Hahahaha. It's just such a wonderful day. Tom Delay will longer be fouling the already foul air of DC with his unique stench.
I just wanted to add a few things. Take a look at what Josh Marshall has to say about it:
So DeLay is out. But it's DeLay's House. DeLay's Republican DC machine. They built and fortified it with the money he brought in. The great majority of them voted for the "DeLay Rule" custom tailored for Majority Leader DeLay to avoid stepping down even after indictment. The current Republican membership of the House ethics committee was hand-picked to provide protection for DeLay and the old membership was purged. He's their guy. Their rule rests on his machine. They can run but they can't hide.You wouldn't know it from that paragraph, but there are two references in there to our very own Melissa Hart. She voted for the "Delay Rule" (just click the Pennsylvania link) and she was installed onto the "Ethics" Committee after the purge. She even got fifteen grand from ARMPAC. She's part of the Republican DC machine Marshal mentions. I wrote about it here.
Incidentally, one thing that Marshall makes obvious is that it's a *cough* REPUBLICAN SCANDAL.
You'd think that God's Own Party wouldn't be so dirty, would you?
23 comments:
Hey David:
"A panel of former Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court judges yesterday told members of the Senate Judiciary Committee that President Bush did not act illegally when he created by executive order a wiretapping program conducted by the National Security Agency (NSA). The five judges testifying before the committee said they could not speak specifically to the NSA listening program without being briefed on it, but that a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act does not override the president’s constitutional authority to spy on suspected international agents under executive order. “If a court refuses a FISA application and there is not sufficient time for the president to go to the court of review, the president can under executive order act unilaterally, which he is doing now,” said Judge Allan Kornblum, magistrate judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida and an author of the 1978 FISA Act. “I think that the president would be remiss exercising his constitutional authority by giving all of that power over to a statute.”
Gnaw on that for a while, eh?
"The five judges testifying before the committee said they could not speak specifically to the NSA listening program without being briefed on it, but that a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act does not override the president’s constitutional authority to spy on suspected international agents under executive order."
So in other words, they were addressing a hypothetical program, not the one that is actually in place. And they referred to "suspected international agents." What is the definition of that? Does it include U.S. citizens?
"If a court refuses a FISA application and there is not sufficient time for the president to go to the court of review..."
The other point is that the Bitch wasn't going to the court for it to even be able to refuse him. He completely bypassed the court. PLUS, he already could ask for absolute warrants RETROACTIVELY, so this "sufficient time" business is bullshit.
Sorry! The word "absolute" was meant to be added before the word "bullshit" not "warrants."
How DARE you respond to someone's post with facts! This is why America hates you libs!
"Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act does not override the president’s constitutional authority to spy on suspected international agents under executive order."
You were saying?
Face it guys, your "Dubya violated FISA" argument is a lost cause, and you know it. Sour grapes, David and Maria, sour grapes.
Why does Braden get to change the subject on some other person's blog? Is it be kind to dateless troll day?
LOL. You're just so mean spirited aren't you, anonymous? Whatever happened to this compassionate, diverse, open-minded philosophy you supposedly adhere to my anonymous name hiding friend?
Closing, allow me to translate what you said:
"I don't know how to respond to what Braden just said, so I'll resort to my normal bashing, as always, since I don't have an intelligent response to offer."
There you have it folks, in a nutshell.
Ladies and Gentlemen;
Our troll has graced us with another erudite comment. Let me see if I can make heads or tails of it.
While he doesn't link back to any source, it's pretty easy to google it in order to find ouyt where he got the text he used. It's here:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20060329-120346-1901r.htm
We'll have to postpone for a later date the discussion as to whether The Wasthington Times is indeed a valid news source.
My best guess is that our troll wasn't counting on anyone checking up on his source. Why? Because this is the next sentence in the article:
-----
The judges, however, said Mr. Bush's choice to ignore established law regarding foreign intelligence gathering was made "at his own peril," because ultimately he will have to answer to Congress and the Supreme Court if the surveillance was found not to be in the best interests of national security. [emphasis added]
-----
Huh.
Now here's our troll's take on the article:
-----
Face it guys, your "Dubya violated FISA" argument is a lost cause, and you know it.
-----
See, this is where I get lost. Didn't the judges just say that Bush chose "to ignore established law"?
But our troll is still clinging to something else entirely.
I guess in our troll's world, "choosing to ignore" a law is in fact quite different from "violating" a law.
I'm not a lawyer, but I still wouldn't recommend this as an adequate defense in court.
Let's take a look at another view of the same hearing:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/29/politics/29nsa.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
There's this paragraph:
-----
Judge Harold A. Baker, a sitting federal judge in Illinois who served on the intelligence court until last year, said the president was bound by the law "like everyone else." If a law like the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is duly enacted by Congress and considered constitutional, Judge Baker said, "the president ignores it at the president's peril."
-----
Imagine that. The president is bound by the law "like everyone else."
Interesting. Can someone send our troll a copy of the Constitution? He might want to reread the 4th Amendment sometime.
Like I said David, your interests in our national security aren't important. Sir, obviously you decided to ignore the following statement:
"...Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act does not override the president’s constitutional authority to spy on suspected international agents under executive order."
David, again, you babbled a bunch of hoo-haw which got absolutely nothing across. And yet, you accuse me of being a troll. Again, a troll to you is someone who you're in disagreement with. Funny, I guess again, the liberal philosophy of being diverse doesn't apply here, right David?
So again, what part of "Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act does not override the president’s constitutional authority to spy on suspected international agents under executive order" do you not understand? You just don't get it, do you? I guess it's not important that we want to know who al Qaeda talks to within our own country, eh David? Judging by your response, I'd venture to say an astounding "No."
As to the matter at hand, or at post, rather, Josh Marshall has a good point. The Bugman is gone but his system is still chugging along without him. Much remains to be done.
Ladies and Gentlemen;
Allow me to apologise for our troll. Seems that he doesn't understand when he's lost an argument.
He quoted The Washington Times in a comment that said that we were wrong in saying that "Dubya violated FISA" and yet the very article he quoted says that Bush chose "to ignore established law."
Very bad form for the troll. It undermined his entire credibility from then on. I probably didn't even need to go on after that.
But when his dishonesty was pointed out, our troll ignored it and attempted to change the subject back to the phrase, "but that a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act does not override the president’s constitutional authority to spy on suspected international agents under executive order."
In doing so he was ignoring the comment by Jonathan Potts (Hey, Jonathan. How's things?) Jonathan pointed out that the judges were not, in fact, commenting on the NSA's domestic spying program, but on a hypothetical one.
Jonathan then asked whether US citizens were included in that.
The point that has so far eluded our troll, ladies and gentlemen (and it's so good for you to be so patient with him about these things) is this. The NSA is spying on US Citizens right now. And it's doing it without the necessary legally mandated oversight. It's been ordered to violate (or perhaps our troll would prefer the phrase "to ignore") the Fourth Amendment by George W. Bush.
Here, allow me to (maybe) educate him. I'll be bringing to light the source of all his troubles. It's a nasty dirty little sentence that, if it were never written, he and his ilk would be having a much happier time these days:
-----
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.
-----
I wonder what part of it doesn't he understand?
He's a short bus window-licking kinda Troll so it's good that you spelled it out for him Dave.
David, you're the one who doesn't get it. For a writer, you certainly (and most surprisingly) cannot comprehend what you read. Oh well, what else would one come to expect from a concrete headed liberal such as yourself.
Heh. That last post had no actual critique of what you wrote, Dave. Just name-calling. How snivelling. How hateful.
How typical. ;)
Do as I say, but not as I do, right Shawn? How typical, indeed ;-)
I am sure that Maria of David will delete this, but here's something for yinz to gnaw on for a while:
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
-President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
-President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
-Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
-Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D! , CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec 5, 2001
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
"[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."
-Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
See, yer fightin' an old battle. And hey, that's cool. But it's not, er, relevant to this post. It's a post about Tom Delay's resignation.
And that reminds me. Tommy Boy may be gone, but his good buddy and super-lobbyistJack Abrahamoff still is rumored to still have a few stories to tell of G.O.P. naughtiness. And there's still plenty of courtroom fun with Mr. Delay to come, I'm sure.
But ,hey, if you wanna keep talking about W.M.D.s, that's fine. Dunno how that'll relate to Tom Delay, but, hey, relevance is overrated anyway.
Hang loose, people!
What Braden is leaving out is that Saddam Hussein's son-in-law, Gen. Hussein Kamel, who defected from the regime in 1995 told UN inspectors that Iraq had destroyed its entire stockpile of chemical and biological weapons and banned missiles, as Iraq claims. Kamel told the same story to CIA analysts in August 1995.
He was killed shortly after returning to Iraq in 1996.
UN inspectors scoured Iraq and were unable to find any hidden caches of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons shortly before the Iraq War. They were forced to leave Iraq (for their own safety) when it became clear that Bush was about to start a war there. They were not kicked out by Iraq as the Kool-Aid drinkers claim.
The Bush Administrations' claims of yellow cake deals in Africa and aluminum tubes being used for a nuclear program have been proven as false.
Furthermore, evidence has shown that the Bush Administration knew that these claims were false before they presented them to the UN and the American public.
For all of Braden's quotes about WMD made by both Republicans and Democrats, it was the Bush Administration who made a case for war based on evidence that they knew was false at the time that they presented it.
And, of course, Braden's comments have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the subject at hand: Tom DeLay. He has gone from FISA to WMD to avoid talking about DeLay.
Braden, this is yet one more instance of you showing what a TROLL you are.
Why don't you start your own blog so you can discuss whatever you like? Oh, right. You have one, but no one wants to talk to you there.
Gee Maria, for a blog that no one reads, I sure get a high number of hits:
Duration (hh:mm:ss) 95:51:20 (4 Days)
Total Hits 9,030
Hmmm...I guess my stats are off. Yeah, that's it. ;-)
Seriously, do you have ADD or are you mildly retarded or something? Some sort of reading comprehension problem?
I said that no one talks to you at your blog and you answer with how many hits you say you have.
I mean if you have some sort of learning disorder or brain tumor or something, please tell us and we'll take that into consideration and cut you some slack.
Seriously Maria do you take joy into being a sour mean-spirited bitch? Do you have a boyfriend? If so I pity him big time. Or are you a feminist dyke?
Oh! Oh! I get to quote Braden:
"pot. kettle. black."
Damn, even *I* can't make that sound good.
Post a Comment