TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Molly rightfully nails the DC Dems

Molly rightfully nails the DC Dems

Absofuckinglutely:

quote:

Enough of the D.C. Dems By Molly Ivins March 2006 Issue Mah fellow progressives, now is the time for all good men and women to come to the aid of the party. I don�t know about you, but I have had it with the D.C. Democrats, had it with the DLC Democrats, had it with every calculating, equivocating, triangulating, straddling, hair-splitting son of a bitch up there, and that includes Hillary Rodham Clinton. I will not be supporting Senator Clinton because: a) she has no clear stand on the war and b) Terri Schiavo and flag-burning are not issues where you reach out to the other side and try to split the difference. You want to talk about lowering abortion rates through cooperation on sex education and contraception, fine, but don�t jack with stuff that is pure rightwing firewater. I can�t see a damn soul in D.C. except Russ Feingold who is even worth considering for President. The rest of them seem to me so poisonously in hock to this system of legalized bribery they can�t even see straight. Look at their reaction to this Abramoff scandal. They�re talking about �a lobby reform package.� We don�t need a lobby reform package, you dimwits, we need full public financing of campaigns, and every single one of you who spends half your time whoring after special interest contributions knows it. The Abramoff scandal is a once in a lifetime gift�a perfect lesson on what�s wrong with the system being laid out for people to see. Run with it, don�t mess around with little patches, and fix the system. As usual, the Democrats have forty good issues on their side and want to run on thirty-nine of them. Here are three they should stick to: 1) Iraq is making terrorism worse; it�s a breeding ground. We need to extricate ourselves as soon as possible. We are not helping the Iraqis by staying. 2) Full public financing of campaigns so as to drive the moneylenders from the halls of Washington. 3) Single-payer health insurance. Every Democrat I talk to is appalled at the sheer gutlessness and spinelessness of the Democratic performance. The party is still cringing at the thought of being called, ooh-ooh, �unpatriotic� by a bunch of rightwingers. Take �unpatriotic� and shove it. How dare they do this to our country? �Unpatriotic�? These people have ruined the American military! Not to mention the economy, the middle class, and our reputation in the world. Everything they touch turns to dirt, including Medicare prescription drugs and hurricane relief. This is not a time for a candidate who will offend no one; it is time for a candidate who takes clear stands and kicks ass. Who are these idiots talking about Warner of Virginia? Being anodyne is not sufficient qualification for being President. And if there�s nobody in Washington and we can�t find a Democratic governor, let�s run Bill Moyers, or Oprah, or some university president with ethics and charisma. What happens now is not up to the has-beens in Washington who run this party. It is up to us. So let�s get off our butts and start building a progressive movement that can block the nomination of Hillary Clinton or any other candidate who supposedly has �all the money sewed up.� I am tired of having the party nomination decided before the first primary vote is cast, tired of having the party beholden to the same old Establishment money. We can raise our own money on the Internet, and we know it. Howard Dean raised $42 million, largely on the web, with a late start when he was running for President, and that ain�t chicken feed. If we double it, it gives us the lock on the nomination. So let�s go find a good candidate early and organize the shit out of our side. Molly Ivins writes in this space every month. Her latest book is �Who Let the Dogs In?� http://www.progressive.org/node/3142

That old Texas bat's still got some kick in her. I've stated this problem ad nauseum, and I can't fucking understand why the hapless Dems. don't know how to fight. They will continue to get their teeth kicked in by the GOP if they don't stand up for themselves just once.

It's fucking tiresome.

Feingold? jesus you guys desperate.

when i said almost three years ago here that the democrats will do and say almost anything to regain their majority on all levels of government, i had no idea...

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo Feingold? jesus you guys desperate. when i said almost three years ago here that the democrats will do and say almost anything to regain their majority on all levels of government, i had no idea...

So out of curiosity, who would be a worthy democrat?

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo Feingold? jesus you guys desperate. when i said almost three years ago here that the democrats will do and say almost anything to regain their majority on all levels of government, i had no idea...

Yes, I realize that calling out a president who knowingly and deliberately broke the law (in this case, FISA laws) may seem a bit desperate.

But then again, what was that thingy you GOPers did with Clinton again? And that lie which was clearly against the law entailed a little fucking blowjob.

This illegal activity seemingly has quite a bigger ramification, especially when we start seeing spying activities like this come to fruition:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...6031401520.html

Now you tell me EXACTLY which part of this censure is incorrect, and please support your assertions with verifiable evidence:

quote:

RESOLUTION Relating to the censure of George W. Bush. Whereas Congress passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.), and in so doing provided the executive branch with clear authority to wiretap suspected terrorists inside the United States; Whereas the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 has been amended multiple times since 1978, to expand the surveillance authority of the executive branch and address new technological developments; Whereas the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 states that it and the criminal wiretap law are the `exclusive means by which electronic surveillance' may be conducted by the United States Government and makes it a crime to wiretap individuals without complying with this statutory authority; Whereas the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 permits the Government to initiate wiretapping immediately in emergencies as long as the Government obtains approval from the court established under section 103 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1803) within 72 hours of initiating the wiretap; Whereas the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 authorizes wiretaps without the court orders otherwise required by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 for the first 15 days following a declaration of war by Congress; Whereas the Authorization for Use of Military Force that became law on September 18, 2001 (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note), did not grant the President the power to authorize wiretaps of Americans within the United States without obtaining the court orders required by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978; Whereas the President's inherent constitutional authority does not give him the power to violate the explicit statutory prohibition on warrantless wiretaps in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978; Whereas George W. Bush, President of the United States, has authorized and continues to authorize wiretaps by the National Security Agency of Americans within the United States without obtaining the court orders required by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978; Whereas President George W. Bush has failed to inform the full congressional intelligence committees about this program, as required by the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 401 et seq.); Whereas President George W. Bush repeatedly misled the public prior to the public disclosure of the National Security Agency surveillance program by indicating his Administration was relying on court orders to wiretap suspected terrorists inside the United States, by stating-- (1) on April 20, 2004, that `When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so.'; (2) on July 14, 2004, that `the government can't move on wiretaps or roving wiretaps without getting a court order'; and (3) on June 9, 2005, that `Law enforcement officers need a federal judge's permission to wiretap a foreign terrorist's phone, a federal judge's permission to track his calls, or a federal judge's permission to search his property. Officers must meet strict standards to use any of these tools.'; Whereas President George W. Bush has, since the public disclosure of the National Security Agency surveillance program, falsely implied that the program was necessary because the executive branch did not have authority to wiretap suspected terrorists inside the United States, by making statements about the supposed need for the program, including-- (1) on January 25, 2006, stating at the National Security Agency that `When terrorist operatives are here in America communicating with someone overseas, we must understand what's going on if we're going to do our job to protect the people. The safety and security of the American people depend on our ability to find out who the terrorists are talking to, and what they're planning. In the weeks following September the 11th, I authorized a terrorist surveillance program to detect and intercept al Qaeda communications involving someone here in the United States.'; and (2) on January 31, 2006, asserting during the State of the Union that `The terrorist surveillance program has helped prevent terrorist attacks. It remains essential to the security of America. If there are people inside our country who are talking with al Qaeda, we want to know about it, because we will not sit back and wait to be hit again.'; and Whereas President George W. Bush inaccurately stated in his January 31, 2006, State of the Union address that `Previous Presidents have used the same constitutional authority I have, and federal courts have approved the use of that authority.', even though the President has failed to identify a single instance since the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 became law in which another President has authorized wiretaps inside the United States without complying with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, and no Federal court has evaluated whether the President has the inherent authority to authorize wiretaps inside the United States without complying with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the United States Senate does hereby censure George W. Bush, President of the United States, and does condemn his unlawful authorization of wiretaps of Americans within the United States without obtaining the court orders required by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, his failure to inform the full congressional intelligence committees as required by law, and his efforts to mislead the American people about the authorities relied upon by his Administration to conduct wiretaps and about the legality of the program. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.RES.398:

quote:

Originally posted by occrider So out of curiosity, who would be a worthy democrat?

Oooo, ooooo, I know! Lieberman, right? Ain't he a swell Republican, err, I mean Democrat?

quote:

Originally posted by occrider So out of curiosity, who would be a worthy democrat?

not Feingold!

no, that Governor of New Mexico (Dem), seriously. i'd like to see him handle the primaries first but yeah, him.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Yes, I realize that calling out a president who knowingly and deliberately broke the law (in this case, FISA laws) may seem a bit desperate.

prosecute him then, Derchiwitz yeah, like i said

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo prosecute him then, Derchiwitz yeah, like i said

Well Jesus, how about a simple investigation? The actual committee to do the formal investigation on the matter is Senator Roberts' SSCI committee, and he along with the rest of the Republicans squelched an actual investigation of any sort.

Despite the evidence being stacked up against Bush in my opinion, I'm still more than willing to hear this Administration's side of the story under oath. I honestly can't see how that is too much to ask.

there isn't one flippin Democrat in Congress that stands out to me. Republicans are a very short list as well.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Well Jesus, how about a simple investigation? The actual committee to do the formal investigation on the matter is Senator Roberts' SSCI committee, and he along with the rest of the Republicans squelched an actual investigation of any sort. Despite the evidence being stacked up against Bush in my opinion, I'm still more than willing to hear this Administration's side of the story under oath. I honestly can't see how that is too much to ask.

no dude. you've said (ad nauseum) that he broke the law.

the burden of proof is on you, couselor.

now you just want an investigation? cause if he's investigated, then obviously he's done something wrong...whoopity dooo!
but if he's prosecuted due to the investigation...well, that's just gravy! whoopity dooo!

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo no dude. you've said (ad nauseum) that he broke the law. the burden of proof is on you, couselor. now you just want an investigation? cause if he's investigated, then obviously he's done something wrong...whoopity dooo! but if he's prosecuted due to the investigation...well, that's just gravy! whoopity dooo!

Well if there's any case for him to say and prove otherwise, he should be entitled to do just that under oath, just as our courts mandate.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo f**k that weak ass punk. nothing irratates me more than someone ridin the fence all the time. no offence, but the last thing we need right now is a Jew in the head office. i said that in 2000, 2004 and now i'm gonna get shit on for it.

Wow. Well, uh, can I ask why you're so adamantly against a person of Jewish descent becoming the President? I guess I never really considered such religious matters so important to running the country.

And I must tell you to please be careful what you say. That was a fairly racist thing to state, and despite us disagreeing on practically everything, I still don't want to see you suspended/banned/etc.

So just temper it a bit, if you would sir.

quote:

"This illegal activity seemingly has quite a bigger ramification, especially when we start seeing spying activities like this come to fruition"

oohhh no, poor protesters had their pictures taken. after seeing the kind of people that attented those anti war protests i have ABSOLUTELY no problem with an agent taking pictures of them.
" The FBI said in a statement that the agent was "acting with all appropriate investigative authorities" as part of an ongoing terrorism probe. The photos were destroyed once the agent determined that a person under investigation was not in attendance at the event, the FBI said."
i see nothing wrong with that.

quote:

"I guess I never really considered such religious matters so important to running the country"

maybe not, but if a jew would be president don't you think that would make the case for destroying america even greater for the jihadists since we all know how much they love jews.

quote:

So out of curiosity, who would be a worthy democrat?

oooo oooo how bout your boy Dean, or even better, Kucinich ? you "real" democrats love those guys don't you? Then the GOP can whipe the floor with the dems in 2008 again.

quote:

We need to extricate ourselves as soon as possible. We are not helping the Iraqis by staying

yes please take that as your number 1 position democrats!! then we'll see how good you do in the election. anyway, what does that mean?? is she saying to get out now or does "asap" mean when iraqis can handle their own security. again not much of a plan from the dems. and she says that the economy is ruined?? last time i checked the economy is doing pretty well.

uh-oh

cool

quote:

Originally posted by sponger oohhh no, poor protesters had their pictures taken. after seeing the kind of people that attented those anti war protests i have ABSOLUTELY no problem with an agent taking pictures of them.

And their rationale for suspicion would be what again?

quote:

" The FBI said in a statement that the agent was "acting with all appropriate investigative authorities" as part of an ongoing terrorism probe. The photos were destroyed once the agent determined that a person under investigation was not in attendance at the event, the FBI said." i see nothing wrong with that.

On the surface I don't have a huge problem with that particular quote either, but then again we know nothing about the supposed "terrorist" individual they were tracking, as well as any so-called connection to this peace group he may or may not have had.

But what we do know is they were photographing a left-wing peace group, and that they were handed out by someone of "Middle Eastern descent":

quote:

The report called the group a "left-wing organization advocating, among many political causes, pacifism." ...The same memo notes that one of the leaflet distributors "appeared to be of Middle Eastern descent" but that no other participants appeared to be from the Middle East.

So we could just trust our government doing the right thing and spying on these peace groups because of supposed terrorist involvement, or we could see and ask if they did, in fact, have a reasonable rationale for their spying activities on Leftist peace groups. Because certain government activities like this really leave open some questions, especially when combined with other questionable spying activities:

quote:

"A year ago, at a Quaker Meeting House in Lake Worth, Fla., a small group of activists met to plan a protest of military recruiting at local high schools. What they didn't know was that their meeting had come to the attention of the U.S. military. A secret 400-page Defense Department document obtained by NBC News lists the Lake Worth meeting as a �threat� and one of more than 1,500 �suspicious incidents� across the country over a recent 10-month period. �This peaceful, educationally oriented group being a threat is incredible,� says Evy Grachow, a member of the Florida group called The Truth Project. (...) �I mean, we're based here at the Quaker Meeting House,� says Truth Project member Marie Zwicker, �and several of us are Quakers.� The Defense Department refused to comment on how it obtained information on the Lake Worth meeting or why it considers a dozen or so anti-war activists a �threat.�" http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10454316/

quote:

"One F.B.I. document indicates that agents in Indianapolis planned to conduct surveillance as part of a "Vegan Community Project." Another document talks of the Catholic Workers group's "semi-communistic ideology." A third indicates the bureau's interest in determining the location of a protest over llama fur planned by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals." http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/20/p...serland&emc=rss

quote:

"FBI counterterrorism investigators are monitoring domestic U.S. advocacy groups engaged in antiwar, environmental, civil rights and other causes, the American Civil Liberties Union charged yesterday as it released new FBI records that it said detail the extent of the activity. (...) The ACLU said it received 2,357 pages of files on PETA, Greenpeace, the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee and the ACLU itself. One file referring to the committee included a contact list for students and peace activists who attended a 2002 conference at Stanford University aimed at ending sanctions then in place in Iraq." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...5121901777.html

This is a good one:

quote:

"Only eight pages from the four-hundred page document have been released so far. But on those eight pages, Sirius OutQ News discovered that the Defense Department has been keeping tabs NOT just on anti-war protests, but also on seemingly non-threatening protests against the military's ban on gay servicemembers. According to those first eight pages, Pentagon investigators kept tabs on April protests at UC-Santa Cruz, State University of New York at Albany, and William Patterson College in New Jersey. A February protest at NYU was also listed, along with the law school's gay advocacy group "OUTlaw," and was classified as "possibly violent." All of these protests were against the military's policy excluding gay personnel, and against the presence of military recruiters on campus. The Servicemembers Legal Defense Network says the Pentagon needs to explain why "don't ask, don't tell" protesters are considered a threat." http://www.sldn.org/templates/press...n=5&record=2548

So the questions that remain are:

1. What rationale basis does our government have for spying on groups like these, all in the name of "national security"? What threat are these groups (fucking gay military men? Quakers?) to our fucking national security?

2. It would be interesting to take the FBI's word at face value that they did, indeed, destroy the photos. I'm fairly skeptical of even that, but the question remains as to their actual motives for taking such photos in the first place.

Now I noticed that you too skipped right over my central premise of Bush's illegal spying activities. So please decifer through the censure resolution by Feingold and describe to me with references exactly what you find incorrect.

Be specific.

quote:

maybe not, but if a jew would be president don't you think that would make the case for destroying america even greater for the jihadists since we all know how much they love jews.

Uhh, no. Their hatred of Americans is pretty high enough as it is for our continual efforts and aid to Israel, our war of choice in Iraq, our permanent military bases throughout their lands, and so on.

quote:

oooo oooo how bout your boy Dean, or even better, Kucinich ? you "real" democrats love those guys don't you? Then the GOP can whipe the floor with the dems in 2008 again.

Your wit is truly deep and imaginative. But as to your point, I'm more than willing to support an actual Progressive/Lefty anytime they receive enough votes over a centrist. I'm tired as shit seeing people like Hillary and Lieberan pander to the Middle and even to the Conservative base. They should stick to an issue and stay with it, despite the wind blowing in a particular direction.

It's a credit to the current GOP in many ways. Sure they're corrupt as fuck, get us in some really fun international debacles on misleading evidence with no post-war planning of any sort, love gutting funds to those who need it the most and give that $ to corporate welfare and the affluent who need it the least, and still have no fucking clue as to how to balance a checkbook,

but at least they're consistent .

quote:

yes please take that as your number 1 position democrats!! then we'll see how good you do in the election.

Considering that this Administration is posturing slowly but surely in that direction, it appears the GOP is taking over the Murtha plan for us.

Thanks.

quote:

anyway, what does that mean?? is she saying to get out now or does "asap" mean when iraqis can handle their own security.

I assume she means the former.

quote:

again not much of a plan from the dems.

Ahh, then perhaps you can explain with some detail exactly what the plan is for the GOP. I have yet to find any measurable goals set forth by this President that we can actually write down. So perhaps you can share with us such goals that are actually measurable between one another as well as measurable in terms of the final end result of troop withdrawal. Please use references and be as specific as possible.

I understand the criticism about the Dems. not having a cohesive plan on Iraq, and to a small extent I agree. However, YOU GOPers own Iraq. This was Bush's mess. To put the burden on the Dems. to get Bush out of his own pile of shit HE created is a cute little bait and switch that doesn't float.

quote:

and she says that the economy is ruined?? last time i checked the economy is doing pretty well.

What is our debt again? How about our deficit? How have wages been lately? How about personal savings? Credit card debt?

Measuring the GDP as a means of economic growth is all fine and dandy, but let's also consider the aforementioned questions as well. IOW, who the fuck is going to pay for the deficit-loving, spendthrifty habits of YOUR GOP? You guys looooove touting about no taxes and having a small government. Well not only is this the largest fucking government EVER, not only have the last 3 Republican presidents create larger governments than the last 1 Democratic president, but thanks in ALL part to your idiocy GOP we have a fucking birth tax on every child being born because they have to pay back the fucking debt YOUR GOP-run government has deliberately created.

Or is that actually conceivable for Bush apologists that actually think a bit more long-term when it comes to our economy?

quote:

And their rationale for suspicion would be what again?

rationale?? "Crowley acknowledged that an agent took photos of someone passing out anti-war leaflets on November 29, 2002. But, he said, the photos were only used to compare with photos of a person under FBI investigation."
what you actually think theyre going to tell you who they are investigating??
and besides, "Roper said Tuesday the ACLU and Merton Center aren't claiming the FBI surveillance in Pittsburgh was illegal"

more rationale: "F.B.I. officials said in interviews that the intelligence-gathering effort was aimed at identifying anarchists and "extremist elements" plotting violence, not at monitoring the political speech of law-abiding protesters.

The initiative has won the support of some local police, who view it as a critical way to maintain order at large-scale demonstrations. Indeed, some law enforcement officials said they believed the F.B.I.'s approach had helped to ensure that nationwide antiwar demonstrations in recent months, drawing hundreds of thousands of protesters, remained largely free of violence and disruption"
source

even more rationale: types of groups at antiwar rallies
hey, with that kind of scum at those rallies i hope the FBI is keeping an eye on those people. i don't think its a far fetched idea that someone with ties to terrorist organizations can be at those rallies.

again, i dont have a problem with the FBI conducting this type of research on these groups or individuals that may be associated with them. i think if they didnt do that it would be convenient for terrorists or criminals to hide among these groups.

quote:

"One F.B.I. document indicates that agents in Indianapolis planned to conduct surveillance as part of a "Vegan Community Project." Another document talks of the Catholic Workers group's "semi-communistic ideology." A third indicates the bureau's interest in determining the location of a protest over llama fur planned by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals."

"In the case of Greenpeace, which is known for highly publicized acts of civil disobedience like the boarding of cargo ships to unfurl protest banners, the files indicate that the F.B.I. investigated possible financial ties between its members and militant groups like the Earth Liberation Front and the Animal Liberation Front.

These networks, which have no declared leaders and are only loosely organized, have been described by the F.B.I. in Congressional testimony as "extremist special interest groups" whose cells engage in violent or other illegal acts, making them "a serious domestic terrorist threat."

about the NSA spying:

quote:

So please decifer through the censure resolution by Feingold and describe to me with references exactly what you find incorrect.

are you kidding? like i have nothing better to do? i don't think im even qualified to do that.
but here is an article you might find helpful.
article

quote:

Uhh, no. Their hatred of Americans is pretty high enough as it is for our continual efforts and aid to Israel, our war of choice in Iraq, our permanent military bases throughout their lands, and so on.

i think the islamofascists just look for any reason to support their idealogy, and those you listed are just that, excuses to fight against the west. and a jewish president would be like the icing on the cake for them. surely you realize that their hatred is not just toward america and israel, but the west in general. you failed to mention the recent cartoons and other things that spur their hatred of the west!!

quote:

Your wit is truly deep and imaginative. But as to your point, I'm more than willing to support an actual Progressive/Lefty anytime they receive enough votes over a centrist. I'm tired as shit seeing people like Hillary and Lieberan pander to the Middle and even to the Conservative base. They should stick to an issue and stay with it, despite the wind blowing in a particular direction.

so who was your favorite candidate in 04?? yes, but the reason why they do that is so they have a better chance at winning. yes it would be nice, for the GOP, if a real liberal like Kucinich was the presidential candidate! Face it, the majority of the country is not as far left as you are, and thats why candidates like Hillary have to pander to the center.

quote:

Considering that this Administration is posturing slowly but surely in that direction, it appears the GOP is taking over the Murtha plan for us.

really?? the Murtha plan was to pull out immediately. how can you slowly but surely pull out "immediately" i don't think anyone in the administration is planning on pulling out all troops at once.

quote:

I assume she means the former.

yea, and we all know how well that argument did for the far left in 04.

quote:

What is our debt again? How about our deficit? How have wages been lately? How about personal savings? Credit card debt

i agree, spending is out of control. but to say that the economy is ruined is just not realistic
read this article
do you have to use profanity in all your posts, just reaffirms my negative view of the far left.

quote:

rationale?? "Crowley acknowledged that an agent took photos of someone passing out anti-war leaflets on November 29, 2002. But, he said, the photos were only used to compare with photos of a person under FBI investigation." what you actually think theyre going to tell you who they are investigating??

Of course not, but when put into context with some of the other antiwar groups, a disturbing pattern tends to emerge about the FBI surveying such groups.

Again, we're not merely talking about terrorist al Qaeda, Saddam-loving sympathizers here. We're talking about law-abiding American citizens, some like the Quakers are just about as peaceful as can be.

quote:

and besides, "Roper said Tuesday the ACLU and Merton Center aren't claiming the FBI surveillance in Pittsburgh was illegal"

Nor am I, but it does rouse a healthy dose of suspicion when combined with other surveillance activities of other peaceful groups.

quote:

more rationale: "F.B.I. officials said in interviews that the intelligence-gathering effort was aimed at identifying anarchists and "extremist elements" plotting violence, not at monitoring the political speech of law-abiding protesters.

Which, of course, rightly explains why our government spies on Vegans, gay military individuals, the ACLU, the Catholic Workers group, and the Quakers.

All these groups have some pretty riled up violent folk, don't they?

quote:

The initiative has won the support of some local police, who view it as a critical way to maintain order at large-scale demonstrations. Indeed, some law enforcement officials said they believed the F.B.I.'s approach had helped to ensure that nationwide antiwar demonstrations in recent months, drawing hundreds of thousands of protesters, remained largely free of violence and disruption" source

Or it could be because many of these groups were simply pretty damn peaceful in the first place?

I have no problems with the FBI working with local police in corralling violent protestors. I have no problem having them prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

But is that the group we are truly discussing here?

quote:

even more rationale: types of groups at antiwar rallies hey, with that kind of scum at those rallies i hope the FBI is keeping an eye on those people. i don't think its a far fetched idea that someone with ties to terrorist organizations can be at those rallies.

I repeat:

quote:

Which, of course, rightly explains why our government spies on Vegans, gay military individuals, the ACLU, the Catholic Workers group, and the Quakers.

quote:

again, i dont have a problem with the FBI conducting this type of research on these groups or individuals that may be associated with them. i think if they didnt do that it would be convenient for terrorists or criminals to hide among these groups.

Well in the particular instances you cite with violent protestors, do you honestly expect me to disagree? But how about the peaceful protestors with no history, rhyme, or reason to be violent like the groups I just mentioned?

quote:

"In the case of Greenpeace, which is known for highly publicized acts of civil disobedience like the boarding of cargo ships to unfurl protest banners, the files indicate that the F.B.I. investigated possible financial ties between its members and militant groups like the Earth Liberation Front and the Animal Liberation Front. These networks, which have no declared leaders and are only loosely organized, have been described by the F.B.I. in Congressional testimony as "extremist special interest groups" whose cells engage in violent or other illegal acts, making them "a serious domestic terrorist threat."

I repeat:

quote:

Which, of course, rightly explains why our government spies on Vegans, gay military individuals, the ACLU, the Catholic Workers group, and the Quakers.

They can spy on Greenpeace and PETA to live long day for all I care. They fucking drive me nuts as much as the next guy. But the fucking Quakers? Any particular valid explanation?

quote:

are you kidding? like i have nothing better to do? i don't think im even qualified to do that. but here is an article you might find helpful.

Ahh yes, Byron York to the rescue. It really is funny reading the GOP talking points on this issue, and to see how the rationale evolves over time. Let's see if I can pick the timeline:

1. First it was legal because, well because Bush said so
2. That didn't fly so it became legal because both Clinton and Carter did it too. Strangely, both followed the FISA laws, however, so that one fell apart.
3. Then it became a select few members of Congress knew about it and gave approval. Trouble was, it was a bit difficult to give approval or say anything when the entire discussion at the Cheney roundtable was labeled Top Secret. And even then a coupla those members voiced their concern of legality privately
4. Then of course it became that Congress, all of Congress gave the President such war powers that allowed him to bypass the FISA courts for his wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. When quotes from members of Congress came up, some even from Republicans that directly and specifically stated their vote was otherwise, and when it was told that such powers were specifically turned down by Congress in granting war powers, that excuse withered away.
5. And so now we resort back to an argument that isn't touted too often, the Patriot Act that specifically gave Bush powers to spy on American citizens and bypass the FISA courts.

The trouble with York is, firstly he has quite the propensity for selectively quoting out of context, as I'll explain in a minute. This article is a nice little continuation of one of his previous column boasting up the legality of Bush's spying, based upon the FISA Court of Review. He is correct in stating the history of what occurred.

The trouble is, the decision held up by the Review Court as well as the refusal of SCOTUS to hear the case had nothing to do with domestic surveillance. The whole "chaperone function" was a means to actually minimize overlap between NSA or any other spying government branch and the criminal prosecutors. The FISA court essentially read and believed that this amended version created by Ashcroft would essentially allow criminal prosecutors when, how, where, and to what extent any given spying branch would utilize FISA, which is of course not anything remotely close to what FISA was intended for in the first place:

http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/fisc051702.html

But as stated previously, the Review Court overturned their interpretation. So, uh, big deal? Again, let's keep in mind what was originally presented to the courts here. It had NOTHING to do with WARRANTLESS wiretapping. The government at that time was NOT seeking to have FISA laws overturned or circumvented. They were not even arguing the legality of FISA laws at that time because our lovely Administration was pretending at that time that it wasn't even bypassing FISA laws:

quote:

There is no disagreement between the government and the FISA court as to the propriety of the electronic surveillance; the court found that the government had shown probable cause to believe that the target is an agent of a foreign power and otherwise met the basic requirements of FISA. The government�s application for a surveillance order contains detailed information to support its contention that the target, who is a United States person, is aiding, abetting, or conspiring with others in international terrorism. http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/fiscr111802.html

And if you read a bit further, you see that the government followed the correct steps of a FISA warrant, which again was not the focus of Ashcroft trying to overturn the original FISA decision:

quote:

'The court's decision from which the government appeals imposed certain requirements and limitations accompanying an order authorizing electronic surveillance of an "agent of a foreign power" as defined in FISA.' http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/fiscr111802.html

IOW, the government applied to FISA for a warrant just as they should, FISA issued that warrant with certain restrictions as to how that warrant wasn't to be controlled by law enforcement officials, to which the Administration argued against.

But you see, our dear friend Byron kinda sorta left out that little tidbit, and made this lovely little straw man fallacious argument in attempts to demonstrate something which is nonexistent in the original argument by the Administration. He has quite the nasty little habit of doing that:

http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/people/byronyork

And this whole brewhaha on the Patriot Act justifying his actions is a sideshow for another reason. Bush signed the Patriot Act in late October, right?: Here are his remarks:

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi...apers_vol2_misc

He states the following there:

quote:

Surveillance of communications is another essential tool to pursue and stop terrorists. The existing law was written in the era of rotary telephones. This new law I sign today will allow surveillance of all communications used by terrorists, including e-mails, the Internet, and cell phones. As of today, we'll be able to better meet the technological challenges posed by this proliferation of communications technology. . . .

Now that's all peachy, but there's one slight problem. You see, Bush stated these things almost 6 weeks AFTER Congress passed the authorization for the use of military force. If you recall, this is the legislation that Bush claimed gave him the war powers to bypass FISA laws of warrant surveillance. Well which claim is true? Because this statement above directly implies that Bush did NOT have such authority under Article II 6 weeks prior UNTIL the Patriot Act was passed, yet he and his Administration has continually claimed the original time he was given such powers to fuck FISA was when they authorized the use of military force.

A teensy little contradiction on his part.

quote:

i think the islamofascists just look for any reason to support their idealogy,

That statement can be said of any given radical religious group.

quote:

and those you listed are just that, excuses to fight against the west.

No doubt they have a particular agenda in mind, however our actions have only incited the radicals as well as greatly aide in their recruitment. That is not to say that we do nothing, of course, but much of our foreign policy has been anything but constructive in fighting the war on terrorism, especially against our #1 enemy � al Qaeda. And before you cite problems about Clinton's actions and foreign policy, let me beat you to the punch and agree that he certainly could have made improvements in his own regard as well. I've stated this a myriad of times to others in the past, but since you're a bit new I felt you deserved my equal treatment of presidential idiocy.

quote:

and a jewish president would be like the icing on the cake for them. surely you realize that their hatred is not just toward america and israel, but the west in general. you failed to mention the recent cartoons and other things that spur their hatred of the west!!

So if they're hatred is not just toward america and israel but towards the West in general, what exactly would incite their hatred more with a Jewish President versus a Christian one? Are there not Jewish folks that represent the West just as well as American ones? If their hatred is merely toward the West, there should be no difference between what particular brands of religion are hated more for Presidential candidates. In fact if anything, Christianity tends to signify the West a bit more than Judaism, so that tends to negate your argument somewhat.

quote:

so who was your favorite candidate in 04??

Admittedly it was Dean, then it became Clarke.

quote:

yes, but the reason why they do that is so they have a better chance at winning.

Well I'm glad you concede to my point of the GOP being corrupt as fuck, can't understand how to balance a checkbook, put us into foreign messes based on misleading evidence, and love gutting funds to those who need it the most while giving those funds to corporate welfare and those who need it the least, all because they are consistent.
I agree with you completely that their consistency gets them the votes. Unfortunately it doesn't say much about their morality and character, however.

quote:

yes it would be nice, for the GOP, if a real liberal like Kucinich was the presidential candidate! Face it, the majority of the country is not as far left as you are, and thats why candidates like Hillary have to pander to the center.

Straw man. When did I ever state that they were?

But I will state that people aren't too impressed with how Bush has handled much of anything:

http://people-press.org/reports/dis...p3?ReportID=271

And that is a consistent trend with all other polls taken.

quote:

really?? the Murtha plan was to pull out immediately.

Patently false. Murtha's plan was for redeployment to the borders:

quote:

To immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces. To create a quick reaction force in the region. To create an over-the-horizon presence of Marines. To diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq. http://www.house.gov/apps/list/pres...051117iraq.html

Do you see anything in there that says "pull out immediately"? Anything about withdrawal?

quote:

how can you slowly but surely pull out "immediately" i don't think anyone in the administration is planning on pulling out all troops at once.

Neither did Murtha. Another straw man. But if you read Occ's posts earlier, you will notice a trend in language by this Administration as to the direction they are clearly and slowly taking as the situation in Iraq unfolds.

quote:

yea, and we all know how well that argument did for the far left in 04.

You have quite the propensity for straw man's, don't you? The far left wasn't up for a presidential candidate in '04. If you recall, Kerry did not call for immediate troop withdrawal by any stretch of the imagination. He even supported Bush's decision to go to war, which wasn't a very popular one among Leftists. So how can you argue the far Left had anything to do with Kerry not being elected?

quote:

i agree, spending is out of control. but to say that the economy is ruined is just not realistic read this article

Yes, I read Luskin from time to time, and his article doesn't do well in actually addressing the points I made. But since you seem so content in citing Right Wing articles, I guess it's only fair I throw you a few Lefty articles in response:

http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/pm110
http://www.cbpp.org/3-8-06tax.htm
http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/w..._wages_20060131
http://www.epinet.org/policy/20060216/bush_growth.pdf
http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/webf...bspict_20060310
http://www.cbpp.org/2-14-06tax.htm

Source wars are cute, but I tend to find it much more enticing to actually discuss the issues in the open and using the sources to support your argument, rather than utilizing them as your entire argument altogether.

quote:

do you have to use profanity in all your posts, just reaffirms my negative view of the far left.

Not always, but I do use it often. Nothing like a good "fuck" laced here and there to show passion. Sorry if that offends, but I've argued this way here for years now. Just avert your eyes [FUCK!] whenever you see [FUCK!] a word that you [FUCKITY FUCK FUCK FUCK!!!] don't enjoy. But be sure not to avert too many words � we have one too many politicians doing that already:

[bin Laden determined to strike the U.S.]

Clinton did so violate your trumped up legalities in 1994, and i'm not talking about Echelon. anyway, thats beside the point.

i mean you call you call all of sponges arguments "strawman" but really, your whole Review Courts, Ashcroft, Byron York tirade just sounds like a red herring to me. i read the whole Review Court ruling and its pretty explicit. especially this:

quote:

These restrictions are not original to the order appealed.4 They are actually set forth in an opinion written by the former Presiding Judge of the FISA court on May 17 of this year. But since that opinion did not accompany an order conditioning an approval of an electronic surveillance application it was not appealed. It is, however, the basic decision before us and it is its rationale that the government challenges. The opinion was issued after an oral argument before all of the then-serving FISA district judges and clearly represents the views of all those judges.5 We think it fair to say, however, that the May 17 opinion of the FISA court does not clearly set forth the basis for its decision. It appears to proceed from the assumption that FISA constructed a barrier between counterintelligence/intelligence officials and law enforcement officers in the Executive Branch�indeed, it uses the word �wall� popularized by certain commentators (and journalists) to describe that supposed barrier. Yet the opinion does not support that assumption with any relevant language from the statute. The �wall� emerges from the court�s implicit interpretation of FISA. The court apparently believes it can approve applications for electronic surveillance only if the government�s objective is not primarily directed toward criminal prosecution of the foreign agents for their foreign intelligence activity. But the court neither refers to any FISA language supporting that view, nor does it reference the Patriot Act amendments, which the government contends specifically altered FISA to make clear that an application could be obtained even if criminal prosecution is the primary counter mechanism.

the administration is in full legal boundries in so far as the Review Court, the Patriot Act, the war powers given 2001, and yes, the Constitution which BTW, York has explicitly established that FISA may have violated against powers of the executive.

so what Feingold has, IMO, led you to believe is just ridiculous and no one but you and the fringe are biting on this one. i'm not saying you are the fringe...i'm just saying if you want to impeach the president and help Feingold win a re-election, it's not looking pretty.

quote:

Originally posted by Opus But if you read Occ's posts earlier, you will notice a trend in language by this Administration as to the direction they are clearly and slowly taking as the situation in Iraq unfolds.

yeah and i don't get that. what makes this so sensational to you two that the administration is saying things as the situation unfolds?

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo Clinton did so violate your trumped up legalities in 1994, and i'm not talking about Echelon. anyway, thats beside the point.

Then fucking prove it. I discussed this in detail here:

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...on&pagenumber=4

You see, prior to Clinton signing the Amended law in 1995, there was nothing in the FISA law pertaining to physical searches. What people complained about then was a specific case that he authorized that included a physical search. Well if you actually read the material about it rather than accept CATO's deliberate obfuscation on the matter you'd realize he was not breaking any FISA law at the time because none was written in 1994 when the search occurred.

But people complained and rightfully so, Congress got in a tiff and Clinton amended the law in 1995 to include physical searches. Now you won't get a debate from me as to what Clinton did was ethical or not - I clearly believe he was quite unethical for his actions to authorize this in '94. However, it was unfortunately perfectly legal at that time, something that Bush simply cannot claim with supporting evidence.

quote:

i mean you call you call all of sponges arguments "strawman" but really, your whole Review Courts, Ashcroft, Byron York tirade just sounds like a red herring to me. i read the whole Review Court ruling and its pretty explicit. especially this:

Oh dear, it appears we have another case of selective quote mining. Let's see your quote in full context with a paragraph before it:

quote:

The court�s decision from which the government appeals imposed certain requirements and limitations accompanying an order authorizing electronic surveillance of an �agent of a foreign power� as defined in FISA. There is no disagreement between the government and the FISA court as to the propriety of the electronic surveillance; the court found that the government had shown probable cause to believe that the target is an agent of a foreign power and otherwise met the basic requirements of FISA. The government�s application for a surveillance order contains detailed information to support its contention that the target, who is a United States person, is aiding, abetting, or conspiring with others in international terrorism. [approx. 1 page deleted]3 The FISA court authorized the surveillance, but imposed certain restrictions, which the government contends are neither mandated nor authorized by FISA. Particularly, the court ordered that law enforcement officials shall not make recommendations to intelligence officials concerning the initiation, operation, continuation or expansion of FISA searches or surveillances. Additionally, the FBI and the Criminal Division [of the Department of Justice] shall ensure that law enforcement officials do not direct or control the use of the FISA procedures to enhance criminal prosecution, and that advice intended to preserve the option of a criminal prosecution does not inadvertently result in the Criminal Division�s directing or controlling the investigation using FISA searches and surveillances toward law enforcement objectives. To ensure the Justice Department followed these strictures the court also fashioned what the government refers to as a �chaperone requirement�; that a unit of the Justice Department, the Office of Intelligence Policy and Review (OIPR) (composed of 31 lawyers and 25 support staff), �be invited� to all meetings between the FBI and the Criminal Division involving consultations for the purpose of coordinating efforts �to investigate or protect against foreign attack or other grave hostile acts, sabotage, international terrorism, or clandestine intelligence activities by foreign powers or their agents.� If representatives of OIPR are unable to attend such meetings, �OIPR shall be apprized of the substance of the meetings forthwith in writing so that the Court may be notified at the earliest opportunity.� These restrictions are not original to the order appealed.4 They are actually set forth in an opinion written by the former Presiding Judge of the FISA court on May 17 of this year. But since that opinion did not accompany an order conditioning an approval of an electronic surveillance application it was not appealed. It is, however, the basic decision before us and it is its rationale that the government challenges. The opinion was issued after an oral argument before all of the then-serving FISA district judges and clearly represents the views of all those judges.5 We think it fair to say, however, that the May 17 opinion of the FISA court does not clearly set forth the basis for its decision. It appears to proceed from the assumption that FISA constructed a barrier between counterintelligence/intelligence officials and law enforcement officers in the Executive Branch�indeed, it uses the word �wall� popularized by certain commentators (and journalists) to describe that supposed barrier. Yet the opinion does not support that assumption with any relevant language from the statute. The �wall� emerges from the court�s implicit interpretation of FISA. The court apparently believes it can approve applications for electronic surveillance only if the government�s objective is not primarily directed toward criminal prosecution of the foreign agents for their foreign intelligence activity. But the court neither refers to any FISA language supporting that view, nor does it reference the Patriot Act amendments, which the government contends specifically altered FISA to make clear that an application could be obtained even if criminal prosecution is the primary counter mechanism. Instead the court relied for its imposition of the disputed restrictions on its statutory authority to approve �minimization procedures� designed to prevent the acquisition, retention, and dissemination within the government of material gathered in an electronic surveillance that is unnecessary to the government�s need for foreign intelligence information. 50 U.S.C. � 1801(h).

So where exactly in there is the government arguing that the whole FISA process is somehow tying Bush's hands behind his back, and must therefore be circumvented completely? Where did it say in there that Bush no longer needed to bother going to FISA to obtain a warrant, EVEN UP TO 72 HOURS AFTER THE INITIAL WIRETAP? What "decision" is the Review Court referring to in their ruling that you quoted:

quote:

[i]We think it fair to say, however, that the May 17 opinion of the FISA court does not clearly set forth the basis for its decision.

It was the decision to allow law enforcement officials to not make recommendations involving the use of the FISA warrants. THAT'S IT. Nothing else. That was the basis of their entire decision. Nothing else could be drawn out of that decision whatsoever in regards to the legality of Bush's actions to COMPLETELY cicurmvent the FISA court. This is a prime example of a GOP straw man argument by taking a case involving a minor detail and blowing it up out of proportion to somehow support the entirety of Bush's illegal activity.

quote:

the administration is in full legal boundries in so far as the Review Court, the Patriot Act, the war powers given 2001, and yes, the Constitution which BTW, York has explicitly established that FISA may have violated against powers of the executive.

York didn't fucking establish anything of the sort, and it simply isn't correct because you or York said so. Congress explicitly did NOT authorize the President authorization of illegal wiretaps, and many Congressman including a nice healthy number of Republicans which I quoted here:

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...on&pagenumber=4

No one in Congress had it in their mind or in their wording for the President to utilize wiretapping outside of FISA laws. Those laws were specifically set up for this purpose. The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service concluded as much about this:

quote:

However, the Court appears to have relied on a more limited interpretation of the scope of the AUMF than that which the Administration had asserted in its briefs, and, declaring that a "state of war is not a blank check for the President when it comes to the rights of the Nation's citizens"...To be sure, there can be little doubt that Congress, in enacting the AUMF, contemplated that the armed forces would deploy their military intelligence assets in Afghanistan or wherever else the conventional aspect of the conflict might spread, but a presumption that the authorization extends to less conventional aspects of the conflict could unravel the fabric of Hamdi, especially where measures are taken within the United States. ...The fact that Congress amended FISA subsequent to September 11, 2001, in order to maximize its effectiveness against the terrorist threat further bolsters the notion that FISA is intended to remain fully applicable.... Even assuming, for argument's sake, that the NSA operations are necessary to prevent another terrorist attack, a presumption that Congress intended to authorize them does not necessarily follow. ...[After the report concludes that wiretaps do not constitute a traditional use of force]. If electronic surveillance is considered to be a use of force, the AUMF would seem to limit it to those who "planned, authorized, committed, aided" the Sept. 11 attacks or who "harbored such . . . persons." To the extent that the President's executive order authorizes surveillance of persons who are suspected of merely supporting Al Qaeda or affiliated terrorist organizations, it may be seen as being overly broad. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/06/p...artner=homepage

quote:

so what Feingold has, IMO, led you to believe is just ridiculous and no one but you and the fringe are biting on this one.

Which is, of course, the same rationale that Senator Roberts used to squelch any further investigation in the matter, right?

It really does beg the question as to why Roberts and the rest of the Republicans on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, the one actual Committee that SHOULD be investigating this matter, decided to overrule any thought of having an investigation. Strange.

quote:

i'm not saying you are the fringe...i'm just saying if you want to impeach the president and help Feingold win a re-election, it's not looking pretty.

In the broad scheme of things, I don't give a fuck what happens to Feingold. Similarly, I don't necessarily want the President impeached. If he is impeached, well that's a lovely little bonus. But I DO want a NONpartisan investigation in the matter, and given the evidence so far it's clear that such an investigation is warranted. Again, the Administration can make their case of legality under oath (did you notice last time Specter brought Gonzales up for questioning to the Judicial Committee, he refused to put him under oath?). If their Yoo interpretation of the law giving Bush unfettered Executive Authority during a time of war passes legality, then so be it. But the problem remains - why not have an independent investigation into the matter to see if, in fact, any laws were actually broken?

I'd be interested to see if these same Republican Bush apologists would feel the same way as they do about unfettered Executive Authority if a Democratic president takes office in '08. For some strange reason, I kinda doubt it.......

No Democratic Love for Paul Hackett

http://throwawayyourtv.com/2006/03/...ul-hackett.html

ok, first you mentioned all those spying activities, on the quakers, on PETA, and Greenpeace and said that they were questionable. i think i gave you some rationale why they spied on those groups didn't I?? with the exception of the quakers, i don't know what rationale they had for that. But for extremist groups such as PETA and Greenpeace or some anti war groups i think they have plenty of rationale for spying on them. you even said that those activities were not illegal and that you don't care if they spy on PETA and Greenpeace but in the earlier post you said they were all questionable. right? some instances like with the quakers may be questionable i agree there. anyway i don't want to beat this to death.

i can't really say anything else about the nsa stuff so ill just leave it at that.

quote:

So if they're hatred is not just toward america and israel but towards the West in general, what exactly would incite their hatred more with a Jewish President versus a Christian one? Are there not Jewish folks that represent the West just as well as American ones? If their hatred is merely toward the West, there should be no difference between what particular brands of religion are hated more for Presidential candidates. In fact if anything, Christianity tends to signify the West a bit more than Judaism, so that tends to negate your argument somewhat.

what would encite their hatred more? that a jew would be the president! i didnt say their hatred was "merely" toward the west, their hatred i think is primarily toward jews and the west in general. are you saying if we elected a jewish president that it wouldnt bother the jew hating muslims at all and would be no different than now? i think it would make a big difference.

quote:

Patently false. Murtha's plan was for redeployment to the borders:

i guess i misinterpreted the last part of that statement where he said "Our military has done everything that has been asked of them, the U.S. can not accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily. IT IS TIME TO BRING THEM HOME."
and i guess i was misinformed by all the articles on this story that said:

quote:

Murtha (D-PA), an ex-Marine and Vietnam vet who initially supported the Iraq war, surprised Congress and the White House with a proposal to abruptly pull U.S. forces out of the region.

quote:

House of Representatives Minority leader Nancy Pelosi on Wednesday backed a call by Democratic Rep. John Murtha to quickly start the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.

quote:

The top House Democrat on military spending matters stunned colleagues yesterday by calling for the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq

anyway, his plan was to pull all forces out within 6 months and leave several thousand on the borders as a quick reactionary force. right?
and when i said "yes please take that as your number 1 position democrats" i was referring to the original article you posted, in which the author said to pull out troops "asap" and you even said that you assume by that she means "now". and you responded by saying "Considering that this Administration is posturing slowly but surely in that direction, it appears the GOP is taking over the Murtha plan for us"
you see where i think you contradicted yourself?
Yes the administration said they will reduce the amount of troops in 2006 but in no way is that similar to the Murtha plan!

quote:

Do you see anything in there that says "pull out immediately"? Anything about withdrawal?

umm ya. "To immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces" I assume that means immediately taking them out of iraq and leaving some forces in the region such as Kuwait?

quote:

You have quite the propensity for straw man's, don't you? The far left wasn't up for a presidential candidate in '04. If you recall, Kerry did not call for immediate troop withdrawal by any stretch of the imagination. He even supported Bush's decision to go to war, which wasn't a very popular one among Leftists. So how can you argue the far Left had anything to do with Kerry not being elected?

i didnt say the far left had a presidential candidate in 04!! what i meant was that the far left, such as Kucinich and others, who supported an immediate withdawal from iraq didnt do well, because they didnt win the nomination!

quote:

Not always, but I do use it often. Nothing like a good "fuck" laced here and there to show passion. Sorry if that offends, but I've argued this way here for years now. Just avert your eyes [FUCK!] whenever you see [FUCK!] a word that you [FUCKITY FUCK FUCK FUCK!!!] don't enjoy. But be sure not to avert too many words � we have one too many politicians doing that already:

im not offended, i just think it says something about your character.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.