deaths in defense of it. I shall not allow it to vanish, and it will not, because honor lives in the hearts of those who are willing to fight and die for it.

            Were we to allow Bush to get away, no prosecution/investigation, we would be casting aside our personal honor, and our honor as a nation. Keep that close to the forefront of your thoughts, and remember that we have a code we live by. Are you willing to protect that code of honor at all costs? Think you long on this, my friends...for this code is what defines you and us as a country.

            • 9 votes
            #2.16 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 12:23 AM EST
            ARCHON-PRIME

            Do you remember how you felt when you found out that the Bush administration lied about the reasons for war in Iraq but did it anyway?

            Do you remember how you felt when you were first reminded that Bush only repeated the same intelligence findings that were repeated over and again by the Clinton Administration?

            You felt pretty stupid right?

            I mean knowing the Dems, played you for a sucker, by being for Iraq WMDs before they were against them, must have really made you feel violated by the Dems you trusted.

            You proud of the last 8 years?

            200,000 captured or killed Islamo-terrorists in 10-countries, HELL YEAH.

            How about you are you proud that YOU wanted America to fail for the last decade?

            • 8 votes
            #2.17 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 2:09 AM EST
            JustinPM

            Who said that Archon? We don't want America to fail, we want America to be America! As bad as some would say burning the flag, what of the constitution? How much will you give to feel safe? You admit that the intelligence was bad and in the same pen stroke push it to the previous administration.

            Tell me this, would you trust intel that is 234 days old? Don't you think they would, oh I don't know, check up on it?

            As for the coup de grace of your post, you blame the whole thing on the democrats. Given the intelligence given to them, what decision were they to make?

            If I were to lie to someone and they make a bad decision because of it, is it their fault or the person that lied to them? Are they implicit, yes, they are.

            But do they solely hold the blame, hell no. The count for the resolution to go to war with Iraq (Public Law No: 107-243) was a 77-23 decision. Of the 77 who voted for, 48 of them were Republican, the majority of the vote. Against it were 21 Democrats, 1 Republican, and 1 Independant.

            • 10 votes
            #2.18 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 2:27 AM EST
            tiffanne

            I remember my feeling on 9/11. I also remember WATERGATE and how I felt when we discovered we had been lied to, and how many of our family and friends lives were lost all for the sake money. But we were a more reasonable COUNTRY then and believed History would take care of President Nixon, or while we at it , how about when we discovered the CIA had something to do with the death of JFK. MY POINT...Were we a more tolerant people then, or !!! YOU ARE NO BETTER THAN WHAT YOU PERCEIVE BUSH TO BE, someone posted that earlier, and I'm not sure that's the way Americans felt. Who are you, that you would destroy AMERICA? I believe you are a group of (I'M NOT SURE WHO YOU ARE)who want to tear at the very fiber of this country, people who believe AMERICANS are a lazy lot who will go along with just about anything they hear without reading the entire article, no, that's not who we are, we're smarter than that, we're better than that, and WE ARE NOT STUPID enough to go along with this. Do as you wish, but remember, tax day always comes around and this will be the end of AMERICA as we know it. I am going to enjoy my visit with my daughter and granddaughter this SUMMER, we will be out of the country for a week or two,,, so if your intent on doing away with Democracy as we know it , please do it while I'm in Europe, not while I'm HERE!!!!!! If I'm here when you start this war against everything that gave YOU the AMERICA you enjoy today, I'll be ready to take back the AMERICA I have enjoyed for 60+ yrs and the country my brothers died for, FOR WHAT.?

            • 2 votes
            #2.19 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 2:38 AM EST
            AdipicAcid

            What Eric wants, Gnostix, is a show trial followed by a public execution. It's the Marxist way, after all, to distract the people by identifying class enemies and shooting them. One more likeness they share with the Fascists, I'm afraid.

            • 3 votes
            #2.20 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 8:24 AM EST
            iconoclasm

            It's depends at which time...

            I was doing BS paperwork on the phone with someone working from home. Their mom cut in after the first plane hit, terrorism was mentioned. My response was "All those planes up in the air, it was a matter of time before an accident" (Denial)

            Still working on the BS paperwork on the phone the 2nd plane hit. The I was asked if something was wrong with planes in general. "No. Two planes means terrorism. And not just crazy terrorism, the well planned scary kind".

            "What should we do next?".

            "We're almost done with this [BS paperwork]. If we stop they win. I need a few minutes."

            I dismissed my group telling them that we have not been offically dismissed but I am sending you all home. "I will take the heat if I'm wrong. We'll make this time up later. Leave now. Drive safe like a snow day. There will be alot of scared people leaving soon."

            Finished the BS paperwork then checked in with the boss. She had not heard anything on leaving. Since were hunderds of miles away and the home office was tens of miles away I don't think we heard from them that day at all. She made the same decision I did earlier and closed our site.

            The wife and kids had already gone to the inlaws (that were the really kewl guns are). So I went over there, I think I made it there before the first building came down. Possibly I was driving a little fast (fear) ... and was one of those idiots who went out and filled all the gas tanks of ever car we had over there (fear).

            It sort of a blur from there but I remember we were back at work the next day. Some of our equipment was still functioning a day later in a sub-basement of ground zero on battery backup. It was manually remotely shut down (batteries running low). So we had a lot of hope that there were survivors on that level. (hope) As you know there wasn't (depression).

            Even more of a blur after that but I remember have to say several time over the next year. "Yes we are in a office tower. Yes we have an international airport who's planes have even more fuel in them that those that were used. But it's not the tallest. And the terrorist don't know this city is here. In fact most of the rest of America doesn't remember that there is a city here most of the time. Anything can happen but we are pretty safe because were not an international symbol of anything." (Was that more denial or accpetance?)

            • 2 votes
            #2.21 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 9:03 AM EST
            Coolcat-727046Deleted
            Vis Major

            You keep making this argument. Cross burnings slow this week?

            • 4 votes
            #2.23 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 9:33 AM EST
            iconoclasm

            I'm aware of the facts of history, thank you. I think you misread the post. There has been multiple times that the right things get done for the wrong reason by the wrong people. Lincoln overstepped but on the whole we are better off. Everyone who wants to overstep quotes him. That doesn't make overstepping a good thing.

            • 2 votes
            #2.24 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 9:42 AM EST
            Coolcat-727046Deleted
            Coolcat-727046Deleted
            winsomecowboy

            Wow coolcat you make such a good argument I may very well be swayed. Oh hold on you're just hawking up a flegmy discharge, my bad.

            • 7 votes
            #2.27 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 11:08 AM EST
            gamerk2

            Stop using 9/11 to argue against a loss of everything we stand for, because I don't want any part of it.

            Bush essentially tried to give his office the right to detain anyone he wanted, search anyone he wanted, terrorist, citizen, or otherwise. As far as I'm concerned, he's a traitor, plain and simple.

            And for the record, I was there on 9/11. Stop using it to make your point, as I'm tired of all of you saying what I would want.

            • 2 votes
            #2.28 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 11:41 AM EST
            Coolcat-727046Deleted
            Mars313

            I have a friend flying helicopter over there right now and my son is a Navy pilot. My cousin is also in Iraq. What horse do you have in this race Cowboy? None I bet!

            Ohhhhh, patriotic by association, how classy! I have an aunt who was killed in the WTC on 9/11 and a cousin (her son) who was killed in Iraq. That makes me more credible than you I suppose. Sorry.

            • 5 votes
            #2.30 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 12:09 PM EST
            1 number from the powerball PA.

            Can you imagine how the families of those lost feel when they have to watch and listen to Osama Bin Laden every anniversary of 9/11.Then watch soldiers being killed in Iraq.If I was one of them I would have steam coming out of my ears.Actually I do anyway.

            • 1 vote
            #2.31 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 12:33 PM EST
            iconoclasm

            "Lincoln didn't overstep. He was the leader of our country and he did what he thought was best which is exactly why he was elected [dribbling insults]"

            He DID overstep. He did what he though was best which turned out to be very GOOD indeed. HOWEVER it sets up a GOOD KING mantra which is exactly what we DO NOT want.

            Can I make it any more simpler?

            • 1 vote
            #2.32 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 12:43 PM EST
            Brian-657672

            The use of military action in Iraq is the single most bi-partisan vote in the history of congress. Why are we not concerned about our congress people that voted the military use in Iraq? It must be that Bush haters united, and forgot all the rest of the important information leading up to the war!

              #2.33 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 12:52 PM EST
              countrycomfort

              The use of military action in Iraq is the single most bi-partisan vote in the history of congress. Why are we not concerned about our congress people that voted the military use in Iraq?

              How about considering the vote was taken based on evidence given to the congress. Years later the congress gets the truth: Oh Yeah - we made some of that up, filled in some blanks with what we thought it would be, and only showed you the intelligence reports that said what we wanted them to say.

              • 2 votes
              #2.34 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 12:57 PM EST
              Coolcat-727046Deleted
              Vis Major

              But maybe his fallen relatives are black and should have been in Africa all along.

              • 2 votes
              #2.36 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 1:16 PM EST
              Brian-657672

              The whole entire international community, American intelligence, world intelligence and more, believed that there were WMD in Iraq. Saddam was a very bad person, and the war in Iraq was won by President Bush. We are leaving, and it would be irresponsible for Obama to leave without winning. The time frame was set over a year ago.

              Some people in congress on certain committees were given the same information that President Bush received. The question again is why are we not concerned with congress, who authorized and funded the war multiple times?

              • 1 vote
              #2.37 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 1:27 PM EST
              iconoclasm

              "The whole entire international community, American intelligence, world intelligence and more, believed that there were WMD in Iraq"

              That's funny. I thought the "international community" aka the UN was part of the axis of evil.

              • 4 votes
              #2.38 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 1:34 PM EST
              Mars313

              Mars 313, You're just hateful. You dishonor your fallen relative, who chose to serve their country. It's low life's like you that my son says need pity and protecting from their own ignorance!

              So, since I have more "horses in the race" than you do, that makes me "hateful"? I see.

              And I'm sorry that your son needs protection from his own ignorance. Tell him that it's not his fault, he was failed miserably by his pathetic parents.

              • 5 votes
              #2.39 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 1:41 PM EST
              JustinPM

              Okay, "Coolcat" here you go, here's my reason for serving. There has been someone in my family serving since the civil war. My father retired after 20 years in the Army, my Grandfathers both fought in World War II. My family in Pennsylvania currently lives in the house my ancestor that fought in the civil war built. My family's history has been intertwined with military service as long as I've known. So tell me, what now of this? If I had the primary intention of college tuition being my goal, why wouldn't I have instead gone to college? Is someone's service to this country any less given what their reason for joining is?

              As far as time in Iraq, I spent time there from the 28th of Nov. 2003 to April of 2004. Being in the Air Force, our deployments aren't as long.

              • 3 votes
              #2.40 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 1:50 PM EST
              lilbitsofknowledge

              Off the topic, but someone needs to say it.... Thank you JustinPM for what you did for this country. Thank you to all the others on here who also served their country in order for us to be on here, doing exactly what we are doing now. Enjoying our freedom.

              • 2 votes
              #2.41 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 1:59 PM EST
              Patriotic Dissenter

              Here here. All of our military (and that includes the National Guard) are heroes and lead by example. God bless each and everyone of you.

              • 2 votes
              #2.42 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 2:39 PM EST
              Pete520

              Saddam was a very bad person, and the war in Iraq was won by President Bush. We are leaving, and it would be irresponsible for Obama to leave without winning.

              If Bush won the war, how could Obama leave without winning?

              • 5 votes
              #2.43 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 2:39 PM EST
              Tom Joad

              Folks, let's take a moment and reflect. This thread was originally meant to discuss Obama's release of documentation from the Bush Administration, and the import of this documentation on various aspects of our lifestyle.

              How did we go from that, to petty name calling and posturing? George, and Mars, you two are the worst. I don't expect much better from George, but Mars, you're halfway intelligent. Why are you sinking to his level?

              Justin, and every other vet out there, I thank you. Your reasons for serving do NOT matter, so long as you served. My hat is off.

              • 3 votes
              #2.44 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 2:45 PM EST
              Mars313

              How did we go from that, to petty name calling and posturing? George, and Mars, you two are the worst. I don't expect much better from George, but Mars, you're halfway intelligent. Why are you sinking to his level?

              I'm sorry you feel that way, but frankly I think you're wrong. That guy was trying to say that he has more credibility because he knows some people who are in Iraq, to which I pointed out that I do as well, so his claim is bull@!$%#. He called me hateful, and I replied once, hatefully. A grand total of two posts. I've gone much lower than that just for the fun of it. I hardly did any damage to your little discussion.

              • 2 votes
              #2.45 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 3:24 PM EST
              winsomecowboy

              Well lets just see, you know, for the sake of the pitiful argument you make that only those with military ties deserve to express themselves in America.

              Father in law, ex military policeman, workmates at present 3 ex military, cousin ex seal and ex seal trainer [quit last year served his 20 odd years+ stopgap] we spend part of the year extended family camping, he's very handy.

              That's all i'm afraid, oh both grandads fought and my brother was in the navy.

              not that that amounts to a stunted fleas fart in respect to whether it justifies my expressing an opinion.

              And Hollywood? I lived there once for a month in the basement of an illegal after hours nightclub on sunset across from Hollywood high with the transformer for the entire block humming in the corner of my room. I'm actually from Lyttelton and I now live in Hawaii although I travel extensively. This year Turkey, Canada and perhaps NZ and China [still unconfirmed] anything else you'd like to know? any other hoops you'd like me to jump through before you'll allow me to express myself legitimately?

              I've got one requirement you still haven't mastered before I can possibly take you seriously and cease what I'm very good at which is ridiculing self rightousness. [its my job]

              try and express what you believe without attacking others.

              I simply don't think you capable but you could surprise me.

              I rather think that screeching at others is the safest alternative to that of stopping and being overwhelmed by the emptiness within.

              You talk to hear yourself speak or write, there is no other purpose, you don't listen. you don't learn, you don't inquire with any sincerity, you simply attack, and you won't accept this but believe me or not it's very true. You are pitifully shallow at attacking.

              But as I've pointed out , you don't need to be because you are entirely selfish and you only attack because it make you feel better.

              Which is why I play with you like a ragdoll.

              • 3 votes
              #2.46 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 10:37 PM EST
              Stop the ignorance.

              First off, let me apologize for the three post of the same message, don't really know how that happened?

              Second, I think Winsomecowboy put it best in post 2.9.

              Now, to those who have continued to post on lvh 865640's comment regarding 9/11...

              After I sat watching the nightly newscast regarding the Bush administration's Justice dept.s memos which detailed how the president had the power to limit free speech and free press, hold american citizens in military brigs w/o charges, attack america with military might should me feel the need to I felt that we were the ones who dodged the bullet. A bullet fired directly at our civil liberties by our own leader from the White House.

              None of you seem the least bit concerned about that... Yoru just repeat feeling of hurt while giving a pass to the president who would have taken away your civil liberties.

              Additionally, the CIA destroyed evidence they were ordered to produce. No one seems concerned....

              The Bush administration, during the trial of the alleged 20th hijacker, denied that any tape of interrogations or torture existed. Then, after the trial ended, acknowledged that two tapes actually did exist. AFTER THE TRIAL ENDED. Again, no one seems concerned....

              Here's a thought, if the government is actually lying to prevent evidence from coming to light in a trial, in fact standing in the way of a fair trial, what makes any of you think you would get a fair trial?

              Is that what 9/11 did to you?

              If you want to give up your rights that's fine but don't campaign by your silence, your acquiesence, to give up mine!

              • 4 votes
              #2.47 - Wed Mar 4, 2009 11:39 AM EST
              Tom Joad

              *clicking stop the ignorance's vote up button somewhere around 2-300 times*

              Sorry dude. It only took one vote...I tried, though.

              • 1 vote
              #2.48 - Thu Mar 5, 2009 1:22 PM EST
              Reply
              BlogACauseDeleted
              Loren EberlyExpand Comment Comment collapsed by the community

              There is reason to believe CIA should investigate Obama terrorizing Fathers disqualified for affirmative action with white skin, Union workers, consumers, taxpayers, and America's grandchildren's children, lottery, casino, and keno losers, unemployed workers, aliens, waitresses that pander for life for $2.00 per hour, insubordinate, low-income, defiant of realities demands volunteers without wages, nonunion parasites willing to work for fewer wages than they can afford life, righteous with a faith-based belief that it's a sin to engage in free, fair, and affordable commerce. Or get an agreement (union contract) with every corporation, farmer, business, outsourcer sweatshop, and nonprofit, tax-exempt, organization and Church. Agreeing to market the cost in the wholesale and retail price of his or her product and service. To pay for Obama stimulus packages, tax cuts, tax abatements, tax incentives, tax credit, and tax exemptions with money derived from wages or independent business profit.

              And investigate every corporation, farmer, business, outsourcer sweatshop, and nonprofit, tax-exempt, organization and Church. That refuses to market the cost in the wholesale and retail price of his or her product and service. Of every workers, consumers, and taxpayers living (including pension and health care). Enabling parents to love, nurse, nurture, discipline, protect, and provide, for every child (job) they conceive and fund schools, infrastructure, national security, government services, and etc.; with money derived from wages or independent business profit.

              Investigate Chinese Investors and Stockholders, Financial institutions stockholders, Investors and stockholders in the Illegal Drug Business, Business owners stockholders, OPEC nations and Enron stockholders, Bulls on Wall Street, Hillarys, Wal-Mart stockholders, and foreign and domestic investors (money marketers) That scam Fathers disqualified for affirmative action with white skin, Union workers, consumers, taxpayers, and America's grandchildren's children, lottery, casino, and keno losers, unemployed workers, aliens, waitresses that pander for life for $2.00 per hour, insubordinate, low-income, defiant of realities demands volunteers without wages, nonunion parasites willing to work for fewer wages than they can afford life, righteous with a faith-based belief that it's a sin to engage in free, fair, and affordable commerce. To pay for the more stock dividends Money Marketers market quarterly. In the wholesale and retail price of every product and service Homo sapiens use for life. That gets only product or service. To measure and maintain the strength and growth of this unaffordable economy and prove that money used to identify agreed value of sellers and buyers in the marketplace has value.

              • 3 votes
              Reply#4 - Mon Mar 2, 2009 5:17 PM EST
              Artezul

              I'm sorry, I don't see your point.

              • 21 votes
              #4.1 - Mon Mar 2, 2009 7:25 PM EST
              Walt D

              We tend to take sentence structure for granted until the unthinkable happens.

              • 22 votes
              #4.2 - Mon Mar 2, 2009 9:42 PM EST
              winsomecowboy

              That's the worst poetry i've ever read!

              • 12 votes
              #4.3 - Mon Mar 2, 2009 9:44 PM EST
              biggerthebetter-620467

              I haven't seen so few periods since I was pregnant with my three kids.

              • 18 votes
              #4.4 - Mon Mar 2, 2009 10:00 PM EST
              Jimster

              WaltD-

              LOL. good one.

              • 5 votes
              #4.5 - Mon Mar 2, 2009 10:09 PM EST
              UNCLEMIKE

              bigger LOL

              Thanks for putting some perspective on the above rant. Some things just need a woman's touch to straighten them out. LOL LOL

              • 5 votes
              #4.6 - Mon Mar 2, 2009 10:14 PM EST
              santame

              bigger

              LOL. It's one of those things that make a person say. I wish I had said that.

              • 2 votes
              #4.7 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 2:51 AM EST
              tiffanne

              loren, there are many who don't understand what a rant is or how it works, and some here say it's because your a woman,and It just needs a woman's touch, right UNCLE MIKE. I'm not sure what wrong with the men of AMERICA, that they don't understand a rant but that's too bad. What she was trying to ask you is that if Past President Bush, then why not ALL THESE OTHER'S who are destroying the America of yesterday. And you have to be honest and admit that all the others listed in that rant are guilty, and should you not be going after them also,,,how many people, corporations, religions can you handle at one time. I'll leave you with this, IF YOU YOURSELF HOLD NO GUILT, BREAK THAT GLASS And to all you guy's out there who don't understand us little ladies, remember it's easy enough to for us to change that name!!

              • 1 vote
              #4.8 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 2:55 AM EST
              Tom Joad

              Tiffane, darlin, WHAT are you going on about with changing that name? Did I miss something?

              "If you yourself hold no guilt, break that glass"...that's what special investigators are appointed for, and that's why we have the justice system we have today of our peers. Also, I think the exact quote is "Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone", isn't it?

              • 3 votes
              #4.9 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 7:47 AM EST
              UNCLEMIKE

              tiffane,

              the woman's touch I was referring to was biggerthebetter's new take on the rules of punctuation. Hadn't really considered Loren to be a female name. Nevertheless this rant takes so many turns that I just don't know what to make of it. Bigger was generous in implying that the problem was a shortage of periods. After I plowed through the post, bigger's remark made great sense. Like the song says, forgive me, I'm "just a man" who enjoys a woman with a sense of humor. Bigger has one.

              As for the America of yesterday, there are things I miss. There's a lot more that I don't. Somehow our country has slowly hewed closer and closer to the ideals of the Constitution. Despite the fits and starts, challenges and occasional backpedalling, we move closer to the old document and away from the attitudes that some might revere as tradition but which are really just roadblocks to equality and freedom. Sometimes we get a lesson in just how fragile our laws are and that the Constitution can't protect us if we don't protect it. The rules are for everybody including the President.

              • 2 votes
              #4.10 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 11:02 AM EST
              Reply
              DonkeyRidderExpand Comment Comment collapsed by the community

              "Travis" Obama trying to make Bush look bad while at the same time undermining our national security? I would have never guessed.

              Obama is a pathetic, bedwetting, "thumb"-sucking, piece of shirt. He is trying to divert attention from his Great Depression.

              And that racist ignorant fool Holder will help Obama get us all killed. You liberals have really screwed up this time. Holder and Obama sport woodies while talking to each other, I suppose. Part of the alternative energy plan, pecker-power. It started as a Clinton initiative, but petered out after a pecker pucker by Monica. These two might have better luck together.

              • 5 votes
              Reply#5 - Mon Mar 2, 2009 7:31 PM EST
              Artezul

              I think Bush has done a well enough job on his own image without having President Obama's help.

              It's not like the world ever pretended to be ignorant to what was going on at Guantanamo, or the fact that our liberties were getting reamed. But it certainly helps that we have some form of physical evidence to confirm the suspicions.

              • 15 votes
              #5.1 - Mon Mar 2, 2009 7:40 PM EST
              DonkeyRidder

              If you and all the other liberals in this world would go after the likes of the Muslim radicals who cut off Danny Pearl's head with the same ferocity you go after Bush for scaring some murderous barbarians into giving up their deadly secrets, our national security problems would be solved. But no, you want to pamper and protect America's ememies since you share many of the same goals. Pull out and publish the art of the proud Muslim radicals, the beheading videos, and show them repeatedly to the world. No, Bush is a bigger enemy to the liberal agenda.

              Bush reamed our liberties? How much liberty do you have left when Obama forces you from your home, eliminates your job, and shrinks your 401k to a morsel? Bush was a great protector of America from external sources, but he didn't stop the Obama overthrow of the /constitution, so we are still screwed.

              • 6 votes
              #5.2 - Mon Mar 2, 2009 8:15 PM EST
              Walt D

              And that racist ignorant fool Holder will help Obama get us all killed.

              All of us? Really? By whom?

              What a scary tiny little world you live in.

              • 9 votes
              #5.3 - Mon Mar 2, 2009 9:45 PM EST
              landspirit

              Donkey Rider..... Your language and innuendos are very unwelcome. It is possible to have a view without going where you are. I have no idea where you are getting the basis for your statements like

              but he didn't stop the Obama overthrow of the /constitution, so we are still screwed.

              What?????

              • 5 votes
              #5.4 - Mon Mar 2, 2009 9:46 PM EST
              Squidward

              Bush was a great protector of America from external sources, but he didn't stop the Obama overthrow of the /constitution, so we are still screwed.

              If Obama wanted to overthrow the Constitution, then he is too late, Bush definitely beat him to it.

              • 10 votes
              #5.5 - Mon Mar 2, 2009 10:03 PM EST
              Tom Joad

              Bush was a great protector of America from external sources, but he didn't stop the Obama overthrow of the /constitution, so we are still screwed.

              If Obama wanted to overthrow the Constitution, then he is too late, Bush definitely beat him to it.

              Aye, laddie. I'll drink ta that one...People call Obama Socialist. Do they not realize that the last year of the Bush Administration took us further towards the Marxist definition of socialism than anything to this point? Wake up, ya'll....

              • 6 votes
              #5.6 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 12:31 AM EST
              DonkeyRidder

              Quit using Bush's screwups to justify increasing them an order of magnitute. You current liberal Democrat team can undoi anything and everything Bush did that you find unreasonable or unConstitutional, but you won't. You are actually happy with much Bush did, but you want to turn everyone against the Republicans.

              Your language and innuendos are very unwelcome.

              Goode thing I'm not seeking your approval to be here. You have my name, don't read them. Typical leftist, wanting to make sure no one sees what they don't like.

                #5.7 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 7:35 AM EST
                Tom Joad

                Ok folks. Last time. I've already worked this out with The Capitalist (fellow Viner), and guess it's time to work it out with you.

                I'M NOT INTERESTED IN USING W.'S SCREWUPS TO MAKE OBAMA LOOK GOOD! I'M INTERESTED IN USING BUSH'S SCREWUPS TO NAIL HIS ASS TO THE WALL...AND IF OBAMA MAKES THE SAME MISTAKES (To wit, pissing on the Constitution), THEN I SHALL CALL EVERY BIT AS STRONGLY FOR AN INVESTIGATION OF OBAMA.

                • 4 votes
                #5.8 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 7:51 AM EST
                DonkeyRidder

                Well, Tom, start the investigation, because nowhere in the Constitution does it say the federal government can take money through taxation to give to GM, AIG, or any other private enterprise. Notice how some small banks fail and are siezed and closed, but some other big banks get hundreds of billions from Obama, Pelosi, and Reid? Why do you think there is picking and choosing going on? There are political payoffs in play. You leftists have turned our country over to megalomaniacal goofs, Obama, Reid, and Pelosi, who know no bounds and will not be detered by the Constitutional restrictions on federal powers. With a couple more libs on the Supreme Court, we won't even need elections to decide what is best for America.

                And Obama is now running a war in Iraq on false pretenses. Why is he keeping us there? Oil? Every soldier and civilian who dies in that war now is directly due to that lying Obama. Iraq is a small country, no threat to us, like Iran as Obama told us. He should just get out, and now, like he promised, don't you think?

                You leftists aren't going to do squat to stop Obama's ovethrow of the Constitution. Maybe when you're hungry and cold and unemployed, or when your kids are being raped and beheaded by Muslim extremists you'll have some remorse for your treatment of Bush, but I doubt it.

                • 1 vote
                #5.9 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 9:55 AM EST
                Tom Joad

                And Obama is now running a war in Iraq on false pretenses. Why is he keeping us there? Oil? Every soldier and civilian who dies in that war now is directly due to that lying Obama. Iraq is a small country, no threat to us, like Iran as Obama told us. He should just get out, and now, like he promised, don't you think?

                Did you REALLY just say that? Wow...take the blinders off, dude.

                • 1 vote
                #5.10 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 10:43 AM EST
                DonkeyRidder

                I'm trying to fake being one of you, using the same lines as you used on Bush. Don't you recognize them.

                  #5.11 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 10:52 AM EST
                  sickandtired-554972

                  DonkeyRidder you have got to be one of the most blinded/ignorant individuals I have ever read! Open your eyes and take a good look around - We Are Not In Your Perfect Little World anymore. 5 weeks into Obama adm and you are ready to throw the whole thing into the trash just because the GOP lost WAH WAH!!! Get A Life and STFU!!!!!! Oh by the way, I never heard the Dems calling out for revolution and civil disobiedence like the GOP is doing only 45 days into the Admin. You are the only one that knows it all and has the only answers right? Agian STFU!!!

                  • 2 votes
                  #5.12 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 12:21 PM EST
                  Tom Joad

                  Look guys. There's the loyal opposition, and then there's divisive opposition. I'm dissatisfied with a lot that goes on today in the political world. Donkey, for you to label me as leftist and Democrat simply shows your ignorance. I'm a Centrist, and there's a HUGE difference.

                  Loyal Opposition is a concept that seems to have died in the early 90's. We need to bring it back. When something occurs, instead of simply starting up with the character attacks, we need to ask WHY.

                  Think on that for awhile, folks.

                  • 1 vote
                  #5.13 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 12:54 PM EST
                  DonkeyRidder

                  sickotirade-BR549 -- make me. And I accept your "sick" moniker as factual. Just like "Travis" Obama, all talk, no substance, and desperately in need of an accomplishment to define manliness, masculinity. Ignorant of history, economics, and human nature. I'm sorry you've failed and need to blame Bush for it. It is a syndrome, Bush Derangement Syndrome. It seems to be incurable.

                  It is time for a revolution. We don't need no stinking communist administration. "Travis" Obama has done severe damage in just 45 days, so we can't afford to wait longer. If you can't pay for your house or have lost your job or have lost your 401k, you can thank "Travis" Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi.

                  Tom, if one supports "Travis" Obama's socialization on the way to communism plan, then that one is no centrist, rather are a leftist. You seem to like the centrist label better, but it is the actions that define the man. Now if you define centrist as preferring socialism over communism, then you might fit the label.

                    #5.14 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 2:57 PM EST
                    Reply
                    Jim-657948

                    I guess if I had to choose between a President that eavesdropped on my conversations with Islamic Extremists or a President that closes a prison for extremists without a plan on how to handle them.....I choose the eavesdropper.

                    I guess, If I had to choose a president that was forced to make tough decisions (at a time when the threat was real, urgent, unkown, and terrifying,) I would choose one that had the lives of Americans as a priority over one that had the civil rights of fanatics.

                    I guess, and it is just a guess, that if a person actally waterboarded a terrorist, I would not want him to be prosecuted by a sleazy Attorney General. Okay, destroy the tapes to protect these investigators and keep confidential any information BO clearly wants to use to embarrass Bush....Bush did fine at that himself.

                    I am not giving Bush a pass. I give him my thanks.

                    • 7 votes
                    #6 - Mon Mar 2, 2009 7:56 PM EST
                    Fakirs Canada

                    re Jim-657948's "I guess, If I had to choose a president that was forced to make tough decisions (at a time when the threat was real, urgent, unkown, and terrifying,) I would choose one that had the lives of Americans as a priority over one that had the civil rights of fanatics."

                    His perspective is more terrifying than that of jihadists' to me. There are so many in the west and Europe who are thinking like this, that the ends can justify the means, and that one can some how protect democracy by subverting the ideals that founded democracy. This is the fundamental rationale of Dick Cheney for water-boarding.

                    Marnie Tunay Fakirs Canada

                    • 10 votes
                    #6.1 - Mon Mar 2, 2009 8:28 PM EST
                    dcstone01

                    "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

                    Ben Franklin

                    • 21 votes
                    #6.2 - Mon Mar 2, 2009 8:47 PM EST
                    firsty

                    I guess if I had to choose between a President that eavesdropped on my conversations with Islamic Extremists or a President that closes a prison for extremists without a plan on how to handle them.....I choose the eavesdropper.

                    then, regardless of your personal feelings, you have chosen a president who violates our constitution.

                    as far as prisoners from gitmo go, why are our existing prisons not secure enough for them? we put rapists, child molesters, and other kinds of mass murderers in them. we dont think they will escape.

                    and why is our justice system not fit for terror suspects?

                    • 15 votes
                    #6.3 - Mon Mar 2, 2009 8:55 PM EST
                    USAF Vet-923294

                    Are you kidding? Prisoners escape all the time.

                    Ever drive by a prison? They have these signs that say not to pick up hitch hikers because they maybe escaped prisoners. So, I think we have to admit that there is a possibility that it could happen.

                    It happens more often then you might think. Don't you remember the six who escaped in Alabama earlier this month?

                    • 1 vote
                    #6.4 - Mon Mar 2, 2009 9:39 PM EST
                    TheJonesGirl

                    How many high-value, worst of the worst prisoners ever escape?

                    If our prisons can handle Manson, Dahmer and the blind sheik who masterminded the first WTC attack, then it can handle any from Gitmo.

                    I can't think of any.

                    • 6 votes
                    #6.5 - Mon Mar 2, 2009 9:46 PM EST
                    winsomecowboy

                    six out of how many? 1.6 million. at last count. with an additional 723,000 in local jails.

                    Maximum security prison escapes? It happens, but so does spontanious combustion.

                    These guys aren't darth vader. They don't have nukes in their stool.

                    • 12 votes
                    #6.6 - Mon Mar 2, 2009 9:56 PM EST
                    firsty

                    if we need an island (in someone else's highly populated country by the way) to secure OUR prisoners, we have a different problem.

                    further, the terrorists in gitmo (and they arent all terrorists, by the way) are a dime a dozen, much unlike convicted domestic criminals. the terrorists dont need those people to do a damn thing. there are teenagers lining up to be terrorists in afghanistan and other places (like saudi arabia, who is still our ally, and where bush helped several actual criminals escape to after 9/11). if a terrorist escapes, he poses no more of a threat than any other violent criminal, and perhaps even less.

                    the more we treat terrorists as special cases, the more we will continue to let them disrupt our lives. they should be dealt with swiftly and firmly. holding them it gitmo was nothing more than a cheap and worthless political statement. instilling fear in the country about holding them in maximum security prisons, where we keep our own domestic terrorists with no risk of escape, is itself terrorism.

                    pretending that the political circumstances of their crimes changes the pragmatic nature of our justice and prison systems is a lie.

                    • 8 votes
                    #6.7 - Mon Mar 2, 2009 10:01 PM EST
                    LH1938

                    Finally. Thank you Jim. Your analysis makes PERFECT sense. I make the same choice as you.

                    • 1 vote
                    #6.8 - Mon Mar 2, 2009 11:21 PM EST
                    USAF Vet-923294

                    as far as prisoners from gitmo go, why are our existing prisons not secure enough for them? we put rapists, child molesters, and other kinds of mass murderers in them. we don't think they will escape.

                    Gheeezzzz, you folks are sensitive and full of assumptions. Did I say that the Gitmo Prisoners should not come to the USA? No I didn't!

                    Did I say we shouldn't build maximum security prisons to hold them? No, I didn't.

                    Did I say the prisoners should not be tried in Civilian Courts? Nope!

                    Firsty made the comment I show above. My response is still the same. After all, do you want to put these folks in the same prisons we hold STATE prisoners in? Which is exactly where we keep

                    ....rapists, child molesters, and other kinds of mass murderers......

                    Prisoners escape all the time. Besides, I try to be a realist and recognize the fact that anytime you take someones freedom away, they will try to find a way out.

                    BTW, Winsom, at last count the DOJ had the number at around 6,800 escapees per year - not six. Down from roughly 15,000 at the count prior to that.

                    JonesGirl, how many? Enough that we have a US Marshals Service with over 4,000 personnel who deal primarily with escapees. Besides, wouldn't one be too many?

                    Y'all do realize that the Administration is looking at holding them on Military bases in Military Jails, not civilian facilities, don't you? The two bases on the list that I know of are Lawton, OK and Ft. Leavenworth, KS. However, due to the OKC Bombing, the OK Congressional delegates are trying to have Ft. Sill removed from the list (it is a sensitive subject for those families of the victims and those victims who survived).

                    • 2 votes
                    #6.9 - Mon Mar 2, 2009 11:28 PM EST
                    winsomecowboy

                    Fair enough, a lot of assumptions were made. you make good points and I take responsibility for overreacting, sorry about that USAF Vet-923294

                    • 6 votes
                    #6.10 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 2:16 AM EST
                    tiffanne

                    THANK YOU JIM, you said it well,,,,,,if that's enough for the hunger building out there for BLOOD, someones blood, to make them feel more superior to the rest of those Republicans and to DESTROY the Republican party....they must not feel as sure on 2012, as they thought they were, what do you think Obama, scared.

                      #6.11 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 3:03 AM EST
                      lilbitsofknowledge

                      I want to thank you firsty for not being afraid to show others a different perspective to all of this mess. You have taught me allot when it comes to seeing things from all points of view.

                      I must say that at first I felt this to be a violation of our first amendment. However, if you think about the "TRIGGER WORDS" they are searching and listening for before violating our rights, then you would agree that they would only violate our rights if WE GIVE THEM A REASON TO DO SO.

                      I also now have a better understanding just WHY those tapes where destroyed. They where destroyed to protect the CIA agents that are still in other countries fighting to keep US safe and to protect the FAMILIES OF THOSE AGENTS, FROM PEOPLE LIKE SOME HERE ON THE VINE.

                      Thank you again firsty, keep it up.

                      • 3 votes
                      #6.12 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 3:12 AM EST
                      Vis Major

                      Good thing the terrorist have that tattoo showing what they are... Oh, they don't? So who decides who is a terrorist with no rights? Oh, just Bush. Cool. So if he grabbed you, called you a terrorist, you could still be in prison or dead without ever being able to call a lawyer or tell your family. Nice little power Bush had.

                      • 6 votes
                      #6.13 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 5:14 AM EST
                      1 number from the powerball PA.

                      That moron fell right into bin laden trap.

                        #6.14 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 12:35 PM EST
                        Brian-657672

                        The Geneva convention specifically states that a Soldier can not be housed in the same facility as Civilian criminals. I hope that reason prevails and it is concluded that the Gitmo detention facility is in fact the best place for these people, and it serves multiple purposes for America. Unfortunately, the remaining 245 prisoners of high value have gained an average of fifteen pounds. 600 prisoners have been released. Fifteen of them have been found dead on battlefields around the world, and several others have made Internet statements as leaders of cells else where in the world. Do the math. What percenge is it that we have facts of recidivism to re-combat American forces in cowardly ways is? 20/845th. When is that too much?

                          #6.15 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 1:14 PM EST
                          Pete520

                          First of all, I don't know whether you could qualify one of the terrorists as a Geneva-Convention-defined soldier. What country are they fighting for? Under what flag do they fight?

                          Terrorism is the result of an ideology that falls not between the boundaries of a specific country. How can we win a war against an ideology?

                          • 2 votes
                          #6.16 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 2:43 PM EST
                          gamerk2

                          MAking a bad assumption Brian. Maybe being unjustly held by the US is what caused them to join the Jihad movement?

                          • 1 vote
                          #6.17 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 3:14 PM EST
                          Brian-657672

                          Pete I think you hit the nail on the head. The Bush Administration has had controversy on what to call these Jihadists. All detainees held at Gitmo were obtained during direct conflict with military forces. If fact they could have been held in POW camps in the region, but these people were considered of higher value. Some say they are not soldiers because they are not fighting for a country, and are not in uniform. Others say that they are soldiers because they have desired direct confrontation with coalition forces. However, civilian criminals are completely different than these militant combatants.

                          All presidents have many advisers, and it is my hope that the Obama Administration will conclude that the questions the Bush Administration asked clarified this situation completely enough to pass the rule of law test. Obama is playing a political card.

                            #6.18 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 4:37 PM EST
                            Jim-657948

                            as far as prisoners from gitmo go, why are our existing prisons not secure enough for them? we put rapists, child molesters, and other kinds of mass murderers in them. we dont think they will escape.

                            the more we treat terrorists as special cases, the more we will continue to let them disrupt our lives.

                            Good thing the terrorist have that tattoo showing what they are... Oh, they don't? So who decides who is a terrorist with no rights? Oh, just Bush.

                            If the answer were easy, why has BO not defined it? BO, a student of constitutional law, does not have the answer. It is not a matter of keeping them locked up securely but how to prosecute them without disclosing classified information that would be necessary in OUR judicial system.

                            They are safer and treated better in Gitmo than they will be when they are transferred to prisons that will not be as sensitive to their needs. The neighbors of the prisons to which they will be transferred will be less safe, as will the inmates and guards of the prison.

                            There are thousands of terrorists to take their place, but to insinuate that the existence of another nut is reason to be lax with the one in prison is just ridiculous non-sense, and typical.

                            Hundreds have been released. and many of these "innocents" released returned to fight. The remaining are hardened nutjobs that pose a threat where ever they are.

                            Regardless of all of these arguments, BO has set into motion the transfer of inmates to locations unknown and processes undefined. The answer is not easy, which is why Gitmo exists. It is just stupid to start something without the answers.

                            BO, further, convinced you that his stimulus was necessary even before Congress had a chance to read the bill. Your party passed the bill without reading it. again, putting the donkey in front of the cart. While BO inherited a lousy economy, he clearly is running the country bass ackwards.

                            • 1 vote
                            #6.19 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 11:05 PM EST
                            Jim-657948

                            They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

                            Ben Franklin

                            Ironically, Ben was a spy.

                            • 1 vote
                            #6.20 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 11:29 PM EST
                            Arad

                            Ironically, Ben was a spy.

                            Wait, what?

                              #6.21 - Wed Mar 4, 2009 9:28 AM EST
                              Jim-657948

                              Ben Franklin was a spy for America and some believe that he aslo spied on America on behalf of the British. He had many British and American associates that were spies and he was sympathetic to the British positions.

                                #6.22 - Wed Mar 4, 2009 11:37 AM EST
                                Arad

                                I don't suppose you could provide a source for those conclusions. Because I never heard of Ben being a spy before...

                                  #6.23 - Thu Mar 5, 2009 9:16 AM EST
                                  Tom Joad

                                  That's a first for me, too. I know he was a diplomat to various countries on behalf of America, but a spy?

                                  • 1 vote
                                  #6.24 - Thu Mar 5, 2009 1:23 PM EST
                                  Jim-657948

                                  remove the spaces

                                  pbs . org/benfranklin/13_world_spies.html

                                    #6.25 - Thu Mar 5, 2009 9:12 PM EST
                                    Reply
                                    Independent Thinking-762255

                                    The only point I see has already been made above. Bush lied and people died. George Bush used fellow Americans to follow his own agenda. The "for us agianst us" mentality he used to silence desent, the wire taps, the fear alerts, the torture or as above the betrayal of the American people in a time of crisis by using 9-11 to finish Sadam and hopefully gain access to the Iraq oil fields. What I see personally is even more disturbing in that he used the 9-11 event to start his Iraq war that papa Bush hadn't finished. For once Jr. was gonna show up papa. This is just more of this disfunctional man's legacy. Don't believe it, well then let's ask Collen Powell how he was used in the UN farse. This man a important and respected Republican came out in support of the Democratic nomination for next president. That is how badly Bush damaged his reputation and I'm sure he could tell us lot's if he wasn't such a dignified person.

                                    • 15 votes
                                    Reply#7 - Mon Mar 2, 2009 7:57 PM EST
                                    determined0a1

                                    I just watched 2 hors of 24. Jack Bauer damaged his reputation also.

                                    • 2 votes
                                    #7.1 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 12:44 AM EST
                                    tiffanne

                                    O.M.G . you are not comparing a TV program to what is happening here! Tell me DETERMINED,,tell my it was only a joke,,please tell me it was only a joke...If it's not and this is what you TGIF to determine what happen in real life..MAYBE YOU DO, maybe very many of you do, tell me it is not true. I might have to make that out of the country a longer stay than 2 weeks, tell me you were just joking, I had six brothers who used to kid like that...they all died in all the wars we had, and they did not think THAT WAS ANY JOKE

                                    • 2 votes
                                    #7.2 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 3:14 AM EST
                                    Reply
                                    Steve Watts

                                    "First Amendment speech and press rights may also be subordinated to the overriding need to wage war successfully," Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo wrote

                                    ... ouch.

                                    I mean, we all kind of knew it, it's just strange seeing it put so bluntly. With how much outrage comes at regular pace from the NeoCons over "bastardizing the Constitution," I wonder if they'll be up in arms about this.

                                    Yeah, I know the answer is probably not.

                                    • 17 votes
                                    Reply#8 - Mon Mar 2, 2009 8:33 PM EST
                                    firsty

                                    I mean, we all kind of knew it, it's just strange seeing it put so bluntly. With how much outrage comes at regular pace from the NeoCons over "bastardizing the Constitution," I wonder if they'll be up in arms about this.

                                    if there is one thing to appreciate about the way the bush administration handled this situation, it's that they were so sure of their actions that they made little effort to hide them. even cheney has made public comments in the past 6 months that reveal he believed that breaking the law was ok. and bush has already said he approved illegal interrogation techniques.

                                    the tipping point in this case is not an overwhelming volume of evidence. we really already have that. the tipping point is the public and political fortitude to do the right thing. whether we get there remains to be seen, but this is a good sign.

                                    • 9 votes
                                    #8.1 - Mon Mar 2, 2009 8:57 PM EST
                                    JustinPM

                                    I saw this article and said "Holy @!$%#". This is going to turn out bad I think. Not bad for the country I think, but possibly bad for the last administration. There is a difference between keeping national secrets away from terrorists and lying to the American public, and I think in some of these cases it was the later.

                                    As an aside, I do not see how folks in this article can justfy the destruction of constitutional rights. We have had terrorism before Sept. 11th, though not of its scale, and we managed to keep the constitution whole.

                                    Just think about this for a second, those who would sign away theirs and others constitutional rights for a little bit of false safety, the military's oath of enlistment goes like this.

                                    I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

                                    The part where it says support and defend the constitution? What if the President of the United States willingly circumvented the constitution? How does this oath stack things, does the constitution override the President's orders if they fall outside of the constitution? It truly does warrant some looking at in my opinion.

                                    • 12 votes
                                    #8.2 - Mon Mar 2, 2009 9:17 PM EST
                                    lilbitsofknowledge

                                    Before Sept. 11th we hired Canada to spy on US.

                                    It was determined illegal (In the 90's I believe) to have the CIA spy on US citizens, so they built a HUGE facility in Canada and pay Canada to spy on us. It's located just outside of Vancouver, B.C. in a smaller city named Surry, B.C.

                                    So yes, they have been paying another country to spy on US for years now. The only difference it that now it's made public. They have been monitoring our phone conversations for "Trigger Words" for YEARS now.

                                    • 3 votes
                                    #8.3 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 3:23 AM EST
                                    tiffanne

                                    Before Sept 11th. I hear what your saying easedroping, vs today DICTATOR, your choice

                                    • 1 vote
                                    #8.4 - Wed Mar 4, 2009 10:30 AM EST
                                    USAF Vet-923294

                                    Justin,

                                    They teach troops that disobeying an illegal order is not just a legal obligation, but a moral obligation as well.

                                    The problem is, you better be damn right when you refuse an order and how many enlisted know the UCMJ, constitution, and international laws will enough to navigate "gray" areas?

                                    • 2 votes
                                    #8.5 - Wed Mar 4, 2009 11:07 AM EST
                                    Reply
                                    1 number from the powerball PA.

                                    No yoo was part of the vaudeville team yoo-hoo

                                    • 2 votes
                                    Reply#9 - Mon Mar 2, 2009 8:42 PM EST
                                    JeniferD

                                    Just memos? No coloring books or disturbing fingerpaintings?

                                    • 7 votes
                                    Reply#10 - Mon Mar 2, 2009 9:00 PM EST
                                    iconoclasm

                                    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/29/us/29nsa.html

                                    I don't know if you belive the times or the EFF in this case.

                                    From what I recall the NSA came to AT&T demanding to install equipment to spy on EVERY long distance call using voice recoginition as a filter. AT&T refused and took it to court since it was not being imposed on the whole industry and terrorists could just switch networks. To my knowledge it never occured.

                                    The point being not only was the adminstration wildly out of bounds according to law they were also generally incompetent in the application of these powers.

                                    • 2 votes
                                    Reply#11 - Mon Mar 2, 2009 9:00 PM EST
                                    R. Donald Snyder

                                    The Obama administration also acknowledged in court documents Monday that the CIA destroyed 92 videos involving terror suspects, including interrogations — far more than had been known.

                                    Destroyed hell! Cheney has them in his home for his own late night viewing pleasure! It's that sick SOB's version of porn!

                                    • 10 votes
                                    #12 - Mon Mar 2, 2009 9:10 PM EST
                                    Patriotic Dissenter

                                    I'd rather watch porn like Cheney than snort coke and shoot smack with BO (at least Bush had the decency to snort coke without befrending terrorists like Ayers and Dohrn).

                                    • 2 votes
                                    #12.1 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 11:37 AM EST
                                    Tom Joad

                                    (at least Bush had the decency to snort coke without befrending terrorists like Ayers and Dohrn).

                                    Stupidest thing I've ever heard. Ayers and many of the other so-called 'terrorists' that people linked Obama to are simply people who were/are angry with the system here in America and fought for change.

                                    I do not condone bombings, like Ayers committed as a young man. He did, however, turn himself in in the early 80's, paid his debt to society, and is now a Professor at the University of Chicago. You need to come up with a better argument than that, my friend. America is the land of the free, and home of the brave, and when it's citizens see an aspect of society that they do not like, do not expect them to take it lying down.

                                    Tom Joad

                                    • 3 votes
                                    #12.2 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 1:06 PM EST
                                    Brian-657672

                                    The IED's that the Islamic Fascist used in Iraq were cowards. The Bombs that Ayers used is equally cowardly, and killed innocent Americans. Every person that Bombs the Pentagon has an enemy for life. Bill Ayers and his little dog Dorn are Known Enemies of America. Obama is making as many distractions that he can to stay in office for one more day. Every day is a goood day to destroy America more, as any of our enemies would say.

                                    • 1 vote
                                    #12.3 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 2:28 PM EST
                                    Tom Joad

                                    Well, Brian, I'm impressed. Yes, the very profile of a bomber is that of a coward. They are not confident enough to deal with their problems in a more personal manner, and so resort to explosive packages. When used in a military situation, however, I'm unsure if the same applies, due to varioius aspects of military necessity.

                                    I did not say I approve of Ayers. I do, however, feel he's paid his debt to society, and become a contributing member.

                                    • 2 votes
                                    #12.4 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 2:52 PM EST
                                    Independent Thinking-762255

                                    Brian, the only persons killed were three members of the group when they were assembling a nail bomb. It was Ayers girlfriend, Diana Oughton, Terry Robbins and Ted Gold. None of the bombs killed "innocent Americans". They had planned an event that might have, but that is only speculation, because they never did the bombing. Had they killed someone, I doubt that Ayers would be a professor today at a unniversity nor would he have met Obama as it was because of their jobs they met.

                                    • 1 vote
                                    #12.5 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 3:01 PM EST
                                    Patriotic Dissenter

                                    "He did, however, turn himself in in the early 80's, paid his debt to society, and is now a Professor at the University of Chicago"

                                    No Joad, that is the stupiest that I ever heard. Are you for real? He never paid his debt. Shoe me one source that he spent any time in prision for his terrorism. just because he has a job at U of C he is absolved of all his killings and mayhem. You are a joke.

                                    • 2 votes
                                    #12.6 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 3:06 PM EST
                                    Patriotic Dissenter

                                    And to show how little you know of Billy Ayers he, like the coward and murderer he is/was, sneaks out of the country. Why? Because he is innocent? Give it up Joad and leave the debating to adults.

                                    • 1 vote
                                    #12.7 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 3:13 PM EST
                                    Tom Joad

                                    He turned himself in. I didn't say he did time. Get your facts straight, with your grown up moniker, there.

                                    • 2 votes
                                    #12.8 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 3:56 PM EST
                                    Patriotic Dissenter

                                    No Joad you said he paid his debt, which is wrong. He never paid a thing for being a terrorist. Get your facts straight before you talk to adults.

                                    • 1 vote
                                    #12.9 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 4:50 PM EST
                                    Tom Joad

                                    Has a court system or police agency in the United States issued a warrant for his arrest? Has he been sentenced, and I didn't know about it?

                                    For someone who apparently is all grown up, you've got an extremely mature handle, too.

                                    • 2 votes
                                    #12.10 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 6:06 PM EST
                                    Patriotic Dissenter

                                    Thanks. Go to bed.

                                    • 1 vote
                                    #12.11 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 9:53 PM EST
                                    winsomecowboy

                                    BO

                                    Who was the guy Bush was meeting with the day before 9/11? I can't remember his first name but I know his last was Bin Laden.

                                    You speak of terrorist connections with one eye closed and your ignorance radiating like the first letters of your handle.

                                    • 2 votes
                                    #12.12 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 10:46 PM EST
                                    Patriotic Dissenter

                                    Cowboy,

                                    What???

                                      #12.13 - Wed Mar 4, 2009 10:07 AM EST
                                      winsomecowboy

                                      my bad it wasn't GW and it wasn't the day before it was his dad and it was the actual morning of 9/11

                                      [this is public knowledge, so anyway, you were roaring about terrorist connections?]

                                      Also the Bin Laden's funded GW's first business venture, so I guess my point still stands.

                                      care to comment on that?

                                      George W. Bush's father was meeting with Osama bin Laden's brother, Shafig bin Laden, in the Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Washington, on the morning of 9/11

                                      • 4 votes
                                      #12.14 - Wed Mar 4, 2009 11:53 AM EST
                                      Patriotic Dissenter

                                      So what? Clinton was friends with Marc Rich. FDR was pals with Stalin. My point was that BO hangs with thugs and terrorists. For God's sake Rahm Emanuel mailed his opponent a dead fish. So the Bushes had a long business relationships with the Bin Ladens, mostly Osama's daddy, and I always thought that was f***ked up but that point is moot. That will be between GWB and God if there was any nefarious dealings. Our current Spender In Chief likes those that hate our country and nothing changes that fact.

                                      • 1 vote
                                      #12.15 - Wed Mar 4, 2009 2:58 PM EST
                                      winsomecowboy

                                      Ok so with the bushes it's between them and god but with democrats it's between them and you. got it.

                                      you really should, for your own sake, learn the difference between a fact and an opinion.

                                      Our current Spender In Chief likes those that hate our country and nothing changes that fact.

                                      it kinda makes you look like a bit of a lightweight in the rational thinking dept.

                                      But that's between you and god i suppose, carry on, and on, and on.

                                      • 5 votes
                                      #12.16 - Wed Mar 4, 2009 8:04 PM EST
                                      Patriotic DissenterExpand Comment Comment collapsed by the community

                                      Oh don't worry, you sticking up for BO is a sure sign that you are just plain stupid. Goodbye cowboy and don't fall of your horse (or do .. I don't care). lol

                                        #12.17 - Wed Mar 4, 2009 8:14 PM EST
                                        Mars313

                                        So what? Clinton was friends with Marc Rich. FDR was pals with Stalin. My point was that BO hangs with thugs and terrorists. For God's sake Rahm Emanuel mailed his opponent a dead fish. So the Bushes had a long business relationships with the Bin Ladens, mostly Osama's daddy, and I always thought that was f***ked up but that point is moot. That will be between GWB and God if there was any nefarious dealings.

                                        Ahhhh I see, so if the Bush's are cohorts with the family who funded the killing of 3000 Americans, that's ok, huh? But if Obama simply knows a man who killed nobody, that's all "evil" huh? LOL

                                        And then you go on to say....

                                        you sticking up for BO is a sure sign that you are just plain stupid.

                                        after you stick up for one of the most failed Presidents in our country's history?

                                        What a sad and pathetic joke!

                                        • 4 votes
                                        #12.18 - Thu Mar 5, 2009 9:05 AM EST
                                        Tom Joad

                                        Thanks. Go to bed.

                                        *laughing* You're serious? That's the best you've got? I think winsome is right...you're a lightweight.

                                        • 3 votes
                                        #12.19 - Thu Mar 5, 2009 1:27 PM EST
                                        Patriotic Dissenter

                                        lol

                                          #12.20 - Sun Mar 8, 2009 8:23 PM EDT
                                          Reply
                                          garyray-501488

                                          the Bush administration determined that certain constitutional rights would not apply during the coming fight. Within two weeks, government lawyers were already discussing ways to wiretap U.S. conversations without warrants.

                                          I am sure glad we can count on the flag waving country loving republicans to up-hold the Constitution. (LOL)

                                          ---peace

                                          • 2 votes
                                          Reply#13 - Mon Mar 2, 2009 9:17 PM EST
                                          LH1938

                                          I GLADLY count myself among the "flag wavers" that you so gleefully mock. Maybe you should wave some foreign flag.

                                          • 1 vote
                                          #13.1 - Mon Mar 2, 2009 11:30 PM EST
                                          winsomecowboy

                                          I see this as an opportunity for supporters of both parties to find some common ground. Don't you?

                                          • 8 votes
                                          #13.2 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 2:18 AM EST
                                          Tom Joad

                                          Winsome, it's good to have you back, brother.

                                          • 4 votes
                                          #13.3 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 7:56 AM EST
                                          Brian-657672

                                          My friend in Los Angeles can not fly an American flag in his neighborhood. The Mexicans will tear it down and desecrate it. If you need to respectfully retire an American flag you can take your flag to an American Legion Post or a Veterans of Foreign Wars Post (VFW).

                                          • 1 vote
                                          #13.4 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 2:35 PM EST
                                          Reply
                                          Itsnotourfathers

                                          Is there not more of an important subject on hand? You know the one about the economy? The dems moaned at the thought of looking into Clinton and the repubs moaned about looking into Bush Sr. Instead of wasting more money, focus on the economy. Just a thought from an Independent perspective.

                                          • 1 vote
                                          Reply#14 - Mon Mar 2, 2009 9:18 PM EST
                                          Buckeye Voter

                                          Those who do not learn from history are bound to repeat it. I'd rather we not repeat the events of the past eight years. It has left my country in tatters.

                                          • 8 votes
                                          #14.1 - Mon Mar 2, 2009 9:34 PM EST
                                          gundy_75

                                          These documents have had no ill effect on the American public nor has the hiding of them hurt America.

                                          • 3 votes
                                          #14.2 - Mon Mar 2, 2009 10:19 PM EST
                                          LH1938

                                          Hey BUCKEYE, remember a guy by the name of Clinton who pushed us into NAFTA? Oh, i'm sorry. We can't bring upi the subject of the immoral lying president, can we?

                                          • 1 vote
                                          #14.3 - Mon Mar 2, 2009 11:28 PM EST
                                          Buckeye Voter

                                          Oh, I know that Clinton worked with Congress to pass NAFTA. He was a very moderate president, with many of his greatest achievements slightly right-of-center (e.g. welfare reform). Our biggest import/export threats aren't in North America, though.

                                          That's little comfort to auto workers who've lost their jobs to a plant in Mexico or Canada, but competition from the Far East has been more unsettling.

                                          • 1 vote
                                          #14.4 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 8:52 AM EST
                                          1 number from the powerball PA.

                                          As Michael Moore said in one of his books"Bill Clinton was the best republican President we ever had"

                                          • 1 vote
                                          #14.5 - Wed Mar 4, 2009 5:29 PM EST
                                          Tom Joad

                                          And George Bush was the strongest advocate of Marxist Socialism we'll ever see. During his watch we actually became a Socialist country.

                                          What's your point?

                                          • 1 vote
                                          #14.6 - Thu Mar 5, 2009 1:28 PM EST
                                          Reply
                                          shane ss chevelle

                                          The military has the worst to deal with...

                                          We take out the trash but we take care of each other. We cant even rely on civilans in wartime.

                                          Civilians are only good for paying their taxes.

                                          Bush did what he thought was right at the time. Just like Obama is doing what he thinks is right. Doesnt matter why OUR MILITARY was sent to Iraq. Whether it was for weapons OR oil doesnt matter to most of you. Being in Iraq also makes us strategically in place.

                                          Every government article on here becomes a pointing fingers game by some very ungreatful computer lounging twinkie eating fat civilan

                                          Dont run your fingers over your keyboards and chaulk up your banter, when it comes down to it every one else would talk you down too.

                                          • 3 votes
                                          Reply#15 - Mon Mar 2, 2009 9:35 PM EST
                                          winsomecowboy

                                          so you skipped the oath huh? or did you have your fingers crossed or something.

                                          " I do hereby pledge that I will do whatever I think is right at the time"

                                          "your honor, my client did what he believed was right at the time, the defense rests"

                                          grow the @!$%# up.

                                          • 8 votes
                                          #15.1 - Mon Mar 2, 2009 10:04 PM EST
                                          firsty

                                          Civilians are only good for paying their taxes.

                                          citizens are the reason we have a nation.

                                          condescending rhetoric from or focused on the military is a joke. laws are for everyone, even those full of self pity about their own choices.

                                          • 6 votes
                                          #15.2 - Mon Mar 2, 2009 10:07 PM EST
                                          Jimster

                                          Have pity on shaner. He's been brain washed by some jarhead commander into thinking he's actually keeping the country safe.

                                          Being willing to die for nothing is not a virtue.

                                          It's a flaw.

                                          • 8 votes
                                          #15.3 - Mon Mar 2, 2009 10:25 PM EST
                                          Buckeye Voter

                                          When I took my oath, I meant every word. I hold the President to no lesser standard.

                                          • 7 votes
                                          #15.4 - Mon Mar 2, 2009 10:28 PM EST
                                          firsty

                                          Being willing to die for nothing is not a virtue.

                                          the terrorists would disagree.

                                          wait -

                                          • 5 votes
                                          #15.5 - Mon Mar 2, 2009 10:31 PM EST
                                          shane ss chevelle

                                          Firsty,

                                          Minutemen are the reason you have a country.

                                          Jimster,

                                          I am not a bullet chasing jarhead. I wouldn't die for nothing. If I am not helping keep the country safe then who is? The people that come here and bash are the same people that couldnt do the job as president themselves.

                                          Basically what I am saying is all you people come here and bash this and bash that. You have not the stress or intelligence that is availible to the president.

                                          Help dont hinder

                                          • 3 votes
                                          #15.6 - Mon Mar 2, 2009 10:38 PM EST
                                          firsty

                                          I am not a bullet chasing jarhead. I wouldn't die for nothing. If I am not helping keep the country safe then who is? The people that come here and bash are the same people that couldnt do the job as president themselves.

                                          there hasnt been a war in my lifetime that had anything to do with protecting our freedom. neither the iraq or afghanistan "wars" are keeping the US safe. you cant kill every terrorist. there is no end-of-war treaty that can prevent terrorism in any way.

                                          the job of the president is subject to our laws and to the constitution. criticizing a president has nothing to do with anyone's ability to do the job. the job is required by law to conform to our constitution.

                                          trying to prevent or punish criminals is not a matter of "helping not hindering." no criminal should have safe harbor in the US, including the president.

                                          • 7 votes
                                          #15.7 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 1:02 AM EST
                                          shane ss chevelle

                                          I guess the military is just one big waste of tax payers money. They should just disban the military. Whether or not the wars we fight are for freedom does not matter...the fact that we are aggresive and the way we get things done is what keeps others out. We create an "aura" that says to the other countries "watch out".

                                          Those that have been deployed know how the civilians work. They hold certain hours and when a soldier needs something they have to wait till the next morning, come back and fill out a work order...

                                          What rights will you uphold when are running around our country? Will you care that the President did some no-no's when our country is being sandblasted by some other country???

                                          • 1 vote
                                          #15.8 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 8:17 AM EST
                                          winsomecowboy

                                          Will you care that the President did some no-no's...

                                          how old are you? Your 'no smacky for the prezzy" is kinda embarrassing, just to read.

                                          Look we get it OK? We think you're really important and the country would be lost without you.

                                          • 6 votes
                                          #15.9 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 11:19 AM EST
                                          winsomecowboy

                                          Although your point earlier. "help don't hinder.' is a very good one. That's usually all it takes for me to put my muzzle on. I'll treat you with more respect simply because your point was constructive. I doubt we'll agree on much else but ultimately the country will have to shrug the internal aggression off and find common ground to survive.

                                          • 2 votes
                                          #15.10 - Wed Mar 4, 2009 12:29 AM EST
                                          1 number from the powerball PA.

                                          It really didn't matter why me and 3,099,999 soldiers were sent to Vietnam either.Except for the families of the 58,000 who died and the 153,000 who were wounded.

                                          • 1 vote
                                          #15.11 - Wed Mar 4, 2009 5:37 PM EST
                                          Reply
                                          Tomas Sivan

                                          Now let's see if they can even get page one of the Clinton records .... And while they're at it, how about making Dodd bring in those Mortgage papers he was ordered to bring before Congress.....He keeps heat on the CEOs at these hearings to take it off himself..... It's pure hypocracy having him and nitnat Frank judging anyone .... Let him who is without sin, cast the first stone, boys,,, I mean 1/2 a boy, I don't know what the other one is.... And while they're at it , don't forget Shumer, he was in on putting the pressure on the banks for the Freddie and Fanny debacle... I know those CEO's didn't need much pressure , they saw dollar signs as well... And Shumer has the chutzpah to say, that we , the ordinary people are not even concerned with the earmarks given in that atrocious payback bill , that Pelosi and Reid brought forth from the Bowels of Hell...... It always amazes me how people like this aren't afraid to go out in the thunder and lightning , or to cross a busy street. WEll, I know of an old Pole Hole digger for sale... You know, the things that dig like a corkscrew and dig a round hole... When these mentioned above die, I' ll get it for Obama to bury them..... And I'll get it for him real cheap ..... The undertaker can hang onto it for a while, and use it for OBAMA . Though he might have to dig the hole a little deeper, and a mite wider to compensate for those jug ears .....

                                          • 1 vote
                                          Reply#16 - Mon Mar 2, 2009 9:44 PM EST
                                          firsty

                                          do we not prosecute a captured murderer because there are murderers still at large? do we stop the justice system when a guilty person is unjustly set free?

                                          • 5 votes
                                          #16.1 - Mon Mar 2, 2009 10:04 PM EST
                                          iconoclasm

                                          "do we not prosecute a captured murderer because there are murderers still at large? do we stop the justice system when a guilty person is unjustly set free? "

                                          All the time. In cowboy movies.

                                          • 3 votes
                                          #16.2 - Mon Mar 2, 2009 10:05 PM EST
                                          winsomecowboy

                                          another person who thinks outrage = intelligence.

                                          Meanwhile back at the constitution..... you know, the bedrock of the nations soul.

                                          • 6 votes
                                          #16.3 - Mon Mar 2, 2009 10:06 PM EST
                                          LH1938

                                          My sentiments exactly TOMAS.

                                            #16.4 - Mon Mar 2, 2009 11:34 PM EST
                                            Reply
                                            Earthling-818423

                                            The conclusion, reiterated in page after page of documents, was that the president had broad authority to set aside constitutional rights.

                                            Fourth Amendment protections against unwarranted search and seizure, for instance, did not apply in the United States as long as the president was combatting terrorism, the Justice Department said in an Oct. 23, 2001, memo.

                                            "First Amendment speech and press rights may also be subordinated to the overriding need to wage war successfully," Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo wrote, adding later: "The current campaign against terrorism may require even broader exercises of federal power domestically."

                                            On Sept. 25, 2001, Yoo discussed possible changes to the laws governing wiretaps for intelligence gathering. In that memo, he said the government's interest in keeping the nation safe following the terrorist attacks might justify warrantless searches.

                                            This disregard for the INALIENABLE RIGHTS guaranteed to the American people in the Bill of Rights -- the very foundation of our country -- is nothing short of treason. Don't you DARE call yourself an American or wave a flag if you support these kinds of assaults on the Constitution, whether committed by Republicans (as in this case) or Democrats (with their gun control schemes, etc.). The Constitution, in particular the Bill of Rights, is what gives America its identity. If it dies, America dies.

                                            Those who justify such violations of inalienable rights in the name of safety from terrorists are pathetic. I spit on such people in contempt. Only a cowardly dog unworthy of the freedoms for which our Founders fought is ready to give up liberty in the name of safety.

                                            Besides, terrorism is a TINY threat in comparison with mundane causes of injury and death such as car accidents. Even if a 9/11 happened once a week in the US, terrorism would still be very unlikely cause of death in relation to disease, accidents, etc. Look up the statistics. But even if a nuke were going off in an American city every single year, that would not justify trampling on the Constitution that our Founders risked everything to give us. Give government enough power and it WILL end up abusing that power -- eventually to the point where it's a bigger threat to your freedom AND your safety than any terrorist.

                                            To anyone who thinks safety should trump the Constitution: go live in another country where they already have that attitude. America was founded by and for people who believe in "liberty or death."

                                            • 4 votes
                                            Reply#17 - Mon Mar 2, 2009 10:10 PM EST
                                            ComSen

                                            You should look into what past Presidents have done in a time of war.

                                            • 1 vote
                                            #17.1 - Mon Mar 2, 2009 11:23 PM EST
                                            LH1938

                                            Hey EARTHLING, don't look now, but terrorists are spitting on you, even as you ignor what they stand for and are dedicated to do to you.

                                            • 1 vote
                                            #17.2 - Mon Mar 2, 2009 11:39 PM EST
                                            dcstone01

                                            I hear you Earthling...see comment 6..

                                            Sadly, some people just don't see it that way though...

                                            • 2 votes
                                            #17.3 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 1:29 AM EST
                                            winsomecowboy

                                            I've yet to have a terrorist spit on me. I've seen a lot of spittle flecked apologists rant on with their best attempts at distraction while others chip in with, 'My sentiments exactly'

                                            exactly? that's uncanny. a raving unpunctuated scatter gunned political whinefest shared exactly by two individuals. Well i say individuals but how can you define mirror images of distraction as anything but clones in thought.

                                            • 4 votes
                                            #17.4 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 2:27 AM EST
                                            Earthling-818423

                                            Hey EARTHLING, don't look now, but terrorists are spitting on you, even as you ignor what they stand for and are dedicated to do to you.

                                            BS. Terrorists are doing nothing to me. What they might think about me is not my problem; all I know is that they're not the ones violating my privacy or imposing unconstitutional laws that attack my basic freedoms. At worst, they pose a tiny, tiny, tiny threat to my safety, and I'm not enough of a coward to worry about that when there are so many other ways I'm far more likely to die. The "terrorist threat" is a joke.

                                            "Our" government officials are lying to us for the sole purpose of increasing their power and stroking their own egos. Don't be gullible enough to fall for their schemes.

                                            • 1 vote
                                            #17.5 - Wed Mar 4, 2009 3:58 AM EST
                                            Earthling-818423

                                            You should look into what past Presidents have done in a time of war.

                                            Yes, I know about the Japanese internment camps and so forth. Past wrongs do not justify present or future wrongs. Moreover, WWII was a REAL war in which we were facing enemies that actually had the capacity to inflict harm on the US. Neither actual nor imagined terrorists have anything close to such ability. We are not running for bomb shelters every night. We do not have to worry about armies landing on our shores. Nevertheless, even if we did face such threats, "inalienable rights" means exactly that -- INALIENABLE. Either we believe in our Founding documents, or we Americans are full of sh_t with all our proud patriotic talk.

                                            Again, the idea that terrorism poses an existential threat to the US is asinine. Even if someone managed to smuggle a nuke into a US city and set it off, that would not come close to destroying the US. The tiny country of Japan was nuked TWICE in WWII, and it recovered just fine.

                                            The "War on Terror" is a neocon scheme to use the US military to attack countries that Israel wants attacked. If you look at its chief architects -- Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, etc. -- you'll notice that nearly all of them are Jews with known strong ties to Israel. Their non-Jewish puppets, like Bush and Cheney, generally support Israel because of bizarre "Christian Zionist" religious beliefs or just plain old stupidity and moral bankruptcy.

                                            If people are concerned about terrorism, the best way to fight it is to stop meddling in the affairs of other countries. In particular, we should stop supporting it with our one-sided support of Israeli crimes against the Palestinian Arabs. Congress is firmly in the grip of the Israel lobby -- AIPAC is one of the top three most powerful lobbies in Washington -- and that causes the US to always put Israel's interests ahead of America's, not to mention above basic considerations of morality and humanity.

                                            • 1 vote
                                            #17.6 - Wed Mar 4, 2009 4:14 AM EST
                                            Reply
                                            ladybmore

                                            This is not about Obama, it's about up holding the constitution and the law. Our right to know, what laws were broken. If thier is nothing to hide, then Bush has nothing to worry about. The citizens of the United States have a right to know.

                                            • 6 votes
                                            Reply#18 - Mon Mar 2, 2009 10:19 PM EST
                                            Brian-657672

                                            My point exactly. There is an enormous amount of controversy about citizens rights to know if Obama is actually qualified to be in the oval office. http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/citizen.asp

                                            The constitution specifically specifies what it takes to become president in Article II Section one. If Obama has nothing to hide in what will become his presidential library, then I want to know it now just like millions of other Americans. McCain won thirty (30) states, and Obama won (20) states, but won the electoral college. There have been numerous lawsuits to this matter that are still pending, and We Americans this to come to fruition. Standing behind an Army of Attorneys is a terrible thing. http://www.obamacrimes.info/

                                            In your own words..."The citizens of the United States have a right to know", Thanks! It is my right to know if our president is a legitimate president. The same for the Bush scenario, Period.

                                              #18.1 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 1:58 PM EST
                                              JustinPM

                                              You do realize that the snopes link sides against you, right?

                                              As well, Obama won 28 states to McCain's 22 states. I'll even link a source to it. Obama had 65.4 million votes and McCain had 57.4 million votes.

                                              So I would say, yeah, he is a legitimate president.

                                              • 4 votes
                                              #18.2 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 2:26 PM EST
                                              lilbitsofknowledge

                                              I believe this member said it best about HOW Obama got elected.

                                              I'm saying that a lot of people are for putting all of our eggs into one basket without getting all of the information first. It is like they want to jump head long with their eyes shut and hope for the best, because someone else has told them it will work if they just believe hard enough.

                                              Bahhhhhhhhhh said the people. The NWO welcomes you to Zion.

                                              • 1 vote
                                              #18.3 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 2:48 PM EST
                                              Reply
                                              DoYouHaveAFlag?

                                              all the rest of the papers? He and Cheney used them in the latrine... gave it up... cuz he already did all on our rights. Don't we feel proud... no?

                                              • 6 votes
                                              #19 - Mon Mar 2, 2009 10:22 PM EST
                                              gundy_75

                                              If it didn't directly affect you, why do you care?

                                                #19.1 - Mon Mar 2, 2009 10:24 PM EST
                                                fueldawg23

                                                What rights did President bush trample? Has anybody be tried for anything they did not do? He upheld the bill of right more than Obama and any liberal president has. Can anybody say fairness act?

                                                  #19.2 - Mon Mar 2, 2009 10:28 PM EST
                                                  R. Donald Snyder

                                                  Anytime any president tries to trample on even one person's right, it directly affects every one of us. If the president illegally wire-taps any person in this country, it directly affects all of us. Anytime the president decides he has the right to indefinitely hold any person in this country without a lawyer or due process, if directly affects all of us. Anytime any president decides that they are above the law for any reason, it directly AFFECTS ALL OF US! It directly affects all of us because at that point that president is saying he can do the same thing to any of the rest of us anytime and for any reason he chooses. That means he is no longer a president, but is a dictator or king and we don't allow that here in America!!!

                                                  BTW fueldawg23 bill of right?

                                                  • 11 votes
                                                  #19.3 - Mon Mar 2, 2009 10:41 PM EST
                                                  gundy_75

                                                  I don't see how it is a dictator if it didn't affect you...I don't even see why people would be uppity if their phones were tapped...Does anyone have anything to hide? Does the government care what you say? NO, not unless you are talking about hurting America...a dictator tends to dictate...he didn't tell you to do anything out of the ordinary or "force" you to do anything...I am sure before arresting someone without a warrant, the government checked (double checked) who they were arresting..

                                                    #19.4 - Mon Mar 2, 2009 11:06 PM EST
                                                    iconoclasm

                                                    "If it didn't directly affect you, why do you care?"

                                                    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...

                                                    • 3 votes
                                                    #19.5 - Mon Mar 2, 2009 11:07 PM EST
                                                    gundy_75

                                                    Excellent,

                                                    They came first for the terrorists/criminals,

                                                    And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a terrorist/criminal...

                                                      #19.6 - Mon Mar 2, 2009 11:13 PM EST
                                                      Kim-298921

                                                      Gundy:

                                                      You say you're not a terrorist/criminal. Fine, let's take that as true for the purposes of conversation.

                                                      YOU, an innocent American, could be thrown in jail, without rights, without an attorney, without due process, without a trial, without even charges, for the rest of your life, on the mere 'suspicion' of being a terrorist.

                                                      YOU could be interrogated, tortured, waterboarded, beaten, and every day, it starts again. Just on their 'word' that you are a 'suspected terrorist.'

                                                      YOU could have been turned in by someone who had absolutely no reason to suspect you of terrorism, just wanted to get a reward. Just like they did in Afghanistan.

                                                      YOU. Dissappeared from your family and community and never able to reach them again.

                                                      YOU. You sitting right there. All of this could happen to you.

                                                      Still feel free?

                                                      • 12 votes
                                                      #19.7 - Mon Mar 2, 2009 11:30 PM EST
                                                      gundy_75

                                                      That is a hypothetical that has no basis in truth...yes and I suppose I being an American could have a meteor ram into my house but both hypotheticals have .001% probability or less.

                                                        #19.8 - Mon Mar 2, 2009 11:42 PM EST
                                                        gundy_75

                                                        Guess what Kim? All those things could happen, but they won't. Anyone could be raped tomorrow but I don't see everyone living in fear...

                                                          #19.9 - Mon Mar 2, 2009 11:48 PM EST
                                                          neal242

                                                          Wasn't living in fear what got us the patriot act? gundy you don't care now, give it time overpopulation, economic hardship, increased fuel prices with peak oil and increased food prices due to use of biofuels not to mention 'carbon' taxes on livestock, increased risk of terrorist attack by 2013 - the risk of nation-wide martial law given the political turmoil could be a new era for America but you'll never notice until it's too late and all your rights have been chipped away. What is your fiat really worth? More than what it will be 6 months from now.

                                                          PS - normally I would suggest to disregard Kim but for once she's actually on to something. You know gundy, it wasn't just terrorists and criminals they stole away in the middle of the night.

                                                          • 3 votes
                                                          #19.10 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 12:14 AM EST
                                                          gundy_75

                                                          It was suspected terrorists and criminals...So you say there is going to be an increased risk to terrorist attack but you don't want to do anything about it? I don't care if you, the government, or anyone listens to my phone calls...I have nothing to hide so I don't think I would be swept away in the middle of the night...I can actually guarantee that everyone on this board will never be suspected of terrorism. How about that? I will even wager on it...

                                                            #19.11 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 12:19 AM EST
                                                            Digital-904078

                                                            Yeap I got nothing to hide either.  That's why I put all my phone conversations on speaker phone in busy places and scream all my replys.  I'm also not afraid of anything ever accidentally happening to me so I feel free to wear dirty underwear and drive too fast down the freeway.  I eat big trays of salt butter at the table and hope my kids are watching cause they're probably gonna live in the same world I do and cholesterol a made up joke only other people have to worry about.  Must be cause I can't see it, right.  Need another drink and smoke.  Hey what I do can't hurt no one where I can see it.

                                                            • 1 vote
                                                            #19.12 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 12:33 AM EST
                                                            R. Donald Snyder

                                                            gundy_75

                                                            If a president decides he has the right to molest a child, it does not directly affect you, so why should you care. Right?

                                                            The idea of you should not care unless it directly affects you is an acceptance of fascism. In this country we believe in the rule of law, not every man for himself. If the president violates any person's rights, it affects every real American personally and directly because that is one of the things this nation was founded upon. It is incumbent on us as Americans to defend all of the rights and freedoms of all of us or we are not worthy to be Americans.

                                                            • 7 votes
                                                            #19.13 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 12:36 AM EST
                                                            R. Donald Snyder

                                                            That is a hypothetical that has no basis in truth..

                                                            Can I come in your house and search it? Can a cop stop you on the street because he decided you looked funny and search you? Pat you down? Demand that you prove you're an American? You have nothing to hide so let the government install a camera in your bedroom to make sure you're not doing anything suspicious. I want to put a tracking device on your car because, what the hell, you have nothing to hide so it shouldn't matter to you why I want to do it. I want to attach a device to your children, just to make sure they're not hanging out with the wrong kind of people. Don't like it? Why? You have nothing to hide...do you? I want to do a background check on your wife to be sure she's someone who should be allowed to get married in this country? How do I know she was born here unless I talk to her friends and family to be sure? She has nothing to hide...does she? You sure she's not a here illegally? How do I know? Do you expect me to take your word for it? How do I know she's not a terrorist sleeper? The only way I can be sure is to put her, you and your family under surveillance. That shouldn't be a problem though, since you have nothing to hide. Don't worry, we'll double check before we arrest you.

                                                            Oh and after we throw you in prison, don't bother asking for a lawyer to try to prove there's been a mistake made. After all, you don't need one if you have nothing to hide, right?

                                                            • 8 votes
                                                            #19.14 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 12:54 AM EST
                                                            DoYouHaveAFlag?

                                                            Perfect Randy...

                                                            • 4 votes
                                                            #19.15 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 1:19 AM EST
                                                            gundy_75

                                                            The government "spying" on us does not hinder my daily occurences, if they were to hinder me in any way, well then...I don't care if the you or the government look at documents pertaining to my life...fascism? That is a bold statement because it is also democratic to have my opinion stated...Turns out you don't understand how the collecting of information works with a criminal or terrorist investigation because they can't just grab anyone like you make it seem...

                                                            If anyone wanted to, they could look up information on anyone...The government knows what they are doing. The people running the show have better judgement than you or I. If you care to refute that last statement you will have to say that our whole system is unreliable and that we elect/employ inept beings (if anyone cares to say Bush was inept you might want to actually think that the electoral college is what counts and he did indeed lose the popular vote.) If the government can't keep us safe who can?

                                                            Just a note: These memos don't grant the right to "take" anyone and stow them away...You people some how think the government will lie: "Yes he is a terrorist, I have evidence" the police do the same thing, it is called probable cause. This is just a higher level of probable cause.

                                                            • 1 vote
                                                            #19.16 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 1:39 AM EST
                                                            gundy_75

                                                            Could someone please cite how these memos encroached on their rights as an American?

                                                            • 1 vote
                                                            #19.17 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 1:42 AM EST
                                                            The Original Mac

                                                            gundy, what these memos suggest is that a man that promised and swore to "Protect the Constitution of The United States" may not have.

                                                            If you don't comprehend the severity of these charges may be you should sign off.

                                                            • 7 votes
                                                            #19.18 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 1:49 AM EST
                                                            gundy_75

                                                            Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure. 12/15/1791.

                                                            The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

                                                            So we come down to the nitty gritty. This has become an argument about the definition of probable cause.

                                                              #19.19 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 1:55 AM EST
                                                              gundy_75

                                                              Probable Cause:
                                                              Reasonable grounds for a police officer to believe that a person is guilty or that illegal goods may be present. The test of probable cause is whether there is evidence that would give a prudent and reasonable person more than a mere suspicion of another person's guilt, but not necessarily as much proof as would be required for conviction.

                                                                #19.20 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 1:58 AM EST
                                                                winsomecowboy

                                                                gundy, while you are in an investigative frame of mind try 'Habeas corpus'

                                                                • 6 votes
                                                                #19.21 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 2:32 AM EST
                                                                dcstone01

                                                                The problem you don't seem to see is that Bush and Co. effectively waived that right away...meaning that there was NO protection of your rights!

                                                                • 7 votes
                                                                #19.22 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 2:38 AM EST
                                                                R. Donald Snyder

                                                                You really don't get it, do you? You really have no grasp on what being an American is all about. You really don't understand that when any one of our rights are attacked, all of our rights are. I pity you. I don't mean that as an insult, but I really do feel sorry for you. You have no understanding of just how special and important our nation is. How different we are. How really special we are. We are a nation that believes if any person in our nation has their rights violated, that we all have our rights violated. A nation of equals, where we are all part of the same wonderful experiment in democracy and human rights. Where we are all here for each other and with each other and in defense of each other. You just don't get what America is. And for that, I am truly sorry for you. You have no idea what you are missing

                                                                The president of the United States of America decided he was above the law. He decided that the law that applies to each of us equally, does not apply to him. If he wanted to molest a child that would be OK with you. If he decided he wanted a person killed for no other reason then that is what he wanted, that would be OK with you.

                                                                "My fellow Americans, I raped and murdered an 8 year old little girl because I believed that she had information that, unless I found it out, would harm the security of the United States, but no problem, because it's all OK with gundy_75, because he would rather feel safe hiding under his covers at night then to defend the rights of one of his fellow Americans. Besides, I'm the president, so it's all OK!".

                                                                Only cowards surrender their rights to their government in exchange for security. Only those that are afraid to defend those rights do. The generation that came before us fought Hitler and Tojo and did so without giving up what makes us the most special nation in world history, but you would toss it all away. You would piss on their sacrifice because after all, it doesn't affect you directly and you have nothing to hide. I served in the Air Force during Vietnam because I thought that this country and those rights were worth defending. Even the rights of "people" like you. I defended even the right of you to be so scared that you give up the rights that I defended. Of course that doesn't change the fact that you really should be ashamed of yourself.

                                                                • 6 votes
                                                                #19.23 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 2:45 AM EST
                                                                The Original Mac

                                                                Don, I'm on your side and undestand your passion. But I don't think Bush raped anyone. Try to stay with in reason

                                                                Please hold off on the jokes. This is a serious discussion.

                                                                • 1 vote
                                                                #19.24 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 2:51 AM EST
                                                                R. Donald Snyder

                                                                I wasn't joking. What is the difference if Bush raped someone or wire-tapped illegally? Both are crimes. The point is that what Bush did and admitted to doing was a criminal act and he said he did it for national security. If it was rape or if it was illegal wire-tapping the point is that both are as equally abhorrent as the other and both are equally inexcusable! Neither crime is better or worse then the other because each would have been committed under the pretense and both are just as illegal! If Bush raped a child or if Bush raped our rights does not matter! A rape took place! To me neither is better or worse then the other.

                                                                • 7 votes
                                                                #19.25 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 3:21 AM EST
                                                                dcstone01

                                                                The Original Mac, as a sexual crimes vicitm myself, I found R.Donald's comment quite effective...because in a sense(figuratively & metaphorically, not techinically), imho, that is what Bush did to the Constitution...

                                                                • 7 votes
                                                                #19.26 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 3:24 AM EST
                                                                R. Donald Snyder

                                                                Look, gundy_75 is scared. I understand that. After 9-11 a lot of people became scared. They were afraid that the "evil doers" were going to kill them or their family. Just like a lot of people were scared that the Japanese would attack L.A. or San Francisco or that Hitler would find a way to fire bomb New York. Fear is something that an open nation like ours has to deal with on a daily basis. It's the price we pay for our society. It's the price we pay for our freedom. That said, I would rather we have a 1000 9-11's, or end up fighting in the bloody streets from house to house against terrorists, then to surrender one single one of my rights or freedoms to keep them away.

                                                                In the entire history of the world nothing like our country has ever been tried before. In the entire history of the world no nation has ever made the sacrifices we have made to keep what we have. Millions of our citizens have died to keep us free and god damn it I will not sit by and watch cowards sell that freedom out just because they're scared of some terrorists! We faced down Nazism and we piss on the graves of all that did if we surrender just one of our rights to our own government out of fear!

                                                                People like gundy_75 are exactly like the people Osama bin Laden are hoping we'll be! People like him are counting on us being so scared that we'll surrender the freedoms HE'S trying to take away from us without a fight! There is a place where you are safe and secure and free from outside attack, it's called PRISON! If we give up our freedom because of fear of terrorism then the terrorist have won and damn it, I won't! I'm not afraid to die for this country and every one of it rights and freedoms, even other people are.

                                                                • 7 votes
                                                                #19.27 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 3:37 AM EST
                                                                Kim-298921

                                                                I would be swept away in the middle of the night...I can actually guarantee that everyone on this board will never be suspected of terrorism.

                                                                No, you can't. What an absurd statement!

                                                                It could happen to you. Or me. Or anyone. People get on the no-fly list - including a 16 month old baby boy - by accident. You could be suspected as a terrorist totally by mistake. And then you'd be in a world of hurt.

                                                                • 6 votes
                                                                #19.28 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 9:03 AM EST
                                                                Tom Joad

                                                                The generation that came before us fought Hitler and Tojo and did so without giving up what makes us the most special nation in world history, but you would toss it all away. You would piss on their sacrifice because after all, it doesn't affect you directly and you have nothing to hide.

                                                                Snyder, that was beautiful. Thank you.

                                                                • 6 votes
                                                                #19.29 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 9:15 AM EST
                                                                iconoclasm

                                                                Let me put it in a way that will make conservatives understand. Fine you trusted Bush with those powers, I didn't. Not due to evil intent but due to widespread incompendence in that adminstration.

                                                                Obama has this power now. He can get you, waterboard you, and make you into a red flag waving liberal communist. Scared now?

                                                                • 7 votes
                                                                #19.30 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 9:18 AM EST
                                                                gundy_75

                                                                iconoclasm, that is not it..."Bush" as everyone keeps stating, or even anyone in his administration, would not be the ones looking at the information. The CIA, FBI, NSA do not have party affiliations...what you said was worhtless drivel...Obama would not control anything...

                                                                I am not scared, but I do pose this question: Who would you rather have spying on you, the government or a terrorist? That is the thing about terrorism, it usually is covert.

                                                                I stand by this statement: I can actually guarantee that everyone on this board will never be suspected of terrorism.

                                                                P.S. Just because a "baby" accidently ended up on the list does not mean he was suspected of terrorism. Anyone can be a terrorist, yes, you are correct. This isn't about me being liberal or conservative.

                                                                  #19.31 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 1:03 PM EST
                                                                  gundy_75

                                                                  What freedom's do these memos take away?

                                                                    #19.32 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 1:04 PM EST
                                                                    Vis Major

                                                                    That's really not the right question but the position in them is that you could be picked up by the Government, labeled a terrorist, and never get to challenge the label or the charges. You would have no right to a lawyer, or a trial, or habeas corpus. But I guess you just trust the Pres with that much power. BTW, if Bush had that power, Obama has it now.

                                                                    • 1 vote
                                                                    #19.33 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 1:09 PM EST
                                                                    gundy_75

                                                                    Bush wasn't personally going around picking up these criminals...and I support Obama having this power.

                                                                      #19.34 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 1:11 PM EST
                                                                      gundy_75

                                                                      R. Donald Snyder, you are talking about organized military forces that would invoke a "war" with an actual country if they attacked us (pearl harbor). What the hell are we supposed to do if we get attacked again? Take the punch? We cannot wage war against a country, because they are guerilla factions at best. Your service to this country is valiant but please don't confuse what is with what isn't.

                                                                        #19.35 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 1:13 PM EST
                                                                        R. Donald Snyder

                                                                        I am not scared, but I do pose this question: Who would you rather have spying on you, the government or a terrorist? That is the thing about terrorism, it usually is covert.

                                                                        I'd rather have the terrorists spying on me then my own government. My government is supposed to spy on them, not me and no they don't have to spy on innocent Americans to do that! If the government wants to wire tap someone all it has to do is to present probable cause to do so to a court and get a warrant. If it's a security issue then the can go to the FISA court and apply for a secret warrant from them. If it's something that needs to be done that second, the FISA court provides that the government can start the wire-tapping without a warrant, provided it provide it's probable cause to the court within 3 days to get a ruling on if they can continue the wire tap. The Bush administration publicly refused to go to the FISA court for warrants and instead Bush authorized them personally. He does not have the power to do that though and when he did he committed a crime against the people he was having wire tapped and against the American people. The only possible explanation as to why he went around the FISA court is that he knew he was asking to spy on people that he had no right to spy on, like political opponents, the press and Americans at random in a "fishing expedition" to try to snare people. Bush is a criminal and yes, it directly affects me because I'm an American! What he did was inexcusable! He needs to go to prison for his crimes and if Obama does the same thing then so does he!

                                                                        What the hell are we supposed to do if we get attacked again? Take the punch?

                                                                        If the other choice is giving up any of our rights, then damn right we take the punch. But we can hit back without violating the rights we're supposedly defending! The goal of terrorism is terrorize us into changing our form of life. If we give up any of our rights or freedoms because of an attack on us, then that attack was successful. It did what it was supposed to do. It scared us into changing what we believe in and I will not be a part of that kind of cowardice. I would rather have 1000 9-11's then surrender one single right or freedom to force!

                                                                        • 9 votes
                                                                        #19.36 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 1:33 PM EST
                                                                        gundy_75

                                                                        I don't know if the entire point of a terrorist attack is to make the American people change their ways, but it does have something to do with why they attack us. I respect your opinion.

                                                                          #19.37 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 2:55 PM EST
                                                                          determined0a1

                                                                          American Presidents are above the law. They travel without waiting to pass security at the airport. Streets stop. Everybody has to wait for him.

                                                                          Seems that people doesn't get it

                                                                          • 1 vote
                                                                          #19.38 - Wed Mar 4, 2009 11:56 AM EST
                                                                          JustinPM

                                                                          American Presidents are above the law.

                                                                          What? No they aren't. I hope that this is sarcasm.

                                                                          • 2 votes
                                                                          #19.39 - Wed Mar 4, 2009 3:14 PM EST
                                                                          Mars313

                                                                          American Presidents are above the law.

                                                                          False. Dictators are above the law. You're confusing America with Nazi Germany again. Miss the good ol' days much?

                                                                          • 3 votes
                                                                          #19.40 - Thu Mar 5, 2009 9:08 AM EST
                                                                          Kim-298921

                                                                          I stand by this statement: I can actually guarantee that everyone on this board will never be suspected of terrorism.

                                                                          No you can't. Another absurd statement. Credibility = zero, Gundy. Stop wasting our time.

                                                                            #19.41 - Sat Mar 7, 2009 6:32 PM EST
                                                                            Paul William Tenny

                                                                            False. Dictators are above the law.

                                                                            The irony here is incredible. We've been saying that Bush anointed himself a dictator for years, long before the DoJ memos he had drafted came to light. Did you read any of them? They declared that the first amendment doesn't apply to the President and that he has the legal right to muzzle the press. They declared that he had the right to deploy the military within our borders as a police force even though the law forbids it. They even said he could designate any American a terrorist, and thereby use the military to just kill them outright.

                                                                            Forget a trial, forget indefinite illegal detentions, forget about even arresting them with the FBI. Just order the military to roll in and slaughter them.

                                                                            When someone says "American President's are above the law", they mean practically speaking, because that's how they behave -- at least Republican presidents. It's a defacto state of being in this country that Republican presidents aren't merely above the law now, but above the constitution they claim power from.

                                                                            When someone says that such a thing means being a dictator, they are in fact saying that Bush was a dictator, and that America was effectively a dictatorship from September 11th, 2001 - January 20th, 2009.

                                                                            And they'd be correct.

                                                                            Read the memos, read the judicial decisions rejecting one illegal Bush action after another. Use your brain and ask yourself what a dictator would do, and then look at what Bush actually did. The man took an American citizen right off the street and imprisoned him in a military brig without charges, without a trail, without access to a lawyer. Not a terrorist captured in Afghanistan or Iraq, an American, and another legal resident of this country.

                                                                            He claimed the power to murder American citizens with the military, inside the U.S., and the power to shut down the media to cover it up.

                                                                            Like Nixon, he used our own intelligence agencies against us.

                                                                            That anyone could come to a conclusion other than that we were subjects to a dictatorship for 7+ years is alarming. It raises serious questions about how much our citizens know about their own legal rights, the principles of democracy and a free society, and even whether or not they actively support this assault on our country by enemies within, making them far more dangerous enemies of the United States than terrorist will ever be.

                                                                            Terrorists kill us without trials, without courts, without rules or laws -- they just do it. Bush claimed the power to kill us without trials, without courts, without rules or laws.

                                                                            I really don't see the difference anymore.

                                                                            • 4 votes
                                                                            #19.42 - Mon Mar 9, 2009 12:44 AM EDT
                                                                            Reply
                                                                            fueldawg23

                                                                            Can anybody say WHY would you try to smear a former president? this will be the staple of the Bush admistration; LEAKS. How could anybody be safe? This could be worse than watergate. The liberals will continue to smear President Bush no matter what. IT IS RIDICULOUS!!!!!!!

                                                                            • 1 vote
                                                                            Reply#20 - Mon Mar 2, 2009 10:25 PM EST
                                                                            Division by Zero

                                                                            This could be worse than watergate.

                                                                            I suppose Nixon shouldn't have been impeached?

                                                                            • 6 votes
                                                                            #20.1 - Mon Mar 2, 2009 10:29 PM EST
                                                                            RMM82

                                                                            Any elected official who is guilty of crimes committed while in office or after they have left should be prosecuted, Democrat or Republican. Republicans act like we are just out to get Bush for no other reason than we disagree with his views, wrong. We are out to get him because he is a criminal and belongs in jail.

                                                                            • 5 votes
                                                                            #20.2 - Mon Mar 2, 2009 10:40 PM EST
                                                                            JustinPM

                                                                            Is it a smear if he did it? If it's his hand then the "smear" doesn't exist. Guilty is guilty, regardless of position. The President is not above the law, when he starts changing the very document that we've based so much of our country on without our knowledge, something is wrong. And the American people deserve to know how much they're sacrificing for their protection.

                                                                            • 3 votes
                                                                            #20.3 - Mon Mar 2, 2009 11:16 PM EST
                                                                            The Original Mac

                                                                            I suppose Nixon shouldn't have been impeached?

                                                                            As if he was?

                                                                            fueldawg23, Your correct, what people don't understand is that attacking a former President does not only diminish the man but also the office. Therefore damaging said office for all future Presidents to come.

                                                                            Should this fact bar prosecution? Na. But it should at least cause a nation, as a whole, to proceed with caution instead of chanting through the streets like a lynch mop.

                                                                            • 2 votes
                                                                            #20.4 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 2:01 AM EST
                                                                            JustinPM

                                                                            So what of Limbaugh, Malkin and other Republican notables on their current statements? Is that not cut from the same cloth? Is what they propose not as diminishing?

                                                                            • 1 vote
                                                                            #20.5 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 2:35 AM EST
                                                                            dcstone01

                                                                            Well Justin, even though those people are just 'citizens', and technically we are all equal, they do have a 'soap box' with which to influence others...for good or ill... They do have the right of 'Free Speech' like anyone else, even if their words stir up hatred... One way for them NOT be be any more influential is if they were 'ignored', or someone else comes along that has a better message that takes away their audience...

                                                                            The president on the other hand is the 'Excutive' branch, or 1/3 of our government...a much more powerful and responsible position...

                                                                            • 3 votes
                                                                            #20.6 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 2:47 AM EST
                                                                            JustinPM

                                                                            I mean only to make the point that if you construe "attacking a former President" as diminishing that you surely must construe attacking the current President as equally as diminishing. That is all dcstone01.

                                                                            • 2 votes
                                                                            #20.7 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 3:16 AM EST
                                                                            dcstone01

                                                                            Of course... BUT, I also am of the opinion that you can respect the office, though not the 'man'...

                                                                            I guess Americans are just fickle eh? :)

                                                                            • 5 votes
                                                                            #20.8 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 3:26 AM EST
                                                                            JustinPM

                                                                            The same thing happens in the military, if you've ever heard the expression "Respect the rank, not the person."

                                                                            • 1 vote
                                                                            #20.9 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 9:12 AM EST
                                                                            dcstone01

                                                                            Being that all my hubby, my siblings, my father, mother and fathers parents, and previous generations going back 100's of years were in the miltiary for at least one term, I think I have heard it mentioned once or twice... :)

                                                                            • 5 votes
                                                                            #20.10 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 1:04 PM EST
                                                                            determined0a1

                                                                            President Obama got it very easy, he had a Rolls of transfer of power that GWB wasn't allowed to have thanks to the Dems. Again, my grouch with GWB is that he did not use the VETO more often and now #44 "forgot" to do the same and allowing the 8,000+ strings to the budget and also an stimulus that NO ONE read in our Congress. But well, I am not surprised, the Dems only read what's convenient for them in the NYT

                                                                            • 2 votes
                                                                            #20.11 - Wed Mar 4, 2009 11:59 AM EST
                                                                            winsomecowboy

                                                                            please make sense.

                                                                            • 5 votes
                                                                            #20.12 - Wed Mar 4, 2009 8:07 PM EST
                                                                            Tom Joad

                                                                            Winsome, I gotta admit, I'm torqued about the stimulus. There was a promise from the White House and Senate Leadership that the bill would be available online for at least 48 hours prior to the vote, and it was less than 24 when Reid called the vote.

                                                                            If Senators who have staffers can read it properly in this time frame, how are we supposed to read it and offer our input? It almost seems as if deliberation has become a vice in America, these days.

                                                                            • 1 vote
                                                                            #20.13 - Thu Mar 5, 2009 1:35 PM EST
                                                                            Paul William Tenny

                                                                            You would have had plenty of time to read it if Republicans hadn't been hellbent on obstructing the thing. Based on reports the thing was changing constantly to find enough votes to pass it. Letting it sit around for a couple of days after finally getting the votes would have been begging for someone to change their mind.

                                                                            I want transparency but I also wanted what was supposed to be an emergency stim bill passed as soon as humanly possible.

                                                                            Sometimes we don't always get what we want, and sometimes it's not pragmatic to keep every single promise. What the President really should have done is never promise the public a chance to look at the bill, knowing full well it was going to be changing rapidly. It wasn't one he could keep and certainly not one within his power to make, anyway.

                                                                            When the Senate and House votes on legislation is the decision of the Speaker and the Majority leader, not the President.

                                                                            • 3 votes
                                                                            #20.14 - Mon Mar 9, 2009 1:33 AM EDT
                                                                            Reply
                                                                            fueldawg23

                                                                            First and for most, what did bush do?

                                                                              Reply#21 - Mon Mar 2, 2009 10:42 PM EST
                                                                              Division by Zero

                                                                              The temptation to toss a Godwin bomb in here is overwhelming, but I'll restrain myself and get back to what I should be doing.

                                                                              • 4 votes
                                                                              #21.1 - Mon Mar 2, 2009 10:45 PM EST
                                                                              RMM82

                                                                              What didn't he do? Abuse of executive power, torture, illegal surveillance, suspension of habeus corpus, destroying incriminating documents, drawing the country into a war based on a lie, etc., etc., etc.

                                                                              • 4 votes
                                                                              #21.2 - Mon Mar 2, 2009 10:50 PM EST
                                                                              R. Donald Snyder

                                                                              First and foremost he himself stated on national TV that he authorized wire-taps on Americans without obtaining a warrant from the FISA court. He also said he'd continue to do it. The problem is the president does not have the power authorize wire-taps on anyone without getting a warrant from the court. What he did was a criminal act. If that was all he did illegally in his tenure at the White House, it alone would be enough reason to throw his ass in prison.

                                                                              • 8 votes
                                                                              #21.3 - Mon Mar 2, 2009 10:53 PM EST
                                                                              UNCLEMIKE

                                                                              He did nothing right and everything wrong.

                                                                              He never made any mistakes.

                                                                              He treated the Constitution as an inconsequential old piece of paper. .

                                                                              He thought the ideas of the founders were just suggestions.

                                                                              He lied to the Nation over and over. We've all lost count.

                                                                              He dishonored and the military and humiliated our dedicated officers and soldiers.

                                                                              He politicized the Intelligence Agencies and neutered their objectivity.

                                                                              He said unite and he divided.

                                                                              He turned a surplus into a deficit.

                                                                              He was in Molly Ivins' words "all hat and no cattle."

                                                                              .

                                                                              • 8 votes
                                                                              #21.4 - Mon Mar 2, 2009 11:22 PM EST
                                                                              fueldawg23

                                                                              First there was NO surplus. That was overtaxation. There was evidence of WMD but when you have to give timelines, they will always know we are coming. Trust me, 24 hours of stairing at the Iraqi border waiting to go it sucks. TELL ME LIES he said i will discredit every one.

                                                                              THe wiretaps were perfectly legal. Ask President(puff puff give) Clinton how they work. he was the first president to authorize them. If you were not a terriost, what do you have to worry?

                                                                              more lies please, DROP YOUR BOMB. anti-missle defense activated.

                                                                                #21.5 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 6:03 PM EST
                                                                                winsomecowboy

                                                                                oh nohs, flashback.

                                                                                • 4 votes
                                                                                #21.6 - Wed Mar 4, 2009 12:07 AM EST
                                                                                UNCLEMIKE

                                                                                anti-missile defense activated? Is that like "flame-on?" First person singular, third person omniscient, weapons metaphors? fuel, I have to admit I am completely confused, is there a point and who is making it?

                                                                                • 2 votes
                                                                                #21.7 - Wed Mar 4, 2009 3:47 PM EST
                                                                                shane ss chevelle

                                                                                everyone must be dumb...

                                                                                Employees at verizon and every other phone service have been listening in on everyone since the days of Bell telephone...

                                                                                Bush kept the oil coming in when Iraq wanted to shut their pipes.
                                                                                Saddam stopped reporting and falsifying the amount of oil in the fields. Why else would they target all the oil fields...

                                                                                A surplus...overtaxation? Doesnt the governement get their money from taxes? Perhaps Mr. Clinton shutting off all the wasteful spending caused a surplus? NO? I tend to think so.

                                                                                • 2 votes
                                                                                #21.8 - Wed Mar 4, 2009 8:59 PM EST
                                                                                UNCLEMIKE

                                                                                Yeah, everyone is dumb

                                                                                • 1 vote
                                                                                #21.9 - Wed Mar 4, 2009 9:30 PM EST
                                                                                iconoclasm

                                                                                "Employees at verizon and every other phone service have been listening in on everyone since the days of Bell telephone... "

                                                                                False.

                                                                                • 3 votes
                                                                                #21.10 - Sat Mar 7, 2009 8:29 AM EST
                                                                                lilbitsofknowledge

                                                                                I agree that listening to our conversations does not date back to maw bell days. However back in the late 80's - early 90's (Been along time ago and looking for a source to provide) the CIA was caught spying on it's own people. It was then deemed illegal for the CIA to spy on it own people and laws where passed to reflect this.

                                                                                In 1994 I was contracted to build a facility just outside of Vancouver, Canada, that was paid for by the U.S. government. This facility was built with the express purpose of hiring Canada to listen to our phone conversations and monitor them for "Trigger Words". How do you think they have the recorded conversations of the people from the planes on 9/11? They do in fact monitor our phone conversations. However, it is not the CIA who is doing this, it is the NSA and most people never hear about them or what they actually do.

                                                                                Again, this HAS been going on for years now in the interest of National Security. They have made no attempt to hide this fact and once I find the sources dating back 20 years, I will post them for you.

                                                                                • 2 votes
                                                                                #21.11 - Sat Mar 7, 2009 4:32 PM EST
                                                                                iconoclasm

                                                                                The best thing to do is to do something that gets you flagged as "interesting" whereupon futher investigation gets you put into the "harmless" filter. Once in there you are just about invisible.

                                                                                • 1 vote
                                                                                #21.12 - Mon Mar 9, 2009 2:31 AM EDT
                                                                                Reply
                                                                                ladybmore

                                                                                When you change the law, to suit your interpretation and it is not written in the constitution. to suit your presidency at the time, it should be against the law.

                                                                                • 7 votes
                                                                                Reply#22 - Mon Mar 2, 2009 10:55 PM EST
                                                                                BucsTim

                                                                                I am so glad they released these documents. We all knew all along how corrupt the Bush Administration was from Bush to Cheney and right down the line. I really hope somebosy pursue's charges of some kind. Check this out:

                                                                                • 5 votes
                                                                                Reply#23 - Mon Mar 2, 2009 10:56 PM EST
                                                                                determined0a1

                                                                                Where are all the documents that I can read them?

                                                                                • 2 votes
                                                                                #23.1 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 12:37 AM EST
                                                                                winsomecowboy

                                                                                try google, it's a search engine.

                                                                                • 1 vote
                                                                                #23.2 - Wed Mar 4, 2009 8:09 PM EST
                                                                                Reply
                                                                                JetRanger

                                                                                This John Yoo,, "Attorney" for the White House under the Bush Adminstration,,,, is a very Dangerous man,, He should be immediately arrested and Detained,, and held without Bond, Right Now I understand he is at a University out in California, teaching as a Professor, can you Imagine that,, somebody like this teaching as a Professor, to other young students, filling their heads and brain-washing them with his Neo-Con"NAZI" - "PROPAGANDA",, this John Yoo, needs to be immediately Stopped, he should NOT be ever allowed to speak or give lectures at any Universities or Colleges ever ! If you should see this Man, use whatever means necessary to Legally Detain him and hold him, for Treason against the United States and it Citizens, have plenty of help with you. most likely he'll have Security Guards protecting him,, isn't that strange, Security protecting the Criminals, whats wrong with that picture !

                                                                                • 4 votes
                                                                                Reply#24 - Mon Mar 2, 2009 11:15 PM EST
                                                                                Itsnotourfathers

                                                                                If the arguement is about the laws broken according to the Constitution, someone please tell me one President that does not belong in jail. Political corruption has been around since Washington. After the next eight years, i'm sure Obama will belong in jail with the rest of them.

                                                                                  Reply#25 - Mon Mar 2, 2009 11:19 PM EST
                                                                                  kakael

                                                                                  i think the gravest error that could be committed by people of our nation is to hold the attitude that some of our citizens are above the law...that is a dangerous attitude and it would help open the way even more for those who hold power to abuse it...it would weaken our nations collective conscience and make vulnerable all that we value...

                                                                                  • 6 votes
                                                                                  Reply#26 - Mon Mar 2, 2009 11:20 PM EST
                                                                                  Jump to discussion page: 1 2 3
                                                                                  Leave a Comment:
                                                                                  You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
                                                                                  You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
                                                                                  (XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)
                                                                                  Newsvine Privacy Statement
                                                                                  As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
                                                                                  FUN STUFF:
                                                                                  • Leaderboard |
                                                                                  • E-Mail Alerts |
                                                                                  • Top of the Vine |
                                                                                  • Newsvine Live |
                                                                                  • Newsvine Archives |
                                                                                  • The Greenhouse |
                                                                                  COMPANY STUFF:
                                                                                  • Code of Honor |
                                                                                  • Company Info |
                                                                                  • Contact Us |
                                                                                  • Jobs |
                                                                                  • User Agreement |
                                                                                  • Privacy Policy |
                                                                                  • About our ads
                                                                                  LEGAL STUFF:
                                                                                  • © 2005-2012 Newsvine, Inc. |
                                                                                  • Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
                                                                                  • Newsvine is a property of msnbc.com