I have always been puzzled and just found out what moonbats are FOR

For these leftist imposters, deposing King George is merely a ruse for crowning his Prince of Darkness.

"desperate and extreme they are," "cutting and running," "weak and on the fringe they are," "it just makes the Democrats look stupid," "agenda of rage, not ideas."

Does your brain think in sound bites, or do you have to work hard at it to pop out so much crap in three paragraphs?

hummm...why doesn't the leadership try addressing the actual issues which disturb the base?

but no, we gotta have straw men like censure which was going nowhere anyway given the majority.

I know...let's try fear! fear sells - as mike al moore correctly pointed-out.

The president lied and he broke the law and you are supporting him with Orwellian doublespeak. NOTHING could be more un-American. The fact that he has not been impeached is only a testament to the House's own moral bankruptcy.

Your president lying to your face and you sheepishly drink the kool aide....that's the value of religious indoctrination of the people. Religion as an opiate to control the non-thinking masses. Consider yourself under complete control....you have no free will....you are owned....oh and be affraid...be very very affraid of terrorist such that you'll give up your morals,, your free will, your intellect , your liberty and your country so you can repeat after them...George Bush will make me safe.......George Bush will make me safe....George Bush will make me safe

winnowhead & muirgeo - ps: are we on the same side secretly? I know you may not be able to disclose your true mission, so give me some sign or signal. Thanks, sorry about calling you moonbats earlier, I had not "seen the light". ;)

Oh gee, I'll bet nobody ever thought of who is next in line if Bush should be "unable" to finish his term. I saw that at NRO this morning -- I guess it was an attempt at some sort of wingnut humor.

Get a clue folks: In the unlikely event that Humpty Dumpty falls, all his horses and men are going too. If Bush can be impeached they may have to come up with an express method of giving Dr. No the heave ho (sort of the opposite of an "express lane" -- anybody with *more* than 10 impeachable offenses, right this way.

Hey Salvelinus, you're right lets work our way down (just 5 impeachments) to Condi, then we got a good one. Question, could Condi still serve 2 more terms after she serves part of Bush's? How Cool is that. I agree with you, it should't be used for wingnut humor when you are on a secret mission like you are.

I'm so glad to be a part of the early stage of 5 impeachments. This is going to be so cool huh ... . ..., ... . ..., ... . ...

Can you explain how we impeach down to a democrat? I haven't figured that part out yet.

"What is essential to know is that every person--Republican or Democrat--who has been briefed on the NSA program supports it."

And virtually every person supports sex, yet the Republican Party supported impeachment of Clinton. Oh but wait a minute, it's all about the "Rule of Law" isn't it?

And that even the President isn't above the law, right?

The vast majority of legal scholars, and not just liberal ones, say that operating outside of FISA is AGAINST THE LAW. The Justice Depts. own internal counsel had to be overruled to find an opinion the White House could use.

So were Republicans hypocrites during Clinton's impeachment or are they hypocrites now? You can't have it both ways.

"When Democrats talk about cutting and running, and opposing virtually all efforts to win the war on terror, it shows how weak and on the fringe they are."

Where do you dream up this stuff?

Cutting and running? Most democrats favor a timeline for a systematic withdrawl ... i.e. an "exit plan." That is not a cut and run. I suggest you check some polls as well. A majority of Americans, not just Dems, favor such a plan.

Opposing virtually all efforts? Really? Like what? What budget requests have we turned down? What programs have we opposed? Even when the President illegially spied on Americans here at home, a vast majority of democrats agreed that the practice could continue and asked only for Congressional oversight.

As for fringe, again, check the polls. The nation on the whole is a heck of a lot closer to the postition of the far left, than they are the far right. Look at what independents are saying. Their numbers are horribly bad for Bush and the Repubs across the board, on almost every issue.

Actually dl, I strongly suspect that whoever ended up with White House would be making significant cabinet changes, if for no other reason than to remove rivals and those tainted by Bush/Cheney -- that would include Dr. Rice, I think.

The president lied and he broke the law and you are supporting him with Orwellian doublespeak. NOTHING could be more un-American. The fact that he has not been impeached is only a testament to the House's own moral bankruptcy.

Your president lying to your face and you sheepishly drink the kool aide....that's the value of religious indoctrination of the people. Religion as an opiate to control the non-thinking masses. Consider yourself under complete control....you have no free will....you are owned....oh and be affraid...be very very affraid of terrorist such that you'll give up your morals,, your free will, your intellect , your liberty and your country so you can repeat after them...George Bush will make me safe.......George Bush will make me safe....George Bush will make me safe

Posted by: muirgeo at March 16, 2006 09:40 AM

George, They are missing you over there at KOS! With that mindset you are bound to succeed in all things grand & good in America! It also shows that YOU are bankrupt of any faith or belief in #1, anyone greater than yourself, #2 Any American living the American dream! Go back to bed and wallow in the pessimistic conspiracy filled life you live!!!

In response to a liberal claim of Bush "breaking the law" I did an online search of case law regarding monitoring of international communications. While there are some legal experts who still worry about the legality and constitutionality of the monitoring, they also tend to be hard-core liberals. But many liberal law professors and judges agree that the issue has been settled in prior cases, and the monitoring is legal.

What that tells me is that even if the case were to go to another court, and even if it were to decided BY THAT COURT that it was not legal, there is an abundant amount of case law saying it IS legal, enough to prove that anyone doing it had ample reason to think it legal.

What gets my attention is the dependence of the Left on misleading terminology to get support for their anti-Bush stance on this issue. It seems to me that if they really had the law on their side, they would not have to resort to misleading terms such as "domestic spying". The dependence on lies to make a point does not speak well for the validity of the point.

Last night I saw Diane Feinstein sing the praises of the President’s NSA program, adding her voice to other liberals like Jane Harmon along with moderates and conservatives; from both sides of the aisle all those informed are agreeing with the President that the program is necessary and handled properly and professionally.

As more and more Congressional representatives line up to bitch-slap Feingold for his ignorance, the impeachment over NSA is looking more like a moonbats' wet dream.

Bearman, Hoo-ahh!
Liberals are, by nature a miserable and unhappy lot. They look for conspiracies everywhere, they assume the worse about everyone else, and believe only they have the answers.

Sad, scary people.

Almiranta,
I would respectfully disagree that the NSA program could be interpreted to be in violation of law, there is sufficient case law supporting that thesis (see; the gospel according to Mona). The issue, however, are the exigent circumstances surrounding the NSA program; the President makes it clear that difficult times call for liberal interpretation of the law. Congress is agreeing with him in ever greater numbers, and there is voluminous precedent for the latitude the President is asking.

The fastest-growing belief system in the country is not Christianity, or even Scientology---it is Liberalism.

If a belief system can be defined as a faith, as an unprovable but comforting belief, which is highly dependent on accepting the teachings of trusted priests, who take on the job of defining and explaining writings and teachings in ways that support the faith, then Liberalism is clearly a religion.

Christian Fundamentalists who also believe the Earth is only about 5000 years old, based on their priests' interpretation of the Bible, are subjected to ridicule from those who claim to base their own beliefs on "facts". Yet it is those same people, who claim to depend solely on "fact", who deny the facts when the facts contradict their own religion of liberalism. Why? Well, their 'priests' TELL them what the facts REALLY MEAN. They have Al and Randi to sort through those pesky facts and all that annoying information to pick out what they really need to know, to define what that information really means, and to tell them what to think of it.

And they BELIEVE! Oh, YESSSSS, they believe! Their leaders pitch their tents, call the faithful, shore up their hatreds and misconceptions, and pass the plate. They have found a meaning for their lives, they have found something that meets their deepest emotional needs, and they cling to it in the face of fact and reason. They are comforted, and they are supported by their fellow believers. But most of all, the religion of liberalism imparts a sense of moral and intellectual superiority---msotly over those of us who merely slog along actually examining the facts and working on understanding them, instead of looking to gurus to tell us what they really mean. How pedestrian. How unenlightened. How ORDINARY to simply read the case law, for example, and take it for what it is, instead of sitting at the feet of Air America to be told what to think about it. How unimaginative to examine records and facts, when the joys of demagoguery are out there.

Of course, the blind faith of the Left is incomprehensible to those of us who believe in being FOR something, who simply do not get the appeal of buying into a belief system that is so dependendent on hatred, that simultaneously preaches the need for fact while redefining every fact that does not support their beliefs, that thrives on and wallows in the kind of negativism that the rest of us despise and try assiduously to avoid. We also have our own beliefs, which meet our own emotional needs, but as our needs are for reason and order and common sense, for justice and fairness, we just don't understand (and are somewhat creeped out by) those whose emotional needs can only be met by a system which is based on lies, hatred, and revenge---especially when the revenge is for things that never even happened, but which were invented by the priests of the movement who so clearly understand their flock, and who understand that they must continue coming up with "outrages" to keep the faithful lighting their torches and toting their pitchforks.

So the liberal faithful KNOW that we all hated Clinton and were out to "get" him. They KNOW that "everyone lies about sex" and they KNOW that "Bush Lied". The catechism of the Left is chock full of the tenets of the religion, none of which can be challenged.

And their motto? "MY MIND IS MADE UP---DON'T CONFUSE ME WITH THE FACTS"

Rathaven, the President made it clear that he consulted many legal authorities and proceeded with the monitoring of international communications among known terrorists only after being assured by those legal authorities that he had the legal right to do so.

He has stated that the fact that we are at war makes his actions necessary, not that it allows him to exceed normal legal authority. He has made it clear that he acted WITHIN the legal authority as described and confirmed in prior case law.

It is convenient, but inaccurate, to present his comments as justifying him taking action outside of the law. His comments are the exact opposite---they explain that his actions were WITHIN the law, as the law was previously defined and adjudicated.

.Almiranta,
Don’t misunderstand, it is not my contention that the President’s actions are “outside the law” and further I believe that his legal interpretations are redoubtable by Constitutional mandate. However, there is precedent that his actions violate FISA’s requirements. The issue before Congress will be if they agree with the Administrations’ application of the laws in question, or force the strict application of the competing authority.

I believe prudence will prevail, and oversight will be written into NSA via FISA that will allow for the Administrations previous application while (sadly) limiting future such endeavors.

Like Cheney's statements on "greeted as liberators," this is my opinion, I believe this is what will happen; this is not a guarantee.

Seen my Senator Mike DeWine on Fox last night - He basically said if the other Senator's seen what he and the other Senator's was allowed to see , they would be totally in favor of the
work Bush is doing to protect this country

Censure nor impeachment will happen with Bush, regardless of the wet dreams of it happening with the left -

As a resident of Wisconsin....I beleive Russ Feingold is not only nuts....but also dangerous. He has helped to make WI one of the top 5 in highest taxed states, does not beleive that stopping the terrorist in every way shape and form is a good thing, and believes that everyone is WI can't think for him/herself, and that he, and the rest of our government knows what's best for us. WRONG!!!.
What does Feingold really think?? That the NSA is only out to listen in on private conversations, that it is important to the President to find out what John/Jane Doe is is bringing over to their parents house for Sunday dinner? Russ Feingold NEEDS TO GO!!!!

"However, there is precedent that his actions violate FISA’s requirements"

I disagree, because you are using the Youngstown precedent to justify your opinion. That had to do with a Steel Company - not a President leading a country while we are at war.

It was approved by the AG - regardless of his party affiliation, he is the top lawyer in the country, and he had pre-approved of it.

Paul posted, “It was approved by the AG “

If that’s all that were required we could all go home happy. However, this is a matter of law, not the AG’s opinion. Even if the bank manager agrees with the robber, it doesn’t make bank robbery legal.

Youngstown is precedent, regardless of the litigants. But, you’re jumping to conclusions I didn’t make; Congress must evaluate the Administrations position re; NSA, and determine if the program is within the President’s authority, which I believe it is.

Since when does the president stating that we're at war make it so -- unless he is standing before Congress requesting that they declare such?

How many "wars" have been invoked to rally the faithful and stifle debate?
War on Drugs?
War on Poverty?
War on illiteracy?
War on Christmas?
War on Terror?

The only recent undeclared "war" with even a thread of ligitimacy was probably Korea. That's right, all those other military actions were something besides "war."

Mr. Bush's assertion that his powers are somehow enhanced to the point that he can violate the law at will and without consequence -- because he has "stated" that we are "at war" is something that should make Americans nervous.

How do you know who and what he's spying on?

Oh, that's right -- he *says* that he "only spies on terrorists."

Rathaven,

Your argument is reasonable - much more thoughtful than the last time we tangled. In fact, Prof. Charles Fried at Harvard (Reagan's Solicitor General) makes much the same argument: Ok, he says, this is a clear violation of FISA - but shouldn't we let it slide given our war footing?

I have two responses:

First, such an argument should be made with humility and apology, and not with the arrogance ("How dare anyone question...") or fear ("If we don't do this, we're gonna get bombed!") I keep seeing in support of this.

Second, Salvelinus points to the key problem. The Fourth Amendment isn't part of the Bill of Rights in order to coddle criminals (though it sometimes does that). It's there to prevent the government from overstepping its authority and spying on people when it has no legitimate reason to do so. The past criminal violations you've pointed out, such as Lincoln's habeas corpus move, have all been out in the public, where we knew exactly what was going on.

Here, though, no one is investigating - there's no one giving a second-look at every search to make sure nothing bad is going on. And there's no apparent time limit. We're basically being asked to give up the Fourth Amendment on the trust that our Leader is going to do the right thing. That's a problem.

Always very amusing to read the semi-incoherent rants of the puerile little lemmings as they regurgitate the “talking points” from the radical fringe leftist websites and blogs. Case-in-point, muirgeo stating that we must be very, very afraid of terrorists . . . . to the point that we give up our moral values (didn’t quote him verbatim, because his sentence structure didn’t make much sense). Suffice it to say, I heard the exact same diatribe from another moonbat on talk radio this week. I also went to several leftist websites and found the same theme. Don’t any of you have an original thought?
I don’t know if any of you city boys have ever seen a large pen full of turkeys. You can walk up the fence, create a loud disturbance and all of the turkeys will turn toward you and start gobble, gobbling until you leave or shut-up! They all act and sound the same. This describes you Leftist moonbats to a tee. Each time the MSM reports on the President or his Administration, all of you turn toward the noise and gobble, gobble until the next issue is addressed by the MSM. Even in this blog , muirgeo says something and dl, winnowhead, et. al. all start to gobble, gobble even to the extent that they feel there are hidden messages in each others posted comments. The NSA wiretap issue is simple, FISA is a statute superseded by Constitutional Law – end of discussion (read Article 2).
Why don’t all of you surprise us, make a salient point for a change!

http://americanresearchgroup.com/ Poll results:
Do you favor census? Yes = 46% No = 43%

The American people support censure and Feingold.

ah, American Research group also said Kerry had the leg up to win the 2004 election over Bush

how did that work out for you?

link

Bush will NOT be censured live with it

Longz,
Thanks for reading the entire thrust of my argument. I’ll caution you not to read into my position that I feel that NSA is a breach of law merely that the Administration has applied, as Almiranta put it legal authority that the President, and AG by the way, feel apply more appropriately than a strict reading of FISA would garner.

The issue of openness in the violation of law should not be considered here, Kennedy was completely covert when he invaded Cuba in violation of law, but Congress allowed for his interpretation of executive authority to supersede the letter of the law. The Supreme Court went so far as to allow violation of due process of law in the Internment case, stating in their opinion that the Court wouldn’t second guess the Administration in its prosecution of the war.

Congress has been briefed on NSA and those members agree with the President’s interpretation of his duties, those that do not agree are speaking out of ignorance according to Diane Feinstein, and I must concur.

Even Jane Harmon has called for Congress to review FISA and make it more malleable while placing alternative oversight on the program; the NSA program cannot by definition be transparent.

The 4th amendment isn’t in danger here, no more so than in the case of a cop asking for my drivers license when he caught me jaywalking; intercepting communiqués between terrorists and monitoring those communiqués to determine if they pose a threat isn’t the same as listening in on Aunt Thelma’s phone conversation discussing the music CD she copied and gave to her sister.

Vero, ..ah, American Research group also said Kerry had the leg up to win the 2004 election over Bush
how did that work out for you?

Vero, I guess you didn’t even bother to read the poll you referenced? The results were: 48% for Bush, 48% for Kerry with 3% undecided and a margin of error of 2.5% (date: 10/30/04). How is this a “leg up” for Kerry? It sounds like the results were dead on.

Yeah I bet you would like to unite. But Americans are more and more unhappy with republicans. So unless Iraq makes a 360 turn, this blog will have to change it's name to Blogs For Impeached Bush. Hey that has a really nice ring to it!

Stupid,
A 360° turn puts you back on the same path.

I hope you didn't pay for that education.

Matt, great post. Now that our "tough on national security" dems have defeated the greatest threat to mankind, the United Arab Emirates, maybe they won't object to our Commander in Chief monitering bin ladens telephone calls to al queda in the USA without us having to run and get a search warrant. I can't figure out yet what is the top priority of the dem party, our defeat in Iraq, or protecting bin laden and al queda in the USA.

barney, impearialism, rathaven - Still missing the part about how do we impeach down to a democrat. Condi is # 5 there, and I'd be pleased to have her.

But if we impeach Bush, how does a democrat show up to save the world? Can one of you with superior intellect explain this?

Hey AGM28B you missed the first comment and the link that I had to a article you should go back and read. You see these moonbats that hang out here have a special project they are working on. I can't divulge it, but soon we will be into impeach express, and somehow we're going to impeach until we get a good democrat as president. I'm a little fuzzy on how they do it, and I like Condi # 5 on the list, and would be happy if she would finish Bush's term, and then run for two terms herself. While Bush and Rove secretly run things from Crawford. Cindy may be back in the ditch, but... Get this, she's in on it and she worships the "Prince of Darkness", our VP.

I was amazed to learn these facts, and have been trying to be nicer to the moonbats here. You might want to try that too cause I think they are on our side. I know there are a bunch of them around and I've always wondered why. PS: Keep this secret as the NSA may be listening to our conversations. You know that domestic ;) ;) stuff ... . ..., ... . ..., ... . ...

dl,
Are you talking to me?
In answer to you question, succession goes to the cabinet in the order the position was created. Since there are no democrats on the Cabinet, and at least two are ineligible to serve as they were not US born, no democrat is in succession.

But, I fail to see why you directed this question to me.

Did you read the link in the first comment I posted? It may explain things a little. If the moonbats here are wanting to impeach down to a democrat, and there isn't any.... Well, in fact they are just republicans, who are really on our side... Right?

The only part I didn't understand was if these moonbats were a democrat how they could get a democratic president. SO, your answer is they aren't going for a democratic president, just another republican one. Right??

Rathaven, you are right when I scrolled up to collect moonbat names I accidently picked yours without reading what you posted. My mistake.

I heard that same 360 degree turn from one of the other liberal sources, I think it was one of the Democrat congress women. Maybe tenure for teachers is not such a good idea.

I do agree with Russ on one thing, that this would show that the Democrats are not ready to lead. It has.

Good job DL(sarcasm), you know if you were a democrat/liberal you would be banned for life(truth)! As it stands I'm sure Rathaven will cut you some slack!!!

Can anyone, moonbat or other, point out to me any previously established method of tracking communications in the type of scenario I mentioned? (Overseas monitoring picks up call made from known Al-Queda operative to known Al-Queda operative who is, at the time of the call, in the United States.) Clearly, this is the type of call that should be, MUST be, monitored.

FISA obviously does not have a provision within its rules and regulations for dealing with such a time-sensitive situation. No one can think that a requirement for appealing for permission to establish a fixed monitoring system can possibly provide a means by which we could initiate an immediate monitoring of a call which has already been placed and which may be over within a very few minutes.

If FISA does not have such a provision, then how does acting on such a call show a violation of FISA?

And if there is a claim that this type of problem is addressed in FISA and therefore doing such monitoring without appealing to FISA is a violation of FISA, please let us know.

I know, there is the claim that FISA establishes a method by which one could monitor a call and then apply, within 72 hours, for permission to continue monitoring that number.

But tell me, please, how one could apply for warrants for numbers which have never been used to call people within the United States... YET.

Those who demand that FISA have full authority over every single instance of electronic monitoring are establishing a protocol for terrorists. All they have to do is keep switching numbers, secure in the knowledge that no number can be used to apply for a warrant until there is the kind of evidence that can be presented to FISA to support a warrant request. So a number is safe until it has been used to contact a cell member here in this country, after which it is ditched and a new number secured.

The glee with which the NSA monitoring was revealed, the joy of the Left at believing they finally had something on Bush, seems to have overshadowed any concerns about the fact that this revelation already assisted terrorists by telling them exactly what we were doing, and how, and when. We were better off when they thought we had to go through FISA to get warrants for specified numbers. Now, no matter what happens, we have lost a valuable tool which was used only for the protection of our citizens and our country. Funny priorities, guys. No, not funny. Sick.

Almiranta,

If the call is from someone outside the United States to someone in the United States who is a United States citizen or legal resident, then it falls under FISA. If the call is not to those people, and it is between a terrorist group and an agent of the terrorist group who is inside the US, then it falls outside FISA. 50 USC 1801-1802.

That means if bin Laden was talking to Atta before 9/11, the government could freely listen in on the calls without getting a warrant.

As you noticed, if the call falls inside FISA, there is indeed a provision to deal with the scenario you describe. The government can listen without a warrant - so long as it applies for one within 72 hours. So the scenario you set up, where they keep switching numbers would not stop the government from being able to listen in on the call and then apply for the warrant.

The terrorists, if they knew of FISA, would likely have assumed that the government was listening in, and taken other steps to prevent eavesdropping anyway. The New York Times quoted FBI agents who said that they got no leads from the illegal wiretaps anyway - just thousands of wild goose chases.

The truly sick part is that anyone would not be outraged that the government has assumed the power to eavesdrop on our conversations without getting a warrant. We fought the meanest, nastiest people you can imagine during WWII and that didn't happen. In the Cold War, the Soviets had the power to nuke us and the rest of the earth, and we didn't let that happen.

lonqz,

You really have no idea how the NSA signals intelligence program works, do you?

Do you think that the NSA is picking out particular phone numbers and listening in?

Geesh!

Matt-

"Take this with a grain of salt, it's from the New York Times..."

Ha! Are you referring to best newspaper in America (arguably the world)? Though not perfect, they have the best writers and editorial staff you've ever seen.

Cutting and Running-

Note how no Dem/lib worth Matt's grain of salt has ever advocated immediately bringing the troops home and leaving Iraq nin a state of complete disarray. Those of us with brains, not the fringe folks you always want to ream, believe that even though the dumb@ss Bush administration got us into this god-awful mess, we still have to find a humanitarian way out of it. That, of course, will take time.