Slashdot Mirror

I agree with you, and I believe there is competent counsel in the White House. This doesn't mean that it's listened to. When warned that the current wiretapping efforts may be unconstituional, Bush said this:

"I don't give a goddamn," Bush retorted. "I'm the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way."

"Mr. President," one aide in the meeting said. "There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution."

"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It's just a goddamned piece of paper!"

probably spying on these folks....

I'm a liberal libertarian, and I don't particularly care for the Bush family (OK, I loathe them, but that's irrelevant here), and frankly in the last few years conservatives have bugged the shit out of me. But after reading your post, I now have hope where there once was none. We may not agree on many things politically, but at least we seem to be on the same page when it comes to protecting civil liberties and the Constitution. I wish more people were as intellectually honest as you just were (that goes for people of any political affiliation). People have to start putting their country above their political party. Both sides have been guilty of partisan hackery, and sadly, with Republicans being in power of all branches of the government, the unbridled access to power for some of them was just too much to handle. What's that line... "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely." We've recently had front row tickets to a demonstration of what that line means.

For the record, I did support military action in Afghanistan, but opposed it in Iraq. I do support any and all action to stop Iran from developing nukes, short of unilateral invasion (which would forever damage the US economy even beyond the damage done by the boneheaded unilateral Iraq invasion).

But the things you said about the wiretapping are right on the money and I applaud you for not falling into lockstep with the Bushbots who will defend anything he does or says, no matter how boneheaded or wrong.
They had the infrastructure to get warrants for any wiretap they wanted, even after the fact (they have 3 days to get the warrants after the wiretap has been ordered), but they chose not to use it. They have what amounts to the definition of a "rubber stamp" in the form of that secret court where virtually ALL requests for warrants have been granted (I think all but one).

There can only be two logical reasons for that:
1. the sheer volume of wiretaps was too much for the system so the 3 days weren't enough (in which case they simply should have added manpower to process the requests).
2. the wiretaps were not likely to get warrants because they were for regular folks like you or me, who had no connections to terrorists, beyond perhaps a passing contact with a third party who was connected to someone who was suspected of terrorist affiliation or maybe they just checked out the wrong books at the local library.

Whichever it is, neither case is justification in the eyes of the law, and certainly not the Constitution's Bill of Rights.

Actually, there is a third option, but I don't really want to think of it in terms of it being an actual possibility... the ramifications are just too scary.
That option would be that Bush believes he's above the law and that the Constitution is merely a goddamn piece of paper with which he doesn't have to concern himself, and that as a self appointed dictator he can spy on or imprison anyone he seems fit, for any reason or no reason at all.

I don't want to believe this is the case, but maybe that's just the liberal in me, always trying to see the best in people.

Whatever explanation there may be for this, it doesn't change the fact that there is simply no legal justification for warrantless wiretapping, and as such this is in essence what the term "high crimes and misdemeanors" was coined to describe, in Article II, Section 4 of the US Constitution. If willfully and repeatedly breaking federal law and violating the civil rights of thousands of Americans isn't an impeachable offense, I honestly don't know what is.

For all those who falsely claim warrantless wiretaps help protect us, let me quote Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Not as such. He jacks off to a picture of Margaret Thatcher, then he wipes himself with the Constitution. Why not? It's just a piece of paper, after all.

"I don't give a goddamn," Bush retorted. "I'm the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way."

"Mr. President," one aide in the meeting said. "There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution."

"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It's just a goddamned piece of paper!"

Me again,
And no, you assumptive moron, my standard involves it not originating on a website like http://www.capitolhillblue.com/, while not having any other originating, corroborating sources to back it up. I'm no fan of Bush, but let's be honest here, the man is intelligent enough to not say shit like that in a place where his voice would be so obviously heard and reported on. Foreign news sources would masturbate over the chance to be first to print this. They weren't. Sounds fishy.

That's all well and good, but you can swear to defend anything, it doesn't mean you have to. What if he doesn't? With this right-wing government we have in place, who is going to do anything? The Shrub administration would just pull some strings and make up some story about you to make the public think you're not credible. It doesn't have to be true, the public will believe just about anything. If you want to know what W really thinks about the constitution he swore to uphold, take a gander at this report:

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/arti cle_7779.shtml

From the link:

"I don't give a goddamn," Bush retorted. "I'm the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way."

"Mr. President," one aide in the meeting said. "There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution."

"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It's just a goddamned piece of paper!"

Personally, I think the only thing that would make the situation better since we can't rely on the other branches to impeach this fucknut, is someone running a high-velocity slug through his head. Actually, better make it his heart, I'm not convinced there is anything in his head.

Parents keep secrets from children because that's better for them.

There's really no correlation between Bush's position and a parent's position. If we accept your premise that there are cases where the president should be allowed to keep secrets, then you might reasonably argue that it can do so because it knows more than the public. However, one of the following is true:

1. Bush really believed the intel he was given about Iraq, intel which was entirely fucked. In which case, he doesn't know more than the public, and he has no justifiable reason to keep secrets.
2. Bush didn't care about the intel; he was going to go do whatever he wanted anyway. In which case, he was lying, and has no justifiable reason to keep secrets.

After this, though, your logic becomes truly baffling.

If you're not doing anything wrong, what do you care if somebody knows about it.

Last i knew, leaking government secrets was treason and they still executed people for that. We can only hope.

Prior to the US intervention, Afghanistan was a criminal state with Al Qaeda essentially in charge. Al Qaeda was openly running terrorist training camps that drew radical Islamists from around the world and trained them by the tens of thousands.

Iraq was formerly a criminal state run by a blood thirsty maniac

Iraq is well on the way to becoming a democracy

Iran still is a major state sponsor of terrorism, and is seeking nuclear arms while its leader declares that Israel should be wiped off the map

We did change our policy, which is why the terrorists are in trouble

the us can't spy on its people directly so you have a third party do the spying for you, then they turn over any info found!

• White House keeps dossiers on more than 10,000 'political enemies'
• Bush Defends Secret Spying (reg. req.)
• NSA uses ECHELON against US citizens

Two of the larger examples I would point out are Howard Dean and Micheal Moore.

Two days ago my roomate asked me what I thought about Bush's quote, "It's just a G*dd@mn piece of paper". When I said I suspected that was a hoax, since I doubt any politician in this country would be foolish enough to say something, she wouldn't believe me, because to her and her friends it was just a confirmation of what they believe to be true (that Bush would say something like that). Five minutes later with Google showed that every article about that was linked back to one blogger, who never linked his article.

Two of the larger examples I would point out are Howard Dean and Micheal Moore.

Two days ago my roomate asked me what I thought about Bush's quote, "It's just a G*dd@mn piece of paper". When I said I suspected that was a hoax, since I doubt any politician in this country would be foolish enough to say something, she wouldn't believe me, because to her and her friends it was just a confirmation of what they believe to be true (that Bush would say something like that). Five minutes later with Google showed that every article about that was linked back to one blogger, who never linked his article.

You understand that ifyou fear the consequences of reading a book, we're living in a police state and not a free country. Guess Bush was right when he said the Constituion is just "a goddamned piece of paper."

Capitol Hill Blue seems to have a recurring problem with anonymous sources.

I mean, conned for 20 years by the same guy? Doug Thompson should have retired in shame. Obviously he is a gullible mark, and if he doesn't name his "sources" I won't believe a word he says.

I'll add two links to continue your post. The first one is Doug Thompson's rebuttal to all the people that read the story and went ape-shit for him printing it.

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/arti cle_7787.shtml

The second post is a follow-up to the follow-up that he wrote,

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/arti cle_7797.shtml

I'll add two links to continue your post. The first one is Doug Thompson's rebuttal to all the people that read the story and went ape-shit for him printing it.

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/arti cle_7787.shtml

The second post is a follow-up to the follow-up that he wrote,

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/arti cle_7797.shtml

It's from a column in Capitol Hill Blue called "The Rant" that seems to be satire or sarcasm; it does not seem to be real. Capitol Hill Blue published a lot of questionable stories that the rest of the media never picked up or even bothered to acknowledge, such as that Bush was popping pills like crazy and slipping into a paranoid delerium reminiscent of Richard Nixon; that he throws scary and obscene tirades (again, reminiscent of Nixon), and more. It's hard to tell if this stuff is a poor attempt at pulling the wool over people's eyes or some kind of obscure satire, though it certainly is repeated often enough on the internet. But in either case I would be hesitant about believing much of this stuff or spreading it around.

It's from a column in Capitol Hill Blue called "The Rant" that seems to be satire or sarcasm; it does not seem to be real. Capitol Hill Blue published a lot of questionable stories that the rest of the media never picked up or even bothered to acknowledge, such as that Bush was popping pills like crazy and slipping into a paranoid delerium reminiscent of Richard Nixon; that he throws scary and obscene tirades (again, reminiscent of Nixon), and more. It's hard to tell if this stuff is a poor attempt at pulling the wool over people's eyes or some kind of obscure satire, though it certainly is repeated often enough on the internet. But in either case I would be hesitant about believing much of this stuff or spreading it around.

It's from a column in Capitol Hill Blue called "The Rant" that seems to be satire or sarcasm; it does not seem to be real. Capitol Hill Blue published a lot of questionable stories that the rest of the media never picked up or even bothered to acknowledge, such as that Bush was popping pills like crazy and slipping into a paranoid delerium reminiscent of Richard Nixon; that he throws scary and obscene tirades (again, reminiscent of Nixon), and more. It's hard to tell if this stuff is a poor attempt at pulling the wool over people's eyes or some kind of obscure satire, though it certainly is repeated often enough on the internet. But in either case I would be hesitant about believing much of this stuff or spreading it around.

Rense may be a dubious site, but the original article seems to have been at Capitol Hill Blue. I can't vouch for either of them, but the author Doug Thompson says he's confirmed it with three different aides.

Bush calls Constitution just a G-ddamned piece of paper

up the thread they discussed this, the quote comes from http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/arti cle_7779.shtml and the general opinion is that it is a editoral piece of fiction.

It is absolutely not real. It was from an editorial piece written by Doug Thompson.

From the article :
"I've talked to three people present for the meeting that day and they all confirm that the President of the United States called the Constitution "a goddamned piece of paper." "

from the followup

"When a GOP operative first emailed me about the White House meeting where Bush called the Constitution "just a goddamned piece of paper," I put it aside as one of many reports I get about the President's temper tantrums."

"We get tips about Bush's temper and his comments all the time. Most of the tips don't get used because we don't go with information from just one source. The tip about "the goddamned piece of paper" seemed destined for the byte bin until a second aide, in casual conversation, mentioned the comment.

So I called a third source who has confirmed information in the past. At first he was defensive.

"Who told you about that?" I told him I'd picked it up from two other sources.

"Look, you know how the President is," he said. "He gets agitated when people challenge him."

All I wanted to know was did the President of the United States call the Constitution a "goddamned piece of paper."

"Yeah. He did." "

It was not an imaginary converstation

We were the first news outlet to identify the names of women who claimed sexual abuse by Bill Clinton when he was attorney general and later governor of Arkansas. We were the first news outlet to report on the ethical problems of many members of Congress in our series: America's Criminal Class: The Congress of the United States. And we were the first to report on the abuse of underage girls on teen model web sites. Links to all of these award-winning stories can be found on our home page.

That doesn't mean you should take everything we print as gospel. Never do that with us or any other news source. Do your own research and reach your own conclusions. And consider the record of the sources you use for news and information. We've published more than 25,000 stories since going online on October 1, 1994, and we've had to retract two of them. That's a record I'm willing to stand on.

My bio can be found on this link. I put my name on everything I write. And I stand behind what I write. I'm an arrogant, stubborn, driven bastard who takes no prisoners and backs down from no one. When I'm wrong, I admit it. Thankfully, I haven't had to do that very often. When I'm right I don't give a damn who doesn't like it or what they say about it.

An editor who taught me a lot once said: "If you piss off both sides you're doing your job."

That's good enough for me.

It is absolutely not real. It was from an editorial piece written by Doug Thompson.

From the article :
"I've talked to three people present for the meeting that day and they all confirm that the President of the United States called the Constitution "a goddamned piece of paper." "

from the followup

"When a GOP operative first emailed me about the White House meeting where Bush called the Constitution "just a goddamned piece of paper," I put it aside as one of many reports I get about the President's temper tantrums."

"We get tips about Bush's temper and his comments all the time. Most of the tips don't get used because we don't go with information from just one source. The tip about "the goddamned piece of paper" seemed destined for the byte bin until a second aide, in casual conversation, mentioned the comment.

So I called a third source who has confirmed information in the past. At first he was defensive.

"Who told you about that?" I told him I'd picked it up from two other sources.

"Look, you know how the President is," he said. "He gets agitated when people challenge him."

All I wanted to know was did the President of the United States call the Constitution a "goddamned piece of paper."

"Yeah. He did." "

It was not an imaginary converstation

We were the first news outlet to identify the names of women who claimed sexual abuse by Bill Clinton when he was attorney general and later governor of Arkansas. We were the first news outlet to report on the ethical problems of many members of Congress in our series: America's Criminal Class: The Congress of the United States. And we were the first to report on the abuse of underage girls on teen model web sites. Links to all of these award-winning stories can be found on our home page.

That doesn't mean you should take everything we print as gospel. Never do that with us or any other news source. Do your own research and reach your own conclusions. And consider the record of the sources you use for news and information. We've published more than 25,000 stories since going online on October 1, 1994, and we've had to retract two of them. That's a record I'm willing to stand on.

My bio can be found on this link. I put my name on everything I write. And I stand behind what I write. I'm an arrogant, stubborn, driven bastard who takes no prisoners and backs down from no one. When I'm wrong, I admit it. Thankfully, I haven't had to do that very often. When I'm right I don't give a damn who doesn't like it or what they say about it.

An editor who taught me a lot once said: "If you piss off both sides you're doing your job."

That's good enough for me.

here is his bio

Interesting part :
"Thompson took a sabbatical from newspapers in 1981 and moved to Washington to work on Capitol Hill. He served as press secretary for two Congressmen and then Chief of Staff for another before joining the House Committee on Science & Technology. "

Is the Pentagon spying on Americans?

Secret database obtained by NBC News tracks 'suspicious' domestic groups

By Lisa Myers, Douglas Pasternak, Rich Gardella and the NBC Investigative Unit

Updated: 6:18 p.m. ET Dec. 14, 2005

WASHINGTON - A year ago, at a Quaker Meeting House in Lake Worth, Fla., a small group of activists met to plan a protest of military recruiting at local high schools. What they didn't know was that their meeting had come to the attention of the U.S. military.

A secret 400-page Defense Department document obtained by NBC News lists the Lake Worth meeting as a "threat" and one of more than 1,500 "suspicious incidents" across the country over a recent 10-month period.

[...]

The Defense Department document is the first inside look at how the U.S. military has stepped up intelligence collection inside this country since 9/11, which now includes the monitoring of peaceful anti-war and counter-military recruitment groups.

[...](go to link above to read the entire article)

One of the striking aspects of this is that the U.S. military is directly involved in spying on American citizens. Such activity has not been known to occur, publicly, since the Civil War, and is in direct violation of the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878:

20 Stat. L., 145

June 18, 1878

CHAP. 263 - An act making appropriations for the support of the Army for the fiscal year ending June thirtieth, eighteen hundred and seventy-nine, and for other purposes.

SEC. 15. From and after the passage of this act it shall not be lawful to employ any part of the Army of the United States, as a posse comitatus, or otherwise, for the purpose of executing the laws, except in such cases and under such circumstances as such employment of said force may be expressly authorized by the Constitution or by act of Congress; and no money appropriated by this act shall be used to pay any of the expenses incurred in the employment of any troops in violation of this section And any person willfully violating the provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction thereof shall be punished by fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars or imprisonment not exceeding two years or by both such fine and imprisonment.

It is also worth recalling the quaint document that George W. Bush has called "just a goddamned piece of paper" http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/arti cle_7779.shtml, the U.S. Constitution. In particular, the Bill of Rights:

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Please type in the phrase "bush constitution just a piece of paper" into google and see for yourself. Here is the gist of the conversation from

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/arti cle_7779.shtml

GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions of the act could further alienate conservatives still mad at the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.

"I don't give a goddamn," Bush retorted. "I'm the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way."

"Mr. President," one aide in the meeting said. "There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution."

"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It's just a goddamned piece of paper!"

As you can see, it has been reported before. The only news is that it finally made it into the mainstream corporate-censored news stream, a bit like Abu Graib.

What else to expect from Bush, whose desire to shred the constitution is only barely hidden from public view.

As you can see, it has been reported before. The only news is that it finally made it into the mainstream corporate-censored news stream, a bit like Abu Graib.

What else to expect from Bush, whose desire to shred the constitution is only barely hidden from public view.

When Bush can say the constitution is "just a goddamned piece of paper"
how is anyone surprised?

BTW, for those who didnt notice, the times held the story for a YEAR.

And this guy broke the story.

When Bush can say the constitution is "just a goddamned piece of paper"
how is anyone surprised?

BTW, for those who didnt notice, the times held the story for a YEAR.

And this guy broke the story.

" How can a guy (Doug Thompon) whose website tagline reads "Because nobody's life, liberty or property are safe while Congress is in session or the White House is occupied" have THREE informants at a private presidential meeting? "

Did you read his BIO?

"Thompson took a sabbatical from newspapers in 1981 and moved to Washington to work on Capitol Hill. He served as press secretary for two Congressmen and then Chief of Staff for another before joining the House Committee on Science & Technology. "

This guy is not an outsider. You work that long in D.C. you make contacts.

If the story is false, fine, he should be sued for libel. If true we have a serious problem.

"I don't give a goddamn," Bush retorted. "I'm the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way." "Mr. President," one aide in the meeting said. "There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution." "Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It's just a goddamned piece of paper!" http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/arti cle_7779.shtml

GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions of the act could further alienate conservatives still mad at the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.

"I don't give a goddamn," Bush retorted. "I'm the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way."

"Mr. President," one aide in the meeting said. "There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution."

"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It's just a goddamned piece of paper!"

No conspiracy theory needed, last I checked Congress was controlled by Republicans not to mention the White House and arguably SCOTUS. When my friends and I saw the first Patriot act pass we knew the sunset would never, ever come. History alone could tell you that.

The abuses have already happened as reported by the inspector general back in 2003. Oh well, this is the ever changing face of America. Funny how this type of big intrusive government is compatible with conservative philosophies. As long as no men are kissing I guess its all dandy.

There are some US state laws that provide this sort of privilege, but no federal law. There is a big dispute in the US over this right now having to do with some journalists who outed a CIA agent. The government is trying to make the journalists name the sources, and so far it looks like the government is winning.

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/arti cle_6251.shtml

Folks its time to move on. George Bush did not win because of some evil Diebold exec or magical vote changing election booths. He won because over 61 million Americans pulled the lever for him.

Erm. How do you know that? I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing with you, I'd just like to know what special information that you have access to that, say, the New York Times doesn't? If you've got some sort of audit logs from all of the voting machines, please, by all means, share with the GAO.

This election was a mess not because of evil Republican voting machines but because people were paid (some in crack) to register voters which brought in fraudulent voter registrations.

I call bullshit. There two -- two -- known incidents of people being registered fraudulently, according to the Republican National Committee Vote Fraud group. (Listen to This American Life's November 1 episode, "Swing Set," Act 2, which is 21:10 into the episode.) Not only were both of these committed by petty criminals paid by the registrant to sign up voters (that is, it was not systemic, just a pair of dopes), but it doesn't matter, since there is, in fact, no way for Mary Poppins to show up and vote. The other case was a Colorado man who registered 35 times. He can only vote once, as you can imagine, so, again, it doesn't matter.

Your implication that there is any parity between two isolated incidents of greedy workers signing up people wrongly and the massive, jail-time-yielding Republican work to suppress the vote or, worse still, systemic Diebold/ES&S fraud is well beyond ludicrous; it is, simply, stupid, and I am embarrassed on your behalf, because it seems that you don't have the good sense to be embarrassed for yourself.

-Waldo Jaquith

This is the hallmark of someone who watched or read convention coverage but not the convention speeches themselves. Was there (too much of) an emphasis on Kerry's vietnam service? Yes. Was that all they talked about? Far from it.

I watched both conventions, and my point was there was too much of it, overshadowing the important messages (in my opinion). I never said that was all they talked about.

First, quotes are meant to indicate when you are using someone else's exact words. I'm fairly sure that Kerry never said that he had a plan for Iraq and the economy, but he couldn't tell us until elected. That sounds more like RNC spin on Kerry. Granted, Kerry hasn't outlined a clear Iraq plan.

"I've been involved in this for a long time, longer than George Bush," he said. "I've spent 20 years negotiating, working, fighting for different kinds of treaties and different relationships around the world. I know that as president there's huge leverage that will be available to me, enormous cards to play, and I'm not going to play them in public. I'm not going to play them before I'm president."

You are right, it wasn't a direct quote and should not have been in quotation marks. However it is basically a paraphrase of what we really said. No RNC spin, this is actually Kerry's story. He knows how to save tens of thousands of lives today, but will not reveal it unless he is elected. I'm not totally sure he has the best interests of the country in mind here (note: I'm not saying that Bush does either).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3 28 98-2004Aug1.html

However, one short phone call to Mr. DeLay, and you can bet that an Assault Weapons Ban re-up would have been introduced, and if Bush really, really wanted it, it would have been passed (Note: He didn't really want it, in case that wasn't obvious).

Of course it is obvious. Nobody who actually understands the ban wants it re-uped. For those who are pro second amendment it represents a symbolic ban that does nothing to curb crime and just serves as "yet another feel good law".
For those who are anti second amendment, there is much more utility in letting it lapse (since it wasn't doing anything anyway) and taking the message to the media that the ban was a critical piece of legislation protecting us from crime and terrorists, and Bush let it die.

As for missing votes, if you break through the RNC spin, you'll find that Kerry is no different from the average Senator.

Right but this is not the average Senator. This is a candidate for the Presidency. Just because our current President seems ok with taking a ton of vacation time and slacking off does not make it ok for all future presidents to do so. Is it wrong to hold a Presidential candidate to a higher standard? Isn't that what we want in a President?

Imagine how quickly government would degenerate into a total mess if all behaviour were justified with the schoolyard-esque "but the other guy is doing it too" excuse. Actually, scratch that, we don't have to imagine that, we are living it now. Missing three quarters of the Senate Intelligence Committee meetings is unacceptable, I don't care how many other Senators do it. (this is verifiable fact, not RNC spin)

It's not great that you've let yourself become a tool of the RNC by spreading their false memes.

It is possible to question Kerry, his record, and statements without being a tool of the RNC. I'm perfectly capable of doing my own research and coming to my own conclusions, thanks. I certainly haven't called you a tool of the DNC because you have spouted "memes" against Bush.

Additional info: I found this article, which mentions specifically that the number was created afterwards:

"Fahrenheit 911" continues to make news:

The Gallup Poll reports only 38 percent of movie goers have a favorable impression of the controversial, anti-Bush film by Michael Moore, based on what they have heard and read about it. Republicans hate it by a six-to-one margin, while Democrats applaud it, four-to-one.

One scene in the propaganda-documentary that always draws chuckles from viewers features Florida GOP Rep. Porter Goss inviting people to call a "toll-free number" to voice their concerns about the Patriot Act. But the flick notes that no such number existed at the time and offered Goss' office number in its stead.

There is one now -- 1-877-858-9040 -- on the Web site of the House intelligence committee, which Goss chairs. A spokeswoman wouldn't say whether the deluge of calls to her boss' office contributed to the establishment of the toll-free line.

Despite its focus on GIs against the Iraq war, the Pentagon's Army and Air Force Exchange Service intends to distribute copies to U.S. bases worldwide.

the Democrats wouldn't have invaded Iraq?

John Kerry would have.

Or lowered taxes for the rich...

The poor don't pay income taxes, pretty much, as a rule. The top 25% of taxpayers pay 83% of the taxes. How do you lower taxes on people who don't pay any taxes, or, in the case of people who get child credits and the EITC, get government subsidies?

or reduced our civil liberties...

Name five you've lost.

or alienated our allies...

Coalition to fight in Iraq included more countries this time than in '91. France and Germany had reasons to support Saddam's regime, namely, they were profiting from the oil-for-food fiasco. While that hasn't been thoroughly investigated yet, it's not going to be a pretty picture for our European "allies."

or wish to take away women's rights...

Again, name five.

or had a term with negative job growth.

And how many of the past presidents were in the midst of a recession when a major act of terrorism struck?

The job losses were a continuing effect of the dot-com bubble, which burst in spring 2000, as well as some bad fiscal policy from the Fed in preparation for Y2K. If you think it's President Bush's fault that people lost jobs, I have some Flooz I'm looking to sell.

I saw a quote in an AP article yesterday, I think, that was from an unemployed guy supporting Kerry, because he thought Kerry was going to create jobs. If you actually think politicians create jobs, there's a reason you're unemployed -- you're stupid. Yes, the Republicans spout the same rhetoric, but it's fiction. If you don't know that, keep drinking the Kool-Aid, my friend. You sir, are the perfect Democrat voter.

Oh, so it's valid now to call George W. Bush a "King?"

It's called "irony" moron, look it up.

Or to say he invoks September 11th at every opportunity?

Yes, because he does. He likes to paint himself as a "war prezzident" who can prevent the next major terrorist attack which will never come.

In reality, the man is smacked up to the tits on a cocktail of drugs and is exremely paranoid and incapable of handling a major disaster.

Or to justify a rich, fanatic like Usama bin Laden's use of commerical jet-liners as a weapon?

I don't justify it, and think it was wrong to kill all those people, as I thought it was wrong to kill all those people in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, I just think that the US shouldn't be getting uppity just because it got its own back, and shouldn't overreact to things like that. Bush speaks of standing up to the terrorists, but if he did that then life would have continued as normal and we wouldn't be suffering all the Orwellian bullshit like USA PATRIOT, delivering a solid "fuck you, we aren't scared" to the terrorists. Maybe the US could reevaluate its position in the world, and maybe not be so cutthroat about its economic interests, oil and the Middle East (and I know all three are intertwined).

From the U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 6:

[...] They shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same [...]

This clause is sometimes put forward by congressmen to try to avoid tickets, since they are "going to and returning from" their sessions. See Sen. Robert Byrd: Invoking an ancient rule to avoid a modern law to find out more.

The problem with the left is that they're so desperate to defeat Bush that they'll do absolutely anything sort of breaking the law

- http://baratunde.com/
- http://goodcrimethink.com/

Here you go!

Where Big Brother Snoops on Americans 24/7

How Big Brother Is Watching, Listening and Misusing Information About You

Here you go!

Where Big Brother Snoops on Americans 24/7

How Big Brother Is Watching, Listening and Misusing Information About You

Well that's an interesting position to put me, a college journalist, in. Look, even when journalists have the purest hearts and the best intentions, they can't possibly write down every aspect of a story, their editors might inadvertently change small things, and people may read the words they write differently than they intend.

The important thing is that whether you get your information from "established news sources," indymedia, blogs, your friends, The Daily Show, Slashdot or whatever, it's your responsibility to think about what you're hearing and seeing.

For those who don't trust the Washington Post or CNN, try
informationclearinghouse.info
capitolhillblue.com

Don't participate. Remember Total Information Awareness still exists.

I

Here, how about this? It's an OP/ED he posted a while back admitting that the "major source" he's had for a long time was fake/an imposter.

Dude, this guy is not credible. It's just that you want to believe it. MoveOn.

CAE's latest project, included a mobile DNA extraction laboratory for testing food products for possible transgenic contamination. It was this equipment which triggered the Kafkaesque chain of events. FBI field and laboratory tests have shown that Kurtz's equipment was not used for any illegal purpose. In fact, it is not even _possible_ to use this equipment for the production or weaponization of dangerous germs. Furthermore, any person in the US may legally obtain and possess such equipment.

In a political climate where the one loses all right to due process at the mere accusation of involvement in terrorism and with Education Secretary Rod Paige revealing the administrations definition of "terrorism" by labeling the National Educational Association a "Terrorist Organization" for excercising their first amendment rights to criticize Bush Regime policy and a White House aide is quoted elsewhere in this discussion as saying "In this administration, you don't have to wear a turban or speak Farsi to be an enemy of the United States. All you have to do is disagree with the President" , there are some things about this particular case that should be regarded as red flags.

Educating people about the presence of unsafe GM organisms in their food could be the "terrorism" in question. In this case, it is not the Bush Regime who is being criticised but their sponsors at Monsanto. According to the Organic Consumer Association the link between Monsanto and the Bush Regime is almost as bad as the Haliburton/Oil Industry Links.

• Clarence Thomas, Supreme Court Judge, "who put GW Bush in office", Former Monsano Lawyer
• Anne Veneman, Secretary of Agriculture, Former boardmember of Monsanto subsidiary
• Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, former monsanto subsidiary board member
• Attorney General John Ashcroft, one of the top two monsanto campaign contribution recipients in a recent election. This is the same John Ashcroft who lost to a dead man in a prior election.
• other campaign recipients

The death of Prof. Kurtz's wife combined with the biological laboratory is legitimate reason for at least some investigation. But it also could be a convenient excuse for an administration that is motivated to harrass him. If these artists have committed a crime, it is probably bad web design (Shitwave Flush (tm) web navigation) rather than terrorism. Unless the mutant flies and roundup-sensitizing compounds prove to be not just consciousness raising experiments but actual intended eco-terrorism; but I certainly don't trust the likes of John Ashcroft to make such a determination.

Bush's Erratic Behavior Worries White House Aides By DOUG THOMPSON Publisher, Capitol Hill Blue Jun 4, 2004, 06:15

President George W. Bush's increasingly erratic behavior and wide mood swings has the halls of the West Wing buzzing lately as aides privately express growing concern over their leader's state of mind.

In meetings with top aides and administration officials, the President goes from quoting the Bible in one breath to obscene tantrums against the media, Democrats and others that he classifies as "enemies of the state."

Worried White House aides paint a portrait of a man on the edge, increasingly wary of those who disagree with him and paranoid of a public that no longer trusts his policies in Iraq or at home.

"It reminds me of the Nixon days," says a longtime GOP political consultant with contacts in the White House. "Everybody is an enemy; everybody is out to get him. That's the mood over there."

In interviews with a number of White House staffers who were willing to talk off the record, a picture of an administration under siege has emerged, led by a man who declares his decisions to be "God's will" and then tells aides to "fuck over" anyone they consider to be an opponent of the administration.

"We're at war, there's no doubt about it. What I don't know anymore is just who the enemy might be," says one troubled White House aide. "We seem to spend more time trying to destroy John Kerry than al Qaeda and our enemies list just keeps growing and growing."

Aides say the President gets "hung up on minor details," micromanaging to the extreme while ignoring the bigger picture. He will spend hours personally reviewing and approving every attack ad against his Democratic opponent and then kiss off a meeting on economic issues.

"This is what is killing us on Iraq," one aide says. "We lost focus. The President got hung up on the weapons of mass destruction and an unproven link to al Qaeda. We could have found other justifiable reasons for the war but the President insisted the focus stay on those two, tenuous items."

Aides who raise questions quickly find themselves shut out of access to the President or other top advisors. Among top officials, Bush's inner circle is shrinking. Secretary of State Colin Powell has fallen out of favor because of his growing doubts about the administration's war against Iraq.

The President's abrupt dismissal of CIA Directory George Tenet Wednesday night is, aides say, an example of how he works.

"Tenet wanted to quit last year but the President got his back up and wouldn't hear of it," says an aide. "That would have been the opportune time to make a change, not in the middle of an election campaign but when the director challenged the President during the meeting Wednesday, the President cut him off by saying 'that's it George. I cannot abide disloyalty. I want your resignation and I want it now."

Tenet was allowed to resign "voluntarily" and Bush informed his shocked staff of the decision Thursday morning. One aide says the President actually described the decision as "God's will."

God may also be the reason Attorney General John Ashcroft, the administration's lightning rod because of his questionable actions that critics argue threatens freedoms granted by the Constitution, remains part of the power elite. West Wing staffers call Bush and