Is the Bush Administration Guilty of Illegal Wiretapping? US Constitution--Lesson 1

[Alien Allen]

Re: Is the Bush Administration Guilty of Illegal Wiretapping? US Constitution--Lesson

Michael Moore is a despicable pompous asshole. He provides entertainment. Period and never lets the facts get in the way of a good lie. you want lies then just follow that jerks movies and and other bull shit. I can't stand Bush. But you liberals need to get better sources than Moore for your information.

 

[Fox Mulder]

Re: Is the Bush Administration Guilty of Illegal Wiretapping? US Constitution--Lesson

I can give you the prime example of an impeachable offense committed by this Administration- it's launching this country into a multi-year trillion dollar fiasco based on cooked intelligence and out right lies resulting in hundreds of thousands of deaths and thousands of U.S. military deaths. Sit there, wave the flag, sputter and deny it all you want.

Jesus, the worst you can say was he was wrong. This ridiculous tin foil crap about deliberate lies is absurd.

So while we impeach Bush, what shall we do with all these Democrats:

What Democrats said about Weapons of Mass Destruction

"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 Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 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.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, 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

"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

"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

"Without 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

So I assume you would support bringing these people up on charges as well? If not, why not?

 

[Minor Axis]

Re: Is the Bush Administration Guilty of Illegal Wiretapping? US Constitution--Lesson

Michael Moore is a despicable pompous asshole. He provides entertainment. Period and never lets the facts get in the way of a good lie. you want lies then just follow that jerks movies and and other bull shit. I can't stand Bush. But you liberals need to get better sources than Moore for your information.

All I do is listen to what he or any conservative says and ask "sound reasonable" if it does sound reasonable I use it as a starting point for more investigation. It's your absolute right to call him names. But maybe you'll tell me why he is wrong about why we launched the Iraq war, because he's a pompous ass?

 

[Minor Axis]

Re: Is the Bush Administration Guilty of Illegal Wiretapping? US Constitution--Lesson

Jesus, the worst you can say was he was wrong. This ridiculous tin foil crap about deliberate lies is absurd.

Oh really? I recently discovered Hugh's List of Bush Scandals. It's way to long to post the entire thing as there are over 300. But the one below seems to apply. BTW, if you want to read abouf FISA, go to the link and see Number 12.

Yes it is a mix of fact and opinon but it sounds reasonable to me (no need to agree):

359. On January 23, 2008, the Center for Public Integrity published a study that found that Administration officials had made 935 false statements about Iraq and WMD or Iraq and al Qaeda in the two years following the 9/11 attacks. Bush was responsible for 260 false statements, i.e. lies, followed by Colin Powell with 254, Ari Fleischer and Donald Rumsfeld both with 109, Paul Wolfowitz with 85, Condoleezza Rice with 56, Dick Cheney with 48, and Scott McClellan with 14. While this is an important report, the shame of it is that it could have been done and should have been done years ago by what passes for our news media but was not.
....The New York Times did publish an apology for its part in hyping the case for WMD in the run up to the war. It did so on May 26, 2004 more than a year after the war began. It concentrated on 6 articles: 2 of which were written by Judith Miller and 2 she co-wrote with Michael Gordon. Yet this fact is never mentioned. Judith Miller’s name does not appear at all, and Michael Gordon is cited only once and that approvingly as a further source opining on the complexity of the aluminum tubes debate. Somehow this complexity went unappreciated by the IAEA which saw almost immediately that the aluminum tubes story was bogus. Judith Miller was let go by the Times but not for her role in lying the nation into an expensive, unnecessary, and endless war but for the far worse sin of embarrassing the paper in the Valerie Plame case. Gordon remains at the Times where he continues his career shilling for the Pentagon.
....Even though by the time of its apology it was clear there were no WMD in Iraq, the Times was still not willing to give up on them entirely: “It is still possible that chemical or biological weapons will be unearthed in Iraq.” The apology is rife with weasely phrases. “These accounts have never been independently verified.” Note the use of the passive. Translation: “We never verified them.” Or “we, along with the administration, were taken in.” Translation: “We didn’t verify this either, but it’s not our fault.”
....The only bright spot in the Times apology is that it took the Washington Post even longer to come up with one. The Post published its apology on August 12, 2004. Bob Woodward’s laughably illogical take was “We did our job, but we didn’t do enough.” Translation: “We did our job, except for the part about doing our job, which we did not do."
....Along these lines, on May 28, 2008, former Bush Press Secretary Scott McClellan (July 17, 2003 - April 26, 2006) of all people wrote a more accurate and scathing assessment of the press than any it was willing to make itself:
And through it all, the media would serve as complicit enablers. Their primary focus would be on covering the campaign to sell the war, rather than aggressively questioning the rationale for war or pursuing the truth behind it. ... [T]he media would neglect their watchdog role, focusing less on truth and accuracy and more on whether the campaign was succeeding. [Page 125]

If anything, the national press corps was probably too deferential to the White House and to the administration in regard to the most important decision facing the nation during my years in Washington, the choice over whether to go to war in Iraq. ... In this case, the "liberal media" didn't live up to its reputation. If it had, the country would have been better served. [Pages 156-157]
....On June 5, 2008, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence released what has come to be known as its Phase II report on intelligence and the run up to the Iraq war. It is actually two reports. The first of these compares what Bush and others said to what they knew as evidenced by the intelligence assessments at the time. In keeping with the Public Integrity report, it finds many discrepancies (lies) where the Administration overstated the case (lied) or made erroneous statements (more lies). Phase I came out on July 7, 2004. Phase II was stalled first by the Republicans while they were in the majority and then by weak kneed, conservative leaning Democrats like Jay Rockefeller the Committee Chair. While the report contains many interesting tidbits, the delay in its writing, measured in years, vitiates most of its findings (which was rather the point of the delay). Yes, Bush and Cheney lied the country into a war. Yes, this is an impeachable offense, a high crime if ever there was one, but the Democrats have done and will do nothing about it.
....Overall the report is very badly written. It does not look at why the October 2002 NIE after considerable White House prodding made a more robust (although still highly conditioned) case for Iraq as a threat. It does not connect the dots. The intelligence community, for instance, concluded that even under optimum conditions if Iraq had somehow reconstituted its nuclear program, it would still take it 5-7 years to produce a nuclear device. This is important because it takes away the argument of Iraq as an imminent threat and turns a justified pre-emptive war into a preventive war, which is a war crime. Nor does it look at the likelihood that Iraq had reconstituted its nuclear program. Nuclear weapons are not something that are thrown together in one’s garage. They require a vast industrial undertaking which can not be hidden. It is also a multi-phased process: uranium ore must be acquired, enriched, processed, and machined; there must be a design; a device must be made and tested; then it must be miniaturized to fit on a vehicle (in this case a missile); finally the missile must be built and tested. When you consider how much of Iraq’s nuclear infrastructure was dismantled and destroyed in the inspections following the First Gulf War, the idea that Saddam could reconstitute a fully functioning nuclear weapons program on the sly is in the realm of pure paranoid fantasy. Now most Americans were not aware of this at the time but the Bush Administration, the intelligence community, and members of defense and intelligence committees in the Congress certainly were.
....The run up to war, how it was treated then and later, is the paradigm for the Bush years. The White House committed acts which it knew to be illegal and then lied to us about them. Congressional Republicans covered for the Administration by blocking investigations when they were in the majority and belittling them when they went into the minority. Congressional Democrats (with few exceptions) did nothing to stop what was happening. The media (also with few exceptions) gave up their role as investigator for that of cheerleader. Now years later, we are at last beginning to see some investigation. Yet for the most part, it is too little, too late. Actual accountability remains as far off as ever.

 

[Fox Mulder]

Re: Is the Bush Administration Guilty of Illegal Wiretapping? US Constitution--Lesson

Oh really? I recently discovered Hugh's List of Bush Scandals. It's way to long to post the entire thing as there are over 300. But the one below seems to apply. Yes it is a mix of fact and opinon but it sounds reasonable:

359. On January 23, 2008, the Center for Public Integrity published a study that found that Administration officials had made 935 false statements about Iraq and WMD or Iraq and al Qaeda in the two years following the 9/11 attacks. Bush was responsible for 260 false statements, i.e. lies, followed by Colin Powell with 254, Ari Fleischer and Donald Rumsfeld both with 109, Paul Wolfowitz with 85, Condoleezza Rice with 56, Dick Cheney with 48, and Scott McClellan with 14. While this is an important report, the shame of it is that it could have been done and should have been done years ago by what passes for our news media but was not.
....The New York Times did publish an apology for its part in hyping the case for WMD in the run up to the war. It did so on May 26, 2004 more than a year after the war began. It concentrated on 6 articles: 2 of which were written by Judith Miller and 2 she co-wrote with Michael Gordon. Yet this fact is never mentioned. Judith Miller’s name does not appear at all, and Michael Gordon is cited only once and that approvingly as a further source opining on the complexity of the aluminum tubes debate. Somehow this complexity went unappreciated by the IAEA which saw almost immediately that the aluminum tubes story was bogus. Judith Miller was let go by the Times but not for her role in lying the nation into an expensive, unnecessary, and endless war but for the far worse sin of embarrassing the paper in the Valerie Plame case. Gordon remains at the Times where he continues his career shilling for the Pentagon.
....Even though by the time of its apology it was clear there were no WMD in Iraq, the Times was still not willing to give up on them entirely: “It is still possible that chemical or biological weapons will be unearthed in Iraq.” The apology is rife with weasely phrases. “These accounts have never been independently verified.” Note the use of the passive. Translation: “We never verified them.” Or “we, along with the administration, were taken in.” Translation: “We didn’t verify this either, but it’s not our fault.”
....The only bright spot in the Times apology is that it took the Washington Post even longer to come up with one. The Post published its apology on August 12, 2004. Bob Woodward’s laughably illogical take was “We did our job, but we didn’t do enough.” Translation: “We did our job, except for the part about doing our job, which we did not do."
....Along these lines, on May 28, 2008, former Bush Press Secretary Scott McClellan (July 17, 2003 - April 26, 2006) of all people wrote a more accurate and scathing assessment of the press than any it was willing to make itself:
And through it all, the media would serve as complicit enablers. Their primary focus would be on covering the campaign to sell the war, rather than aggressively questioning the rationale for war or pursuing the truth behind it. ... [T]he media would neglect their watchdog role, focusing less on truth and accuracy and more on whether the campaign was succeeding. [Page 125]

If anything, the national press corps was probably too deferential to the White House and to the administration in regard to the most important decision facing the nation during my years in Washington, the choice over whether to go to war in Iraq. ... In this case, the "liberal media" didn't live up to its reputation. If it had, the country would have been better served. [Pages 156-157]
....On June 5, 2008, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence released what has come to be known as its Phase II report on intelligence and the run up to the Iraq war. It is actually two reports. The first of these compares what Bush and others said to what they knew as evidenced by the intelligence assessments at the time. In keeping with the Public Integrity report, it finds many discrepancies (lies) where the Administration overstated the case (lied) or made erroneous statements (more lies). Phase I came out on July 7, 2004. Phase II was stalled first by the Republicans while they were in the majority and then by weak kneed, conservative leaning Democrats like Jay Rockefeller the Committee Chair. While the report contains many interesting tidbits, the delay in its writing, measured in years, vitiates most of its findings (which was rather the point of the delay). Yes, Bush and Cheney lied the country into a war. Yes, this is an impeachable offense, a high crime if ever there was one, but the Democrats have done and will do nothing about it.
....Overall the report is very badly written. It does not look at why the October 2002 NIE after considerable White House prodding made a more robust (although still highly conditioned) case for Iraq as a threat. It does not connect the dots. The intelligence community, for instance, concluded that even under optimum conditions if Iraq had somehow reconstituted its nuclear program, it would still take it 5-7 years to produce a nuclear device. This is important because it takes away the argument of Iraq as an imminent threat and turns a justified pre-emptive war into a preventive war, which is a war crime. Nor does it look at the likelihood that Iraq had reconstituted its nuclear program. Nuclear weapons are not something that are thrown together in one’s garage. They require a vast industrial undertaking which can not be hidden. It is also a multi-phased process: uranium ore must be acquired, enriched, processed, and machined; there must be a design; a device must be made and tested; then it must be miniaturized to fit on a vehicle (in this case a missile); finally the missile must be built and tested. When you consider how much of Iraq’s nuclear infrastructure was dismantled and destroyed in the inspections following the First Gulf War, the idea that Saddam could reconstitute a fully functioning nuclear weapons program on the sly is in the realm of pure paranoid fantasy. Now most Americans were not aware of this at the time but the Bush Administration, the intelligence community, and members of defense and intelligence committees in the Congress certainly were.
....The run up to war, how it was treated then and later, is the paradigm for the Bush years. The White House committed acts which it knew to be illegal and then lied to us about them. Congressional Republicans covered for the Administration by blocking investigations when they were in the majority and belittling them when they went into the minority. Congressional Democrats (with few exceptions) did nothing to stop what was happening. The media (also with few exceptions) gave up their role as investigator for that of cheerleader. Now years later, we are at last beginning to see some investigation. Yet for the most part, it is too little, too late. Actual accountability remains as far off as ever.

LOL! This is one of the oldest tricks in the book--I can do this with anyone, anywhere, anytime.

You didn't answer the question (you always seem to avoid the stuff that hits you square between the eyes).

If Bush is to be indicted for lying about WMDs, what about all those Democrats and what they said?

 

[Fox Mulder]

Re: Is the Bush Administration Guilty of Illegal Wiretapping? US Constitution--Lesson

All I do is listen to what he or any conservative says and ask "sound reasonable" if it does sound reasonable I use it as a starting point for more investigation. It's your absolute right to call him names. But maybe you'll tell me why he is wrong about why we launched the Iraq war, because he's a pompous ass?

Because he's a Moore-On. Have you watched the film that exposed his "documentaries?". I bet you missed picking that one up at the video store. That's got all the answers as to his deceptive tactics.

 

[Fox Mulder]

Re: Is the Bush Administration Guilty of Illegal Wiretapping? US Constitution--Lesson

Here minor--another chapter in your continuing eduction--you should be paying me for de-stupidifying you!!! This was produced by left wing filmakers

Documentary Reveals Michael Moore’s Deceptions | Sweetness & Light

The hunter has become the hunted. Michael Moore, the celebrated left-wing film-maker, has become the unwilling subject of a new documentary that raises damaging questions about the credibility of his work.

The director and star of successful documentaries such as Roger & Me, Bowling for Columbine and Fahrenheit 9/11, Moore has repeatedly been accused by his right-wing enemies of distorting or manipulating the material in his films. On his website he dismisses his critics as “wacko attackos”. Yet the latest assault on Moore’s film-making techniques has come from an unexpected quarter. In Manufacturing Dissent, a documentary to be shown for the first time at a Texas film festival on Saturday, a pair of left-wing Canadian film-makers take Moore to task for what they describe as a disturbing pattern of fact-fudging and misrepresentation.

“When we started this project we hoped to have done a documentary that celebrated Michael Moore. We were admirers and fans,” said Debbie Melnyk, who made the film with her husband, Rick Caine. “Then we found out certain facts about his documentaries that we hadn’t known before. We ended up very disappointed and disillusioned.”


Melnyk and Caine are best known for their previous documentary Citizen Black, about Conrad Black, the Canadian-born former proprietor of The Daily Telegraph. Last week both of them acknowledged an important debt to Moore for popularising the documentary genre.

Yet when Caine and Melnyk began to follow him as part of their own documentary, their efforts to interview him met with the same kind of obstruction, denial and, ultimately, physical ejection that Moore had suffered when he tried to track down Roger Smith, the former chief executive of General Motors, for his first film, Roger & Me.

It was in Flint, Michigan, Moore’s former home town, that Caine and Melnyk made the first discovery that they say rocked their confidence in his approach. Roger & Me was a hugely successful account of what Moore portrayed as a fruitless task to force Smith to answer questions about GM’s policies in closing the car manufacturing plants that had long been Flint’s economic lifeline.

Caine and Melnyk claim that Moore interviewed Smith on camera twice. But the scenes were left on the cutting room floor, apparently for greater dramatic effect.

Manufacturing Dissent includes a long catalogue of alleged exaggerations or distortions in several of Moore’s films. In Bowling for Columbine, a scathing indictment of US gun violence, Moore visited Toronto to show parts of the city that were supposedly so free of crime everyone left their front doors unlocked.

“In the film, Michael makes it look as though 100% of the doors were unlocked, but his local producer told us it was really only 40%,” said Caine.

Caine and Melnyk said they had hoped to interview Moore about his views on how much editing was acceptable before a factual documentary turned into misleading propaganda.

“We had met him at a premiere of the Columbine film in Toronto, and he said, ‘Oh yes, talk to my people and they’ll set something up’,” said Caine. “We then called his people and they said he’s not doing any more interviews in Toronto. We had his e-mail, we sent a letter to his lawyers, we had his phone number in New York. But each time he said no.”

Then Caine and Melnyk began to run into open hostility. Eventually, in a scene that might have come from Roger & Me, they were bundled out of an event at Kent State University, where Moore’s sister, Anne, knocked aside Caine’s camera.

Moore is reportedly editing his next film, Sicko, about the US healthcare system, and a spokesman said he had no comment on Manufacturing Dissent. On his website he dismissed critics of Bowling for Columbine as “lying liars” and claimed that “organised groups [are] going full blast trying to discredit me”.

Yet Caine and Melnyk insist they should not be confused with the right-wing hordes who want to damage Moore.

“If you have to sell out your values and principles to get at a greater truth, where does that leave you?” said Melnyk.
“If we think it’s wrong for the government to lie and manipulate, how do we think that [left-wingers] doing it is the solution?”

I doubt you'll watch this documentary because its likely not advertised on Air America.

 

[Minor Axis]

Re: Is the Bush Administration Guilty of Illegal Wiretapping? US Constitution--Lesson

So I assume you would support bringing these people up on charges as well? If not, why not?

I can't make excuses for Democrats who ran for cover which most of them did, but they based their statements on intel that was supplied to them by you know who. However, they did put on Bush the responsibility to go to war only as a last resort. It was cowardly and chicken shit way of handling it because I think they all thought they were being run out of Washington DC by the voters. And I knew that as soon as they did approve that bill, we were going to war. However, they did not start the War, our President did.

 

[Minor Axis]

Re: Is the Bush Administration Guilty of Illegal Wiretapping? US Constitution--Lesson

Bottom line, would you describe our President as an honorable, the-buck-stops-here kind of guy? Would you call his Administration moral and truthful? Would you say this war is about oil and influence in the Middle East? Just curious if you feel like answering.

 

[Alien Allen]

Re: Is the Bush Administration Guilty of Illegal Wiretapping? US Constitution--Lesson

Jesus, the worst you can say was he was wrong. This ridiculous tin foil crap about deliberate lies is absurd.

So while we impeach Bush, what shall we do with all these Democrats:

What Democrats said about Weapons of Mass Destruction



So I assume you would support bringing these people up on charges as well? If not, why not?

Oh come on cut the crap. Let us not let the facts confuse the issue. The democrats are to be held harmless.

 

[Alien Allen]

Re: Is the Bush Administration Guilty of Illegal Wiretapping? US Constitution--Lesson

All I do is listen to what he or any conservative says and ask "sound reasonable" if it does sound reasonable I use it as a starting point for more investigation. It's your absolute right to call him names. But maybe you'll tell me why he is wrong about why we launched the Iraq war, because he's a pompous ass?

I am sure Moore has been debated ad nauseum here. Or is the a protect liberals at all cost web site.

 

[Alien Allen]

Re: Is the Bush Administration Guilty of Illegal Wiretapping? US Constitution--Lesson

I can't make excuses for Democrats who ran for cover which most of them did, but they based their statements on intel that was supplied to them by you know who. However, they did put on Bush the responsibility to go to war only as a last resort. It was cowardly and chicken shit way of handling it because I think they all thought they were being run out of Washington DC by the voters. And I knew that as soon as they did approve that bill, we were going to war. However, they did not start the War, our President did.

That is what we call head in the sand enabling it appears.

There is blood on a lot of hands. When are the liberals going to hold their party accountable? Don't blame it on the intel. Both sides had the same stuff. It is a convenient truth to think otherwise.

 

[Fox Mulder]

Re: Is the Bush Administration Guilty of Illegal Wiretapping? US Constitution--Lesson

I can't make excuses for Democrats who ran for cover which most of them did, but they based their statements on intel that was supplied to them by you know who.

Uhhhh--many of those quoted statements were made before Bush took office. And Clinton also stated that Hussein had WMDs--in fact you will recall he lobbed a few missiles over to Iraq during the Blow Job Crisis.

Let me ask you--do you blame Bush for the attack on Pearl Harbor as well? Or how about the Iran Hostage Crisis? Did he also orchestrate the assassination of JFK?

However, they did put on Bush the responsibility to go to war only as a last resort.

Bullshit, they almost unanimously agreed with him (until no WMDs were found they started backpeddling).

Again--stop getting your news from Air America--learn the facts.

It was cowardly and chicken shit way of handling it because I think they all thought they were being run out of Washington DC by the voters. And I knew that as soon as they did approve that bill, we were going to war. However, they did not start the War, our President did.

So its 100% his fault--no one elses?

You've got such a bad case of Anti-Bush disease, your brain is working now only through "Bush Prism"--you can't see anything outside that prism.

 

[Minor Axis]

Re: Is the Bush Administration Guilty of Illegal Wiretapping? US Constitution--Lesson

So its 100% his fault--no one elses?

You've got such a bad case of Anti-Bush disease, your brain is working now only through "Bush Prism"--you can't see anything outside that prism.

Well there used to be a sign on the President's desk that says "The buck stops here." Unfortunately Bush had it changed to "Underlings will take the buck for me." However I do blame all of those people who knew that intelligence was being cooked for this war and went along with it. But I also realize that anyone who had a place in government who spoke out about the war prior to its start where in most cases canned.

I do have anti-Bush disease, just like I'd fight if cancer were invading my body. I'm not going to quietly accept it. This country has taken a mighty turn for the worse under Bush. If you want to think every thing is dandy, that's your delusion not mine. Try to spin it as you may, but this Administration has been the biggest disaster for this country in the last 50 years. The most sinister aspect that this President brought to the Oval Office is the total disregard for the truth. The end justifies the means means little when you sell your soul to obtain your objectives.

I was listening to NPR today, as I'm sure you love them too. A discussion about Gitmo- regarding detainees- all laws regarding them including Geneva Conventions were suspended. This is why the Supreme Court intervened. (approximate quote). You guys are so quick to agree to the dissolution of your freedoms, because it's your party doing it, it's very scary. I bet you a dollar if it was a Democrat presiding over this MESS, you'd be all up in arms.

Regarding The Center for Public Integrity who I quoted a couple of posts ago regarding Bush Admin lies:

The Mission of the Center for Public Integrity
The mission of the Center for Public Integrity is to produce original investigative journalism about significant public issues to make institutional power more transparent and accountable. To pursue its mission, the Center:

Generates high-quality, accessible investigative reports, databases and contextual analysis on issues of public importance.
Disseminates work to journalists, policymakers, scholars and citizens using a combination of digital, electronic and print media.
Educates, engages and empowers citizens with tools and skills they need to hold governments and other institutions accountable.
Organizes and supports investigative journalists around the world who apply the Center's goals and standards to cross-border projects.
Remains independent by building a strong and sustainable financial base of support, including a community of committed individuals and foundations.
The Center is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, non-advocacy, independent journalism organization based in Washington, D.C.

Read about their ethics here.