It would appear to me that Dimocrats feel Checks and Balances overtake Separation of Powers. Especially when it comes to filing proceedings before Liberal Federal Judges.

I posted this on another thread, but got no response:

I have a question for you liberals: If Al "I invented the Internet" Gore had been elected President in 2000, what would have been the US response after 9/11?

Keep in mind that after the Islamofascists declared war against us, they committed acts of war against the US in 1993 (WTC), 1996 (Khobar Towers), 1998 (embassy bombings), and 2000 (USS Cole). In each instance, with Al Gore as Vice-President, our response was mostly law enforcement in nature. Very little military action was taken.

Would a hypothetical President Gore have declared war against terror and used whatever force necessary to defend our country? Would he have gone to Congress and gotten two authorizations to wage war against the terrorists and those countries who harbor terrorist and provide support?

Would a hypothetical President Gore demand that the Taliban turn over the leaders of al-Qaeda? Would he form a coalition to liberate 25,000,000 Afghans from the Taliban? Would he keep a coalition presence long enough to allow democracy to take hold in Afghanistan? Or would he just try to extradite OBL to the US to stand trial?

Would a hypothetical President Gore demand that Saddam live up to the conditions of the 1991 Cease-fire and the 17 UN Resolutions requiring him to destroy his WMD, associated program, and prohibited armaments? Would he have liberated 25,000,000 Iraqis? Would he have created the conditions for democracy to take hold in Iraq? Or would he have allowed Saddam to continue to thumb his nose at the UN Sanctions? Would he have allowed Saddam to continue to steal billions under the UN Oil-for-Food Programs and continue to purchase prohibited war materials? Would he have allowed Saddam and his sons to continue to operate the rape rooms, and the shredders where people were fed into them alive, and continue to fill up the mass graves by the ten's of thousands? Would he have lobbied for the lifting of sanctions, which would have resulted in Iraq resuming its WMD programs as the recently translated tapes and documents have disclosed?

Would a hypothetical President Gore have passed tax cuts to revive the US economy after the 9/11 attacks and the dot com bubble burst? The same tax cuts which have generated record tax revenues. Or, would have he raised taxes and further depressed the economy? We know for certain the he would have pushed strongly for passage of the Kyoto Treaty, which had been defeated in thee Senate by a vote of 95-0. Of course, the Kyoto Treaty would have a devastating effect on our economy, without any scientific proof that it would have any measurable affect on global warming and cooling patterns.

Do you honestly think we would be safer under a hypothetical President Gore than we are now? Do you think, based on our failure to act with conviction during the Clinton-Gore administration in 1993, 1996, 1998, and 2000, that terrorists would have launched a successful attack against the US with Gore in command?

I would like a honest answer. No Bush bashing. Just what you think the last five plus years would have been like under a hypothetical President Gore. I will allow you to disregard the fact that in recent months former Vice-President Gore has exhibited bizarre behaviour and may be mentally unbalanced. For arguement's sake, let's assume he hadn't gone crazy.

don't expect much more than that from the murderer Kennedy.

Between him and Al Gore both trying to be President at one....... Geez what idiots

Matt,...Bill Clinton turned down Osama bin Laden on a silver platter multiple times, ...Matt, you keep making this statement even though you know it to be false. Either provide the supporting facts to backup that statement, or apologize.

Bg2000, according to National Geographics' "inside 9/11" special, clinton had confirmation and a predator positioned to take out bin laden in '98 but called off the attack because satellite photos revealed a swing set and clinton didn't want to run the risk of killing any children near bin ladens hiding place.

on a second occation, clinton called off a predator attack because bin laden was hunting with one of the princes from the UAE. since the UAE is an ally of the US clinton did not want to have international incident by killing a prince.

those and the times where the sudanese government tried to get his administration to take bin laden off of their hands.

A-10, you forgot about Beirut and Lebanon. Maybe Clinton should have sold missiles to OBL and Saddam like Reagan sold to the Iranians?

Falgore, Sudan never offered OBL on a silver platter to Clinton. Your other cases are targets of opportunities and not offers of extradition?

Blarney,

Here's one from the LA Times, a leftist rag you would most assuredly love...

http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/Prior_Knowledge/Clinton_let_bin_laden.htm

Or how about:

Gary Schroen, a former CIA station chief in Pakistan, says the White House required the CIA to attempt to capture bin Laden alive, rather than kill him.

What impact did the wording of the orders have on the CIA’s ability to get bin Laden? “It reduced the odds from, say, a 50 percent chance down to, say, 25 percent chance that we were going to be able to get him,” said Schroen.

A Democratic member of the 9/11 commission says there was a larger issue: The Clinton administration treated bin Laden as a law enforcement problem.

Bob Kerry, a former senator and current 9/11 commission member, said, “The most important thing the Clinton administration could have done would have been for the president, either himself or by going to Congress, asking for a congressional declaration to declare war on al-Qaida, a military-political organization that had declared war on us.”

Or you could try reading Richard Miniter's book "Losing Bin Laden". Tons of material there for you.

Or how about this from the Telegraph (UK Newspaper)...

http://www.prisonplanet.com/clinton_let_bin_laden_survive.html

Want more? Just ask. Please also note, I am not solely using NewsMax or other conservative sources. You should try using some nonpartisan sources too. (newsweek... sheesh)

Cripes Barney if we posted Bush claims that the sun rises in the east you would cry "foul" and ask for supporting evidence that the sun indeed rises in the direction.

It is common frigging knowledge that Clinton failed miserably in deal with Bin Laden. Are you that blinded by your partisan nature.

I will await your apology...

A-10,
Nobody will ever know whaqt Al Gore's response would have been since we can't go back in time.
I am assuming you are making the assumption it would be something weak.

If you can make that assumption, then I can make this one...
Al Gore would not have surrounded himself with complete incompetence. He would have surrounded himself with people that understand what going after those who attacked us means. He would have surrounded himself with people that understood the possible repercusions of going into Iraq were.
He would have surrounded himself with people that may have had a different opinion on matters of national security and he may have listened to them.
ALL OF WHICH THIS PRESIDENT DID NOT DO!

So if you are going to reply with "What would Al Gore, John Kerry or anyone else have done", well, you can't ever know at this point. What you CAN know is what this President did!

Barney, who are you to tell Mark to apologize? You're the biggest idiot in this blog; why don't you apologize for being a perpetual moron?

We've heard the sound of Clinton making some limp excuse about not having the grounds to take Osama, although Osama was AQ #1 in 1993, when the WTC was first hit.

Let me apologize, Barney; I'm sorry...that you're too stupid to do your own research. I'm truly sorry...that you're a moron.

"Falgore, Sudan never offered OBL on a silver platter to Clinton."

yes they did.

"Your other cases are targets of opportunities and not offers of extradition?"

but clinton still could have killed him. so what's your point?

SOL, you missed A-10's point by a mile. of course you can't say what gore/kerry or anyone else would have done. but A-10 gives you a list of many, many positive things that our pres has done which you reply how incompetent he is.

GOP 4 ME, none of that indicates that OBL was OFFERED to Clinton on multiple of occasions. Who offered OBL to Clinton and when? I am waiting.

I never would have believed in the days following 9/11 that Democrats would considering censuring President Bush for fighting the war on terror.

President Bush actually fights the war on terror, and the Democrats consider that reason for censure, if not impeachment...

How dare Kennedy say on one hand that "what is most important is to assure the national security in the United States," and then on the other say that wiretapping of terrorists merits censure...

WOW! Congratulations Matt, you actually posted the same lie three different times in the same post.

As for the last quote there, it is a complete misrepresentation of what Kennedy actually said. Read your Kennedy quote; then read what you wrote and see if you find any of the same words in the same order. You got the word "of" correct, but that is it.

Although it has been mentioned a trillion times by other posters, here it is again: Some people have a problem with the "wiretapping" because of the lack of, as Mr. Brownback from Kansas said, "a second set of eyes". I know that politically it sounds better if you say democrats want to stop the "wiretapping" because they want the terrorists to win, but that is simply nowhere near the truth of the situation. You may think the "wiretapping" is perfectly legal as it exists now and that is great, but there is no need to blatently lie about the opinion of others to try and help your team.

I think Mr. Noonan may actually be intelligent and understands when he lies that he is doing it to help his team, but I am not so sure about you Margolis. I think you may actually believe some of the lies you write on here.

"Falgore, Sudan never offered OBL on a silver platter to Clinton."

yes they did. Prove it Falgore.

You know what I find amazing? The people in this country have this complete and utterly horrible fear of terrorism. The war against terrorism is slightly out of control compared to the actual death rate by terrorism. Since 9/11, the approximate number of deaths for a few categories are listed here:

Heart Disease - 3.9 million
Cancer - 2.5 million
Prescription drugs - 500,000
Car accidents - 220,000
AIDS - 114,000
Terrorism - 6000

Why is our country so obsessed with this disproportionate threat to our people?

Next, I'm still waiting on an answer as to which branch of the military the NSA reports to. This is an issue of LAW not LOYALTY.

The NSA was created by Executive Order in 1981 specifically to monitor signals intelligence. The Director is always a commissioned officer with at least three stars. Because ½ of the operations are military personnel, the answer to your insipid question is; just like the President of the United States, all of the branches of the military.

And why are you asking this question?

Oh, and “irregardless” isn’t a real word, unless you’re trying to be comical.

I don't even see that word on this page but since you wanna be a richard about it, why not see what Webster has to say:

Main Entry: ir·re·gard·less
Pronunciation: "ir-i-'gärd-l&s
Function: adverb
Etymology: probably blend of irrespective and regardless
nonstandard : REGARDLESS
usage Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that "there is no such word." There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.

And that wasn't you question originally, first you asked " what branch of the military is the NSA a part of anyway???? " Not "which branch of the military the NSA reports to(?)"

I still don't understand the significance of either question.

This issue has put the Demorats on the defensive. You can see it reflected in the polls. According to Rasmussen, Bush's poll numbers have gone up 5 points in one week to 45% approval. You will see this reflected in the polls by the not-so MSM within the next two weeks. Rasmussen, who is the most accurate pollster the last two times, is quite good at forecasting future trends. Not-so-MSM polls usually follows course.

It kills me how many people out here with so little to say and all they can do is try and rip apart grammar and spelling of other posters.

You want to talk about incorrect grammar and speech? Look no further than the White House.

Can we get back on topic now?

Irregardless: Okay, that makes it a colloquialism, fair enough. I apologize if you are offended, but I didn’t write that the word didn’t exist, I said it isn’t a real word, that is, unless the meaning is intended as comical, the word would be considered a double negative, or it “ain’t” a word in common usage. Just trying to help you so you don’t look like a mid-western simpleton.

Now, what does the military connection with the NSA have to do with censure?

Let’s make irregardless the word of the day. Let’s all try to use in at least one post.

Okay, Capt'n Crunch,
You also asked if there was an office in the Pentagon. Well, their complex is in Maryland, but I believe the Director, LTG Keith B. Alexander does have an office at the Pentagon used for Pentagon briefings.

Does this aid in censure, somehow?

Captain Ron,

In case you are unable to do some simple research on your own, The NSA is an operating agency within the Department of Defense. The Director, NSA reports to the Secretary of Defense.

Well, I went to the NSA website and found no mention of DOD, and I went the the DOD website and found no mention of the NSA. I'm curious as to where you found your information.

Yes, it relates to censure in this way: The President is using the AUMF for his basis for the NSA program. Well, if the NSA is indeed part of the military, then I would be more inclined to agree with his argument, and less in favor of censure.

At this point all I have to go on is facts that support a broken law, and the word of a man I haven't trusted since his brother helped him unfairly win an election. I've looked at Alberto Gonzolez's letter and can't distinguish between it and a hunk of Swiss cheese. Enlighten me.

Captain N. Tenille,
If the NSA is operated by active duty military, and the Director is a Lieutenant General in the US Army on active duty assigned there by his superiors, then your objection sounds like a distinction without a difference.

Are you saying that the President wouldn’t be censured if he broke a law with a military group?

Maybe I’m not getting it, but when is it okay for the President to break a law in your mind?

Captain,
FISA isn't part of the military, the FBI isn't part of the military, the CIA isn't part of the military.
Can you give me a link to the actual verbiage of the Feingold resolution? I'd like to see for myself that military spying would make everything acceptable. Of course, it seems to me that the military intercepting signals intelligence instead of the agency charged with that responsibility would be more dangerous, not less.
I think you’re just exhibiting BDS. IMHO.

I think Mr. Noonan may actually be intelligent and understands when he lies that he is doing it to help his team, but I am not so sure about you Margolis. I think you may actually believe some of the lies you write on here.

It appears, Brokeback, that you believe a lot of lies. BTW, the last three words of your post? You incorrectly inserted the word "on" between "write" and "here."

Sorry, FullofLies, but some of us demand perfection when it comes to the written word. Regardless of what you may think, you and Barney are insignificant morons. Go jump in front of a train, would'ya?

LOL... Barney made a funny again! Good one!

Okay... so, irregardless (colloq.) of the fact that the word irregardless sounds like it should be the correct term (I always have to catch myself, too), the term is really regardless.

Just please... nobody write "axe" instead of "ask" or "supposably" instead of "supposedly", and I think I'll be okay.

Oh, check it out... I declared something a fact that was just my own opinion. Maybe I should start calling myself a liberal.

LNC, don't go giving Barney writing tips; he's not good at following advice, unless your name is Franken, Dean, or Kennedy...

I’m reminded of when I took my daughter to a bookstore and she saw Frankin’s book, “Lies and the Lying Liars, that Lie about lying in lye” Or whatever it was called.

She stood there for a moment staring at the cover and then said, “Dear Mr. Frankin, I see you have put your “Word of the Day” Calendar to good use. Let’s see if we can use my word of the Day, ‘Ignoramus’ Hmm, let me think about it and I’ll get back to you.”

After she read the tome, she told me, you can judge a book by its cover.

Otay soes me wents to aks me gramama hows to properlee speaks and types da inglish:

Yes, I apologize for my incorrect usage of irregardless, I should have said what Homer Simpson says, "unregardless", I actually had no idea that was one of those double negative words and I thank you for correcting me.

Well, I am actually trying as hard as I can to learn the facts about this case and possibly refute my own opinion. My point upstairs there was that the President is using the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force as his basis for the NSA program. The text of the AUFM can be viewed here:

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c107:2:./temp/~c107LC5bjJ::

The full text of Senator Feingold's censure resolution may be viewed here:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.RES.398:

Therefore, if the NSA is part of the Armed Forces, then the terms "Necessary and Appropriate" could mean something. This is Bush's own argument. I still don't think it's right to break the law. I'm only trying to come up with a comfortable explanation as to why he did it, and what can be done about it.

Why do YOU think it's ok to break the law????

Thanks for the support, keefer.
The proper use of the language is all we have to convey our thoughts and opinions, if we cannot do that effectively, how can expect to convince others our logic is correct?
Of course, we can always take the keefer direct approach; “jump in front of a train” too funny, sometimes you gotta throw a little bleach in the gene pool.

Keefer, there you go again correcting grammar
“..BTW, the last three words of your post? You incorrectly inserted the word "on" between "write" and "here."...”

We all know that you are anal. Now we all know that you are a liar. Here is what you posted on the third:

To all my friends at B4B: I will no longer edit the writings of the trolls. Let 'em look like total dumbasses; I guess good writing skills aren't essential in today's world...
Posted by: keefer at March 3, 2006 11:08 PM

I guess you just can’t be trusted to keep your word.

Ok.Barney..I will follow your instructions..

"Irregardless of what other liberals say, Barney is still an IDIOT!!!!"

Yes Barney, you caught me--I'm a liar. So sue me. You see, Barney, poor writing, especially by adults, is unacceptable in my world. I can accept an occasional misspelled word. I can accept typos. But misuse of words and bad grammar are unacceptable. So I will correct what I deem incorrect. In your case, I may ignore some, because you write like a third-grader. I bet you still have one of those real fat pencils, and the fat crayons.

We all know that you are anal.

We all know that you're wasting perfectly good oxygen; go jump off the Eiffel Tower.

Captain of Liberals writes comparing heart disease and cancer deaths, to the small number of deaths attributable to terrorism. This proves the point that the President and military are doing a good job of keeping his neck intact. Even though he is ungrateful of the fact and is a San Fran wannabe....As the dems keep near the edges of the censure issue, and the illegals keep waving the Mexican flag in our faces....doom will befall the Captain and his cohorts. The rest of us are all undocumented Minutemen, and the minority sleazeballs in this country may take all of this one step too far before they are body slammed by the majority of good citizens. I don't think the Captain can be included in that group. Even if he is exhibiting his free speech, it is outrageous speech.

Isn't it about time to do a full feature movie about Chappiquidick. We could probably entice Michael Moore to play the senior Senator from Taxachusetts, and Susan Estrich could play Mary Jo and Janet Reno could play the Edgartown sheriff.

Barney and Friends

Bill Clinton admitted on audio that he had Bin Laden and failed to act.

National Geographic's 9/11 program said the same thing last year. He had not one, not two , not three but four chances and each time neglected to do anything about it because his lawyers said not to. By "his lawyers" I mean the lawyers in the administration.

Of course, you shirk this aside as if it doesn't matter because it doesn't support your point of view...which is typical.

It could be midnight and Bush would say it's dark outside and you would say "no it's not" simply because Bush or someone the right made the claim.

Speaking of Al Franken and this topic of Bin Laden and Clinton....this is good

http://lyingliar.com/lies/clintonosama.htm

Captain Ron,

You need to work a little harder doing research. I only took me about 30 seconds to find this organizational chart of DoD Agencies where you will find the NSA.

Oops, lost the link. Try this: organizational chart of DoD Agencies.

Warriornation,

I posted the link to the audio of Clinton saying the Sudanese offered up OBL, but he said we couldn't take him, a couple of days ago on a different tread. But of course, with the left with a terminal case of BDS, they won't even believe their own ears.

You can only break a law if a law exists. The President (whether Republican or Democrat) has had this power in the Constitution. See Roosevelt, Truman, etc.

Go to moveamericaforward.com- lets censure Carter!

Captain Ron,

If you visited the NSA web site, as you said you did, you would have discovered that their mission statement is "The ability to understand the secret communications of our foreign adversaries while protecting our own communications -- a capability in which the United States leads the world -- gives our nation a unique advantage."

They are the primary signals intelligence agency for the military and other intelligence agency customers.

Here is part of a post I posted at Mattmargolis.com a littlw while back. THIS is the kind of scenario we are trying to fight. And this is what apparently angers the Democrats.

"Here is a plausible scenario to serve as a discussion tool:

A terrorist with a recently smuggled shipment of enriched uranium stops on the Pennsylvania Turnpike and pays cash at a vending machine for an activated Cell phone. No name is assigned to it.

He stops at the next exit and goes to a Panera Bread. He logs onto their wireless network with his laptop and opens a new yahoo account with a bogus name. He uses words from the menu for his name and address. Then, he sends his new phone number to a hotmail account owned by a terrorist in Pakistan.

1. Do you agree that this man is an enemy combatant operating on US territory?
2. Do you agree that this would be true even if he was a U.S. citizen (remember, EVERY Confederate soldier killed at Gettysburg was a U.S. citizen)
3. Do you agree that it would be in the best interest of the people of the United States to intercept these communications and to capture or kill this man?
4. How will YOU intercept this computer message?
5. How will YOU monitor this phone?
6. Do you agree that the New York Times publishing the details of an intelligence operation designed to catch this man would be… well, bad?"

War and A-10, please point out where in the following the Sudanese offered to extradite OBL to the US: By 1996, Khartoum's enthusiasm for an ideological Islamic state had waned. Pragmatists were prevailing over ideologues. In February 1996, as The Washington Post has reported, Khartoum tried to cooperate on counter-terrorism. Sudan's minister of state for defense (now its U.N. ambassador), Maj. Gen. Elfatih Erwa, secretly visited the United States to propose a trade -- bin Laden's extradition to Saudi Arabia in return for an easing of political and economic sanctions. Riyadh refused. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A64828-2002Jun29

The Sudanese offered to arrest Bin Laden and extradite him to Saudi Arabia or, barring that, to "baby-sit" him--monitoring all his activities and associates. http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/Prior_Knowledge/Clinton_let_bin_laden.htm

Here is what Clinton said (from newmax):
"Mr. bin Laden used to live in Sudan. He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991, then he went to Sudan.
"And we'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start meeting with them again - they released him.
"At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America.
"So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan." (End of excerpt)

I'm not saying that the Sudanese offered to extradite OBL to the US. According to CLinton, they offered him to us. If Clinton was serious about fighting terrorist (and we know he was not), he would have found some rationale to take him and keep him. His explanation was pure CYA.

A-10

So if Clinton didn't take bin laden, why doesn't Bush? Don't you have the world's best military commando force?

Captain Rong,
Starting with your last question first, I don’t think he broke any law.

Now to your logic, because the authorization referred to “armed forces” [Senate Joint Resolution 23, which you called “AUFM” (nee AUMF)] are you now arguing that the President may only use the military to protect the US and our interests? That being the case, do you honestly believe he should ask the Homeland Security and Transportation Secretaries to leave the room?

Mark and others have convincingly made the case that the duties and responsibilities enumerated in the Constitution allow the President to use all necessary and appropriate means at his disposal to detect and thwart future enemy attacks.

Here’s a clue, if you’re struggling to decide on your own if the President should be censured or impeached, start with the premise that he is doing his job, then see if there is evidence to contradict that. Instead, I think you are assuming he has broken the law and your trying to find evidence that he didn’t; it’s hard to prove a negative.

One more thing, I’m diabetic, diabetics die by the hundreds of thousands every year; I don’t care how many, as long as it’s not me. It’s not the number, it who it is that dies.

A-10, so you agree that OBL was not offered to the US as Matt said "on a silver platter multiple times,". He wasn't offered to us evan once.

Barneyg2000,

WRONG. If you listen to the audio, you would hear Clinton say that the Sudanese offered OBL to us, but we had no reason to hold him. That is OBL being offered to the US on a silver platter.

A10, the transcript of the Clinton speech was posted above. Here it is again:
"Mr. bin Laden used to live in Sudan. He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991, then he went to Sudan.
"And we'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start meeting with them again - they released him.
"At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America.
"So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan." (End of excerpt)

NO OFFER. Also, from the link you provided as proof that OBL was offered to the US: The Sudanese offered to arrest Bin Laden and extradite him to Saudi Arabia or, barring that, to "baby-sit" him--monitoring all his activities and associates. http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/Prior_Knowledge/Clinton_let_bin_laden.htm

Are you denying this?

When Clinton says: "At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him...", what do you think he means when he says "I did not bring him here"? You cannot make a decision not to bring someone "here" if you do not effective control over the disposition of the individual. Clinton is explicitly implying that he could have had OBL brought under US control, presumably to the US, but did not, "because we had no basis on which to hold him.." How about conspiracy, international terrorism, crimes against humanity. The list goes on and on. Clinton had the chance to neutralize OBL, by taking him into US custody, then later by taking him out, but failed to do so.

I don't remember giving you the other link, so I guess I'll deny it.

"Al Gore would not have surrounded himself with complete incompetence."

Posted by: Sick of Lies at March 27, 2006 04:32 PM

--------------------------------------------------

Sick o,

Of course you are welcome to state your opinion, but you must also accept our response to your drivel.

Incompetence? Lets see:

VP - Former White House Chief of Staff, former US Congressman, former Secretary of Defense, CEO of Fortune 500 company. Probably attained all those positions due to incompetence.

SecDef - Was the 13th Secretary of Defense, former White House Chief of Staff, former U.S. Ambassador to NATO, former U.S. Congressman, and was CEO of two Fortune 500 companies. Another shining example of incompetence.

SecState - PhD, former Provost of one of the most highly regarded universities in the country, Special Assistant to the Director of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Special Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, and National Security Advisor. Where did he find all these non-achievers?

1st SecState - Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, MBA. Probably got that 4th Star and CJCS assignment by being incompetent.

WH C/S - Former Sec of Trans, former Deputy Chief of Staff, former state legislator, former CEO of major industry organization, former GM Vice President. Another bozo, I guess.

"He would have surrounded himself with people that understand what going after those who attacked us means."

It means that we are killing terrorists in their home lands, rather in our front yard. You sould like you think he would have done nothing, because it might make the bad people mad at us. HELLO, they flew airplanes into the WTC and the Pentagon. I think they were already mad at us, for whatever twisted reason.

"He would have surrounded himself with people that understood the possible repercusions of going into Iraq were."

Right. Liberating 25,000,000 oppressed people. Stopping the rape rooms, murders, and mass graves. Preventing Saddam from producing WMD and giving them to terrorists to use against us.

"He would have surrounded himself with people that may have had a different opinion on matters of national security and he may have listened to them."

Unfortunately it was the "different opinion" that failed to deal with the growing problem of Islamist terrorism when it was still in its infancy.

I'm still waiting for a well thought out answer of what you think a President Gore would have done different and better.

I believe that al Gore would have issued an apology to the terrorists before the plane hit the second tower.

Bane,

I would tend to agree.

I believe that he would have invaded a country that had *nothing* to do with 9/11.

Oh no .. wait .. that was Doofus Bush.

Afganistan had *nothing* to do with 9-11? Boy, you are screwed up!

Haha, way to avoid it, Bane ... hmmm, maybe I was talking about Iraq?

Oh that's right, you probably still think Saddam orchestrated 9/11.

But maf. WE agree with you on Iraq. President Bush NEVER said that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 - liberals said that.

We went into Iraq because Sadaam was violating the terms of the first Gulf War armistice (by firing on our planes), would not allow arms inspectors in - violating multiple UN resolutions, and dammit we believed he had weapons of mass destruction. Now – OK so he didn’t have the weapons. But he wanted everyone to think he did – and he fooled us. His own generals have told us this. But again, that was only part of the reason for going in.

Oh, and he was also harboring several known terrorists and had ties to Al-Queda (even though there were no direct ties to 9/11 that we know of).

So - what did it get us? We have removed our troops from Saudi Arabia, we have eliminated a major wacko and asshole, Libya has seen the light - admitted that they were working on WOD and abandoned that quest, and we've put a major military force right in the middle of Apache country. Iraq borders: Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan, Syria, Turkey, and Iran. Isn't that handy as we try to clean up this cesspool of an area?

And – just HOW are YOU going to catch that terrorist using the cell phone under a fake name and using his yahoo account to plan an attack? HOW?

How do you know Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11?

Furthermore, I thought we were fighting Terrorism, not just Al Qaeda!! Why is it that liberals think that Al Qaeda is a country with defined borders that only reside in Afghanistan?

When they pop off and say "we were for going into Afghanistan" it is the most intelligently bankrupt statement they can make. It's as if these liberals really believe Al Qaeda is confined to Afghanistan which is both funny and tragically sad that these people believe this.

How many more links, documents, etc are required between Saddam and TERRORISM (not just Al Qaeda's version...but any version)?

Yet again the liberals would have us wait until we are attacked before we respond.

Today it was reported that Saddam wanted to support terrorists attacking London. Last I checked, the UK was an ally of ours. Under the liberal doctrine, we would wait until the UK was attacked first before we could respond.

And these people wonder why they aren't in charge with the rest of the adults.

In the 1973 case of United States vs. Brown, the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled regarding (Democratic) Presidents Roosevelt and Truman using warrantless wiretaps thusly: "Because of the President's constitutional duty to act for the United States in the field of foreign relations, and his inherent power to protect national security in the context of foreign affairs, we reaffirm...that the President may constitutionally authorize warrantless wiretaps for the purpose of gathering foreign intelligence."
Those who would kill the NSA program are only doing it because they hate President Bush and will do anything they can to undermine him and his administration, even to the point of giving aid, comfort and resolve to the enemy. I call that TREASON.

How many of you still believe Saddam Hussein had a connection to 9/11? How many believe that al Qaeda operated in Iraq before the Iraq War? How many of you believe that the WMD are still buried somewhere in Syria? Or that US Intelligence couldn't tell the difference in the aluminum tubes from Niger? How many of you believe that the IEDs and other weapons used by the insurgency to kill American troops didn't come from unprotected arms depots like al QaaQaa post-invasion?

Why don't we listen to those soldiers who are putting their lives on the line to begin to sort fact from fiction (or bold-face lies). Over 70% of the soldiers polled in and around Iraq think the United States should withdraw within 12 months.[complete poll, ?s and answers, at www.zogby.com/iraq] That's a pretty compelling number.

Incompetence doesn't begin to describe the decisions of this Administration.

"Al Gore would not have surrounded himself with complete incompetence."

As imcompetent as Algore is, six years later, he would still be apologizing and begging forgiveness and throwing money to the terrorists as well as our secrets, hoping they would not attack us again.

No one was ever attacked for being too strong. They are attacked when they appear weak.

Incompetence doesn't begin to describe the decisions of this Administration

Stupid doesn't begin to describe you, melicig. If you listend to real news, and not talking points fed to you by the DNC, you'd learn a little.

The Zogby poll was done for a leftist organization, a college where Zogby himself attended. the pollees were misrepresented.

Your other talking points have been addressed and readdressed ad nauseum. Go away, moron...

Everyone just has to be sooo freakin right. I just want this country to be open, honest, helpful, happy even. I know that sounds pollianna, but, why not? It just takes a sense of selflessness, versus selfishness, and an attitude of tollerant equality. If all things are going to be decided by who makes a buck at any cost......The price will always be to high in the end.

"then on the other say that wiretapping of terrorists merits censure"

Let's engage in a thought experiment, shall we?

Its the late 18th century and the Bill of Rights is being discussed.

A speaker gets up and explains why the 4th Amendment is necessary to protect citizens from undue search and seizure.

Someone objects on the grounds that he "can't believe people actually object to searching the homes of criminals for evidence of wrongdoing"

Would you consider that a legitimate objection? Does that objection accurately represent the concern expressed by the first speaker?

The conversation you describe did take place, albeit not in the vernacular you describe. Give me a few minutes and I’ll find the conversation in the Federalist Papers.

But, more to the point, courts have ruled repeatedly that the constitutional term “unreasonable” may be broadly defined. As an example, if you are talking on a cell phone from the back of a police car you can’t expect that your communications will not be monitored; the monitoring would be a reasonable extension of the officers’ ability to investigate, and prevent future crimes.

With that in mind, if you are having communications with terrorists in foreign countries, discussing an act of violence perpetrated against innocent civilians, you shouldn’t expect that the government will listen to the terrorist speak because he’s in Syria, but won’t listen to your response because you’re in Cleveland; that’s absurd.

Although your mental masturbation may sound like a legitimate argument to you, it is pedestrian at best. The issue is much more complex than “what would James Monroe say?”

Cap'n Ron: Thanks for posting these figures. I was getting ready to research them when I saw your post.

Heart Disease - 3.9 million
Cancer - 2.5 million
Prescription drugs - 500,000
Car accidents - 220,000
AIDS - 114,000
Terrorism - 6000

I just think it is insane that we have fundamentally altered our way of life after the 9-11 attack. Should we be more alert? YES. Should we pay attention to intelligence reports that cross the Presidents desk? YES

But do we need to frisk an 80 year old lady trying to get on an airplane? Commit billions to warfare and then reconstruction? NO, NO, NO.

The best argument I can make for this is the ease with which covert agents were able to import ingredients for two dirty bombs into this country. How easy is it for immigrants on our southern borders to sneak into this country?

My point is: if there is such an imminent threat to attacks within our borders, and it is so easy to get into the country, and it is so easy to smuggle dirty bombs in, why hasn't there been another catastrophic event? The reason is that the Bush strategy has been to overstate the threat, then play on our fears. Why? Follow the money. FOR PROFIT.

How long are you military types going to let him get away with it?

Assh,
The statistics cited by Captive wRong and now you only prove one thing, liars can figure.

Millions have died, and billions upon billions have been spent trying to prevent more deaths from those items you listed as well as many, many more. The total volume of resources poured into the efforts to stop human suffering stagger the mind. The Government has been the major contributor all along the way. Many forms of cancer are now treatable, breakthroughs happen daily in the detection and treatment of diabetes, heart disease and AIDS.

Car accidents are preventable, and if everyone would cooperate, no one need die in a car accident ever again. Terrorist attacks are not a necessary part of life; no one need die for someone else to make a point.

The money spent of finding a cure for AIDS exceeds that spent on diabetes research, is your argument now that we should spend proportionate to the death rate? Then we need to spend more on colon cancer than breast cancer, we need to spend more on removing the scourge of abortion than on Starbucks’ lattes.

None of those things are the President’s job; his job is to protect us from terrorist attacks. And from the statistics you post, he’s doing a damn good job.

"Although your mental masturbation may sound like a legitimate argument to you, it is pedestrian at best."

I asked a simple question. Does the second person accurately represent the concern of the first person. You did not answer that question, but instead side-stepped and argued some other matter.

That's because your premise is flawed and questions are convoluted, needlessly complicated and prosaic.

If the premise, whatever premise you might think is there,is flawed, you should have no difficulty stating that, and if the question is prosaic you should have no difficult replying either yes or no.

The problem is, is that you are discounting some imaginary argument that I have not even presented.

All I want to know is, in the example I presented, would you consider the second person to be raising a valid objection.

If yes, then I have nothing further to say. If, on the other hand, you say no, then I would be suggest that what I quoted from the original post is by the same reasoning is an accurate concern that was expressed by Sen. Kennedy.

The reason why you will not answer it is because you think this concession is tantamount to saying we should not wiretap terrorists. It is not. It is not even a concession that we should not allow the President to authorize spying outside the scope of FISA.

What it simply would be, would be an act of intellectual honesty, admitting that the concern raised by Sen. Kennedy is not that terrorists are being wire-tapped.

One not need agree that Sen. Kennedy's concern is merited to be able acknowledge that it was raised.

The fourth paragraph should have read:

"If yes, then I have nothing further to say. If, on the other hand, you say no, then I would suggest that what I quoted from the original post, by the same reasoning, does not represent accurately the concern that was expressed by Sen. Kennedy."

Mecilig

I believe stuff is buried in the desert.

Case in point, please explain this link for starters

http://www.snopes.com/photos/military/sandplanes.asp

If they're burying their air force, they sure as hell can be burying sarin and other compounds.

Hume,
No, you’re asking a question that would generously be a Hobson’s choice. Neither side of the discussion is applicable to the thesis presented by Kennedy or Reed.

A theoretical question posed in a theoretical setting regarding a theoretical crime wouldn’t cite the validity of concern over the question at hand. You might as well be asking which headphones make you sound smarter.

You wrote, “One not need agree that Sen. Kennedy's concern is merited to be able acknowledge that it was raised.”
One not need be there to know that Kennedy is more concerned with Happy Hour than with the security of the American people.

"The fundamental cause of trouble in the world today is that the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt." - Bertrand Russell

"And from the statistics you post, he’s doing a damn good job."

I beg to differ Bane. The figures are such since the terrorist threat is exponentially less than the president has sold to you.

"is your argument now that we should spend proportionate to the death rate?"

No Bane, my argument is to spend money on real threats, not ones that are a result of "propelling the propaganda". Diabetes, colon cancer, breast cancer, unwanted children are all realities. So lets put our collective powers together and solve them.

"None of those things are the President’s job; his job is to protect us from terrorist attacks."

Geez I'd always thought there was more to the presidents job than protecting us from terrorist attacks. If that's all we expect of him, why isn't there a general as president instead of one who avoided service when it was his turn to fight?

"The fundamental cause of trouble in the world today is that the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt." - Bertrand Russell

Ah, Bane. We finally agree on something. Who is the cocksure (read stubborn, protected from criticism) one? Why President Bush! Who are the intelligent ones full of doubt? Why the progressives! Are you not always criticizing them for lack of a unified plan.

Thanks fro supporting my thesis.

Ash,
Are you, like Michael Moore trying to convince us there is no terrorist threat? As they say, that won’t play in the Heartland.

To put our collective heads in the sand and pretend that there aren’t people out there that would kill us is patently foolish.

We are capable of addressing copious problems simultaneously. Research on curing illness didn’t stop when the Towers fell. Your idea that we can either protect our citizenry or cure cancer is simplistic.

“… unwanted children" That's how you see the abortion issue? Un-wanted?

If you're not intereste in discussing this, just say so. Now you're hinting at the psychic ability to determine Kennedy's motivations as a means of disconunted his stated objection, one that you yet still will not acknowledge.

Look its quite simple: no one has ever objected to wire-tappng terrorists, yet that is what the original poster suggested.

What people are concerned with is that spying authorized in violation of a law which expressly forbid that sort of spying potentially threatens the 4th Amendment rights of law abiding citizens.

An intellectually honest discussion would start by accurately stating that is the expressed concern of your opponent, and then proceeding from there.

But instead you are starting from a fabricated position - that Kennedy is opposed to wire-tapping terrorists - to knock down something that doesn't even rise to the level of a straw-man argument.

Ash,

A moron is also always full of doubts.

Would you please find the part where I “… always criticiz(ed) them for lack of a unified plan.” I don’t remember writing that. In fact, I think you’re lying.

Actually, I’m sure of it, I never said that anywhere in any post. If you’ll lie about that, what else are you lying about?

But if nothing else, the conversation was fruitful. I've never heard the phrase "Hobson's Choice" before. I quite like it.

Hume,
An “intellectually honest” discussion would include you stating your position instead of setting up some sophomoric scenario to play GOTCHA!

You don’t have to be psychic to divine the motivation of Kennedy; get back the power at all costs.

And you haven’t answered my question as equally specious as yours, which headphones make you sound smarter?

Ok. My position was to play "GOTCHA", at least it was in the sense that any argument put forth in the pedantic manner that I was utilizing is designed to get someone to see something in a different light.

So, with that said, are you now going to acknowledge that no Democrat has ever proposed censuring the President for wire-tapping terrorists?

Or do you could this question also to prosaic and specious to answer?

swap "consider" with "could"

“Whereas; 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.”

“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.”

Was this not written by a democrat?

They're not tryng to censure for painting his bathroom green, Sparkey.

And getting back to you Ash, I don’t know what part or parts of Article II of the Constitution confuse you, but I do not expect my President to cure cancer.
If you want to elect a Mommie-in-chief, then get a Constitutional amendment together that states that the President has to “feel” our pain, and “work harder” than he’s ever worked before; a President whose good intentions mean more than his fulfillment of his Constitutional duties.

We had one of those for eight years.

Yes, the censure was written by a Democrat, and as anyone who can read can see, it does not condemn the President for wire-tapping terrorists. It condemns him for authorizing wire-tapping in violation of a law which was written by Congress to protect American citizens from the sort of political spying that took place during the Nixon years.

One would also note that the President's reasoning for this authorization does not make sense, as the FISA law would permit the sort of spying he says the authorization was necessary for.

At the risk of repeating myself, they’re not trying to censure the President for painting his bathroom green.

Your hypothesis that it’s not the wiretapping of terrorists, but wiretapping of terrorists without a warrant is a distinction without a difference; democrats are calling for censure and/or impeachment over wire tapping terrorists.

A FISA warrant requires probable cause, signals intelligence cannot be held to that standard, and the courts have agreed repeatedly.

"Your hypothesis that it’s not the wiretapping of terrorists, but wiretapping of terrorists without a warrant is a distinction without a difference; democrats are calling for censure and/or impeachment over wire tapping terrorists."

That distinction is the rule of law. Its like the distinction between putting criminals in jail after a trial or without one. If someone was opposed to the former, that does not necessarily mean they are opposed to putting criminals in jail. This is the point I've been attempting to make.

You can think the Democrats are wrong, but at least do them the courtesy of saying what their objection is.

Regarding the signals intelligence: I believe this is correct. The level of surveillance that is being done does not meet the FISA standard.

Okay Hume’s,
Seeing as how you and I are the only ones left here, I say we move on. Besides, you keep moving the goalposts on me.

Bane:

Liars are what liars do; I never said there is no danger of terrorism. I said it has been propelled by the propaganda to a proportion that is way out of whack. It is a way to misdirect attention away from the immense failings of this administration.

I believe YOUR pants are on fire.

"A moron is also always full of doubts." Bane

"the intelligent are full of doubt." Bertrand Russell as quoted by Bane

"I do not expect my President to cure cancer."

Well thats a lie if you think I said that. I just expect more from a president than to fight (poorly) a war on terrorism. Esp since the longest he wore a unfirom might have been on the deck of that air carrier where he proclaimed "Mission Accomplished"

"We had one of those for eight years. "

Ah sweet peace and prosperity. I long for the days.

BTW "If you want to elect a Mommie-in-chief,"

You repugs keep screwing things up, and we will get our Mommie in chief (Hillary)

Captain Ron wrote: “You know what I find amazing? The people in this country have this complete and utterly horrible fear of terrorism. The war against terrorism is slightly out of control compared to the actual death rate by terrorism. Since 9/11, the approximate number of deaths for a few categories are listed here:
Heart Disease - 3.9million
Cancer - 2.5million
Prescription drugs - 500,000
Car accidents - 220,000
AIDS - 114,000
Terrorism - 6000
Why is our country so obsessed with this disproportionate threat to our people?”

The deaths you mentioned with th