He said that Saddam was linked to the WTC attacks in 1993, then immediately thereafter he says that there were ties between Atta and the Iraqi government. Not quite. He said intelligence exists that says such links exist, not that they do actually exist.
Which, of course, implies that Iraq had ties to 9/11. Incorrect. At most, even if we accept that Atta did meet with Iraqi officials, it suggests that this MIGHT be evidence of a link to 9/11.
It's like the Iranian IED stuff. We have evidence those IEDs came from Iran. That does not mean that the Iranian government is arming Iraqi insurgents. It COULD mean that, but it doesn't necessarily mean that, and simply noting the fact that we have intelligence tying those IEDs to Iranian origin does not mean anyone is implying the Iranian government is involved.
Um, maybe what he said? That we had evidence they had ties to someone who was involved in 9/11. But not necessarily 9/11 itself. Stop being silly Stop pretending he said something he didn't.
Cheney stating that the lead attacker met with Iraqi government officials is an implication from Cheney that Iraq had ties to 9/11. False.
What else could he possibly have meant when he made that statement? Um, maybe what he said? That we had evidence they had ties to someone who was involved in 9/11. But not necessarily 9/11 itself.
I would also point out that you will also find very little statements directly connecting Afganistan to 9/11. Of course. They weren't involved, as far as we know. They only harbored al Qaeda, and refused to help us get al Qaeda, which made them the enemy.
Rather, the Whitehouse linked the Taliban to the Al Queada, then Al Queada to 9/11, then used the fact that the Taliban ruled Afganistan that to justify the Afganistan invasion. Nope. In fact, it was only after the Taliban refused to cooperate that this happened. Bush gave an ultimatum to the Taliban: deliver al Qaeda to the U.S., close terrorist camps, give the U.S. forces access. They refused. It was at that point the Taliban became the enemy.
Try as you might, you're not actually getting better at this.
On December 9, 2001, CHENEY announced on NBC's Meet the Press that "it was pretty well confirmed" that lead 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta had met the head of Iraqi intelligence in Prague in April 2001, which statement was, as CHENEY well knew, made without reasonable basis and with reckless disregard for the truth, because it was based on a single witness's uncorroborated allegation that had not been fully investigated by U.S. intelligence agencies.
Your conclusion does not follow from the facts. Just because it had not yet been fully investigated does not mean he had no reasonable basis or had a reckless disregard for truth. That is your own opinion, not a fact of law. The facts are that the Czech government, one of our most important allies in Europe, stood by this claim, and Cheney accepted it. There's no crime here, though you are free to question his judgment.
Try again!
B. On July 15, 2002, POWELL stated on Ted Koppel's Nightline: "What we have consistently said is that the President has no plan on his desk to invade Iraq at the moment, nor has one been presented to him, nor have his advisors come together to put a plan to him," which statement was deliberately false and misleading in that it deceitfully implied the President was not planning an invasion of Iraq when, as POWELL well knew, the President was close to finalizing detailed military plans for such an invasion that he had ordered months previously.
It was not false, deliberately or otherwise. You can think it is misleading, but it could only possibly be misleading to stupid people. I knew precisely what he meant when he said it, and guess what? What he meant is precisely what he said! So you would have me believe he was being misleading by being both accurate and precise.
Try again!
C. On August 26, 2002, CHENEY made numerous false and fraudulent statements including: "Simply stated there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us," when, as CHENEY well knew, this statement was made without reasonable basis and with reckless indifference to the truth in that the IC's then prevailing assessment was that Iraq had neither nuclear weapons nor a reconstituted nuclear weapons program.
That is, quite simply, totally false. In fact, to the contrary, the CIA was telling Cheney and Bush that it was true that Hussein had WMD. And since the quote there said nothing about nuckes, I don't know why you deceptively mention nukes in particular, but it doesn't matter, because the CIA told Cheney Hussein had WMD. (Maybe you incorrectly think WMD == nukes?)
Try again!
D. On September 7, 2002, appearing publicly with Blair, BUSH claimed a recent IAEA report stated that Iraq was "six months away from developing a [nuclear] weapon" and "I don't know what more evidence we need," which statements were made without basis and with reckless indifference to the truth in that: (1) the IAEA had not even been present in Iraq since 1998; and (2) the report the IAEA did write in 1998 had concluded there was no indication that Iraq had the physical capacity to produce weapons-usable nuclear material or that it had attempted to obtain such material.
Again, what he said was true. You really think you're going to get anywhere by accusing him of speaking the truth?
Try again!
E. On September 8, 2002, on Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, RICE asserted that Saddam Hussein was acquiring aluminum tubes that were "only suited" for nuclear centrifuge use, which statement was deliberately false and fraudulent, and made with reckless indifference to the truth in that it omitted to state the following material facts: (1) the U.S. intelligence community was deeply divided about the likely use of the tubes; (2) there were at least fifteen intelligence r
I'm sorry, but the EFF's OWN WORDS are going to trump Wikipedia any day. Shrug. From the lawsuit:
On information and belief, the pen registers and/or trap and trace devices capture, record or decode the dialing, routing, addressing and/or signaling information ("DRAS information") for all or a substantial number of the wire or electronic communications transferred through the AT&T Corp. facilities where they have been installed.
If you are going to contend that the text the EFF uses doesn't CLEARLY SAY what it says No. I am contending it clearly says what it says. You're the one contending it doesn't.
Don't get me wrong, Clinton wasn't that much better but he didn't surround himself with yes men Neither did Bush. You cannot reasonably make the case that Colin Powell, John Ashcroft, and Don Rumsfeld were "yes men." We have very prominent examples of Powell and Ashcroft standing up to Bush when they disagreed, and you can question Rumsfeld's judgment but he was a very opinionated SecDef who spoke his mind.
when the time came he also told people to be honest when people were asking questions So did Bush. Read the Woodward books, particularly the first one. In fact, at one point during the Afghanistan war, Bush went out of his way to kick people in the ass to get them to speak their mind more. That was the turning point for that mission.
Shrug. Then how come nobody can come up with a single example? The Czechs alleged that Mohamed Atta, the lead attacker, met in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official five months before the attack Yep. That's a fact, of course. And it does not imply there was necessarily any connection between Iraq and 9/11, even if there was such a meeting with Iraq and Atta.
Of course, you're right there isn't many statements where they said straight up that Iraq = 9/11. Which is what I've been saying, and people have been disagreeing with me.
As you aluded too, they simply linked Al Queada to 9/11, then linked Al Queda to Iraq, then repeated it enough until people just heard Iraq = 9/11. People hear what they want to hear. I never heard that. And on the other hand, we have people who think Joe Wilson actually disproved Bush's "16 words," that Bush lied pushed the aluminum tubes story contrary to what everyone was telling him, and that Bush didn't very explicitly and publicly reject the 9/11-Iraq back in 2003. None of those things are true, but people hear what they want to hear.
Since all the Daily Shows were removed from youtube I can't link to that specifically but there is this Evidence for the lazy Sigh. Again, this does not show Cheney saying Iraq was involved with 9/11. He said that there was evidence that Iraq had connections to one of the 9/11 hijackers, not to 9/11 itself.
The argument is rather irrelevant considering none of this is new Correct. Yet, you're still getting it wrong.
they've had plenty of time to put out a correct version of the facts if that were even possible Bush has said, explicitly, many times, that we have no evidence Iraq was involved with 9/11.
there is a reason a very very large number of people are under this impression, we didn't pull it out of the thin air Yes, they (you) did.
If that was wrong it shouldn't have taken until 2005 for them to say so. It didn't. Bush said so in September 2003.
As for the rhetoric there is definitely no shortage of it but saying Iraq is another front on the war on terror despite Iraq not being involved in any terror threats whatsoever Nonsense. Even apart from the terrorist threat against George H. W. Bush, Iraq also directly funded terrorists (including Palestinian suicide bombers), and harbored some too (e.g., Abu Nidal).
But since you thought Bush never disclaimed the 9/11-Iraq link until two years after he actually did so, I am unsurprised you don't know about the actual terrorist threats Iraq was involved in.
15. Accordingly, the presentation of information to Congress and the general public through deceit, craft, trickery, dishonest means, and fraudulent representations, including lies, half-truths, material omissions, and statements made with reckless indifference to their truth or falsity, while knowing and intending that such fraudulent representations would influence Congress' decisions regarding authorization to use military force and funding for military action, constitutes interfering with, obstructing, impairing, and defeating a lawful government function of a department of the United States within the meaning of Section 371. Riiiiiight. So making statements told to you by intelligence officials is being fraudulent. Sure, that makes perfect sense!
I don't see the words "Call Accounting Records" there, do you? Not those words, but that concept, yes, I do. Why don't you? This is a part of the lawsuit. Don't blame me if you don't know that fact.
One can't even prove Newton's second law, of course you can't rigorously, 100% prove that he was lying. Save the Descartian equivocation for someone else. There's NO EVIDENCE Bush was lying. None. You just WANT there to be.
What's EFF v. AT&T about, then? For the most part, it is not about wiretapping, it seems to be mostly about gathering information ABOUT calls rather than listening in on calls themselves. There is some allegation of listening to calls, too; but the way it is alleged to being done certainly would not work with a warrant, and because of the way the data is being gathered, might not require one. That is, of course, a question for the courts to decide.
Also, there's a big question as to whether the government needs a warrant if the telcos let them have access. Note that the context of this discussion is activity that would justify impeachment, and if this program is legal (as far as the government's actions are concerned), then that would be a hard case to make.
Cherry picking to get the predecided results is still lying. Prove anyone did that. (You can't.)
Cite all the bullshit you want It's called "evidence." (You ignore it. Have you ever actually READ the Iraq NIE Key Judgments? Or the Butler Report?)
The aluminum tube idea was publically refuted immediately by multiple experts as soon as it was put forward by Bush. Ha. YOU are the one clearly cherry-picking to get predecided results. In fact, we know that multiple experts TOLD Bush about the tubes and that they could be used for enrichment.
You continue to push bogus bullshit knowing full well that it's been proven false. Shrug. You are either lying, or ignorant. It is absolutely a lie to say Bush knew the tubes were false at the time, because we have plenty of evidence of experts telling him both that it was true, and it was false. And it is STILL not known whether the uranium claim was false.
I'm hardly a leftist, Sparky. I actually do evaluate evidence objectively. You actually do not. If you did, you would not still be making the obviously false claims about uranium and tubes.
I despise lies theft and corruption. The Republicans have nothing else to offer at the moment. That is a purely objective assessment You also do not know what "objective" means.
So, when you continue to spew such tired old chestnuts Shrug. You made blatantly false claims, and now you are attacking me for pointing out that fact. If you can't handle truth, don't blame me.
Oh and FWIW, apart from the aforementioned Tenet, the only Democrat in Bush's cabinet was Norm Mineta. He was in Bush's cabinet from the beginning, and left last year. The only Republican I know of in Clinton's cabinet was Bill Cohen, and he did not join the cabinet until 1996. I just don't see how Clinton was so much better. Plus, Bush had Powell, who was a Republican, but disagreed with Bush often.
Ironically the Daily show had the best summary of this playing all the video clips of both Cheney and Bush making the claim that Iraq was linked to 9/11. No, they did not, in fact. Similar to the quotes above, the quotes TDS used didn't actually claim Iraq was involved with 9/11.
They had about a 10 minute video clip of all the times they have spouted it. I don't believe you honestly think the president and vice president never made such a claim as it was everywhere and became party line speak. Shrug. Then how come nobody can come up with a single example?
You're asking for evidence here is just asking people to produce articles describing that the sky is blue. Shrug. I can look up and see the sky is blue. Yet I've never heard Bush or Cheney say Iraq was involved in 9/11. And judging by the complete lack of examples, I don't believe you have, either.
Why on earth would everyone be under the impression that Iraq was linked to Al-qaida? Please do not dishonestly change the subject. No one ever said that Bush or Cheney never linked Iraq to al Qaeda. The topic at hand is whether either ever said Iraq was involved wih 9/11.
What terror events was Iraq involved in before we invaded that would justify the war on terror? That is entirely beside the point.
They have always been intrinsically linked whether you wish to deny it or not. Yes, they have been linked rhetorically. Saying things like "Iraq is another front in the war on terror, that came to our shores on 9/11."
That is, of course, not claiming Iraq was involved in 9/11, something that neither Bush nor Cheney ever did.
Nope, if he doesn't like then his only option is the veto. Again, you're making things up. There's no rule like that in history or the Constitution.
Further, FISA was passed long before Bush came into office, so according to you, he has no option: he has to obey FISA no matter what, even if it conflicts with the Constitution. Nope, that's not the case.
He's simply getting around the prohibition against the line item veto. No, he's not. He is merely telling us his interpretation. He is doing nothing different from any other President in history, except that he is telling us more than the other did. Every other President also disregarded laws they believed were an unconstitutional encroachment on their office; they just didn't tell the public about it.
He must not be allowed to sign a law that he would consider unconstitutional Fine. Amend the Constitution to say so.
If he was to sign a law that he himself considers unconstitutional, then he is in violation. That is an opinion that has no basis in law.
The only problem is that clearly, if Bush did not willfully lie about Iraq then he took loyalty of competence in which case he should be nailed to the wall for being an idiot. Shrug. If you want to make the case that George Tenet scewed up big-time, be my guest.
That was one thing Clinton did right in bringing both democrats and republicans into his cabinet. Which is, of course, what Bush did, as well. Tenet was Clinton's man, though not in the Cabinet. But others in his Cabinet have been Democrats.
Uranium, aluminum tubes, WMDs. All lies. All known to be lies at the time the lies were uttered. You either do not know what you are talking about, or you yourself are lying. I already cited both the Iraq NIE and the Butler Report that prove you are wrong.
All of which he was told *not* to use as they were known to be bullshit at the time. False. In fact, he was told by several agencies the tubes WERE able to be used for nuclear enrichment, as the NIE shows, as we've known for four years.
As for the uranium, you've just been hoodwinked, plain and simple. The intel Bush based his "16 words" on had nothing to do with what Joe Wilson knew, and the forged documents. It was completely separate intel that predated, and was independent of, the forged documents. Again, see the Butler Report. And we've known this for years, too.
You have been repeatedly presented with the facts of the matter "Facts" that people, like you, continue to get wrong.
You *are* an ignorant coward Coward? Shrug, if you say so. Not sure how you have demonstrated bravery beyond mine, but so be it. As to ignorance, I think it's pretty clear from your insistence of things that we have known are false for years now, that you have your own problems with knowledge here.
Go ahead. Try, just TRY, to rebut my claims above. Feel free. Show me that in fact, Bush was not told by several agencies that the tubes were able to be used for nuclear enrichment. Do what NO ONE else has EVER been able to do, and show that Bush's "16 words" were based on anything related to Wilson or the forged documents. Try it, please. I beg you! I need another good laugh!
Indeed, the fact is, that Bush's State of the Union claim about uranium in those "16 words" has never been disproved. Not in public, anyway. The Brits have never released the details behind the claim, and still stand by it. I am not saying we should think it is true, but we have no basis for claiming it is false, either, since we don't even know the details.
You would know all that if you were only as ignorant as me, I guess.
Continuing along in your insane delusional fantasy world has real effects on other people. I hope so. Maybe people will stop believing the lies of the left and learn to evaluate the evidence with an objective mind.
Can you show how you know that on X date when Y statement was made, that the President knew what he was saying was untrue, and he said it for the purpose of deceiving the public? Right, and he can't. We can look back at the tubes, but we know Bush was told conflicting things by his various agencies. So who should he believe about the tubes? And how do we know he didn't believe the people who told them they could be used for enrichment?
And on the uranium... as far as we know, what Bush said was TRUE. We don't even know it was false, because the intelligence it was based on has never been released to the public, according to the Brits, who are the source of the claim.
See, I just shot a guy in the face, and I need someone to tie it up in courts for a few years, and you sound like just the man for the job. All I need you to do is to convince the court that it needs to examine whether me pulling the trigger and making the other person's head explode was really "murder" or not. You can go endlessly into the minutiae of whether the bullet killed the person or not, etc. etc. Shrug. I am not the one making the argument, I am merely explaining it.
international communications. And as soon as you point out the part of the Constitution indicating that any citizen that calls a foreign country immediately has their citizenship revoked without trial That's question-begging, and a straw man, and a red herring.
It is not about citizenship at all. The Fourth Amendment does not protect only citizens. And whether anyone DOES have the right here is what is in question: saying "their citizenship revoked" is assuming the very point in contention, that there is a right to privacy here that the Fourth Amendment addresses.
And finally, when I said international, I did not mean that it takes place solely overseas. On the contrary, the wiretaps were, from what we know, all on calls that were half in the U.S., and half not in the U.S. That would be "international." And there is a long history of Presidents exercising the authority to do that, including Clinton looking at international mail coming to and from the U.S. And then there's two examples of members of the FISA Court of Review echoing the sentiment I've been explaining.
Until then, it's still a wiretap of an American citizen, on American soil, and under American law. Now, I cannot point to where this is in the Constitution, which is why I've said many times, for years, that I tend to think it is illegal (you very foolishly attack me as if I favor the idea). But I am not going to be assume that hundreds of years of precedent are wrong. I think it's illegal, but I do not know enough to say so with certainty. (And clearly, neither do you.)
The president must obey until the courts rule otherwise. That is, simply, not true. You're making it up. That would cede to Congress the authority to dictate Constitutional interpretation to the President, and it's not how it has ever worked.
We granted congress the authority to make law, the president is to enforce them, the courts shall decide their validity, not the president as he does with the signing statements. Again, false. The President takes an oath to uphold the Constitution, not to uphold Congress' interpretation of the Constitution. The President as per his oath is required to determine for himself what proper Constitutional interpretation is, in absence of a specific court ruling.
If he doesn't like a law that he SIGNS, then he must ask the courts to nullify the law before he can disregard it. Such practice is prohibited. You cannot ask the Court to rule on a law, you can only try a case where someone has been harmed. Since the President is charged with executing the law, that means he has to break a law in order to challenge it as illegal. So, no, it can't work that way.
I hope you don't expect anyone to trust your judgment that signing statements are "wrong" when you have demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of these things.
Lazy much? Shrug. If someone makes a claim, it's their duty to back it up. And you have not done so.
"The vice president has asserted long-standing links between the former Iraqi president and Osama Bin Laden's Islamist militant network." True. What's that got to do with Iraq being tied to 9/11?
"The Bush administration has long claimed links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida, and cited them as one reason for last year's invasion of Iraq. On Monday, Vice President Dick Cheney said in a speech that the Iraqi dictator ``had long established ties with al-Qaida.''" True. What's that got to do with Iraq being tied to 9/11?
About 20 seconds before the end Cheney is quoted on Meet the Press talking about an alleged meeting between Iraqi intelligence and Al-Qaida 5 months before 9/11. Yep. We actually did have intelligence claiming that, too, though most now think it isn't valid.
And what's that got to do with Iraq being tied to 9/11? He said we had intel that Iraq met with someone involved with 9/11, but that is not nearly the same thing. Many Americans also met with people involved in 9/11, leading up to the attack itself.
The Washington Post reported Oct. 6 that Cheney often "skated close to the line in ways that may have certainly left that impression on viewers," especially by repeatedly citing the possibility that hijacker Mohamed Atta met with an Iraqi official, a theory disputed by the 9/11 Commission. Shrug. Again, he never said Iraq was tied to 9/11. If people thought that him not saying means something he never said, that doesn't make him culpable for that thing he never said.
I figured someone would provide quotes like this. They do not show what you think they show.
Signing statements are legally meaningless. They are executive orders No, they are not, actually.
negating his obligation to enforce the law as passed by Congress That's the question-begging logical fallacy. The very point at issue is whether the laws in question DO constitute an obligation on the President; that is, whether the Congress is overstepping its own Constitutional authority. If so, then Congress has no authority, and the President has no obligation.
Expressing an opinion is not legally binding, and it is not in any way unconstitutional or unreasonable. You may reasonably think a particular opinion is unreasonable, but certainly not the act of providing opinions.
You have made yourself perfectly clear in your journal that you're okay with it. There is no rational reason to be against it. Indeed, it's puzzling why anyone would be. Would you rather he NOT tell us what his Constitutional interpretation of the law is, so we have to guess?
You're merely comparing him to other presidents. That would put him on a curve. No, you are, as usual, quite wrong. First, I am not "merely" comparing him to other Presidents; that's self-evidently false, as I am doing many other things. Second, not all comparisons are curves, and mine are not.
As it is, impeachment at this time is little more than an excersise in mental masturbation Shrug. I didn't bring it up. I am only commenting on it, like you are.
something you're very good at with all your piddly little legalities you use to justify any and all abuses, with little usuful purpose. Translation: "I am not nearly as smart as Pudge so instead of engaging him on the substance, I'll attack him personally."
I'm all for nailing the whole bunch after January, 2009 on criminal charges. As soon as you come up with evidence of criminal wrongdoing, you let me know. My, you're so cute when you're self-righteously indignant!
This is OT, but what's with the slashdot puck next to your username? First time I've seen that. Official seal of our/. overlords? It means I am an overlord! Muahahahaha *cough*.
Slashdot Mirror
It's like the Iranian IED stuff. We have evidence those IEDs came from Iran. That does not mean that the Iranian government is arming Iraqi insurgents. It COULD mean that, but it doesn't necessarily mean that, and simply noting the fact that we have intelligence tying those IEDs to Iranian origin does not mean anyone is implying the Iranian government is involved.
You're just wrong.
On December 9, 2001, CHENEY announced on NBC's Meet the Press that "it was pretty well confirmed" that lead 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta had met the head of Iraqi intelligence in Prague in April 2001, which statement was, as CHENEY well knew, made without reasonable basis and with reckless disregard for the truth, because it was based on a single witness's uncorroborated allegation that had not been fully investigated by U.S. intelligence agencies.
Your conclusion does not follow from the facts. Just because it had not yet been fully investigated does not mean he had no reasonable basis or had a reckless disregard for truth. That is your own opinion, not a fact of law. The facts are that the Czech government, one of our most important allies in Europe, stood by this claim, and Cheney accepted it. There's no crime here, though you are free to question his judgment.
Try again!
B. On July 15, 2002, POWELL stated on Ted Koppel's Nightline: "What we have consistently said is that the President has no plan on his desk to invade Iraq at the moment, nor has one been presented to him, nor have his advisors come together to put a plan to him," which statement was deliberately false and misleading in that it deceitfully implied the President was not planning an invasion of Iraq when, as POWELL well knew, the President was close to finalizing detailed military plans for such an invasion that he had ordered months previously.
It was not false, deliberately or otherwise. You can think it is misleading, but it could only possibly be misleading to stupid people. I knew precisely what he meant when he said it, and guess what? What he meant is precisely what he said! So you would have me believe he was being misleading by being both accurate and precise.
Try again!
C. On August 26, 2002, CHENEY made numerous false and fraudulent statements including: "Simply stated there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us," when, as CHENEY well knew, this statement was made without reasonable basis and with reckless indifference to the truth in that the IC's then prevailing assessment was that Iraq had neither nuclear weapons nor a reconstituted nuclear weapons program.
That is, quite simply, totally false. In fact, to the contrary, the CIA was telling Cheney and Bush that it was true that Hussein had WMD. And since the quote there said nothing about nuckes, I don't know why you deceptively mention nukes in particular, but it doesn't matter, because the CIA told Cheney Hussein had WMD. (Maybe you incorrectly think WMD == nukes?)
Try again!
D. On September 7, 2002, appearing publicly with Blair, BUSH claimed a recent IAEA report stated that Iraq was "six months away from developing a [nuclear] weapon" and "I don't know what more evidence we need," which statements were made without basis and with reckless indifference to the truth in that: (1) the IAEA had not even been present in Iraq since 1998; and (2) the report the IAEA did write in 1998 had concluded there was no indication that Iraq had the physical capacity to produce weapons-usable nuclear material or that it had attempted to obtain such material.
Again, what he said was true. You really think you're going to get anywhere by accusing him of speaking the truth?
Try again!
E. On September 8, 2002, on Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, RICE asserted that Saddam Hussein was acquiring aluminum tubes that were "only suited" for nuclear centrifuge use, which statement was deliberately false and fraudulent, and made with reckless indifference to the truth in that it omitted to state the following material facts: (1) the U.S. intelligence community was deeply divided about the likely use of the tubes; (2) there were at least fifteen intelligence r
But since you thought Bush never disclaimed the 9/11-Iraq link until two years after he actually did so, I am unsurprised you don't know about the actual terrorist threats Iraq was involved in.
Pull the other one!
Also, there's a big question as to whether the government needs a warrant if the telcos let them have access. Note that the context of this discussion is activity that would justify impeachment, and if this program is legal (as far as the government's actions are concerned), then that would be a hard case to make.
Oh and FWIW, apart from the aforementioned Tenet, the only Democrat in Bush's cabinet was Norm Mineta. He was in Bush's cabinet from the beginning, and left last year. The only Republican I know of in Clinton's cabinet was Bill Cohen, and he did not join the cabinet until 1996. I just don't see how Clinton was so much better. Plus, Bush had Powell, who was a Republican, but disagreed with Bush often.
That is, of course, not claiming Iraq was involved in 9/11, something that neither Bush nor Cheney ever did.
Further, FISA was passed long before Bush came into office, so according to you, he has no option: he has to obey FISA no matter what, even if it conflicts with the Constitution. Nope, that's not the case. He's simply getting around the prohibition against the line item veto. No, he's not. He is merely telling us his interpretation. He is doing nothing different from any other President in history, except that he is telling us more than the other did. Every other President also disregarded laws they believed were an unconstitutional encroachment on their office; they just didn't tell the public about it. He must not be allowed to sign a law that he would consider unconstitutional Fine. Amend the Constitution to say so. If he was to sign a law that he himself considers unconstitutional, then he is in violation. That is an opinion that has no basis in law.
Keep trying!
As for the uranium, you've just been hoodwinked, plain and simple. The intel Bush based his "16 words" on had nothing to do with what Joe Wilson knew, and the forged documents. It was completely separate intel that predated, and was independent of, the forged documents. Again, see the Butler Report. And we've known this for years, too. You have been repeatedly presented with the facts of the matter "Facts" that people, like you, continue to get wrong. You *are* an ignorant coward Coward? Shrug, if you say so. Not sure how you have demonstrated bravery beyond mine, but so be it. As to ignorance, I think it's pretty clear from your insistence of things that we have known are false for years now, that you have your own problems with knowledge here.
Go ahead. Try, just TRY, to rebut my claims above. Feel free. Show me that in fact, Bush was not told by several agencies that the tubes were able to be used for nuclear enrichment. Do what NO ONE else has EVER been able to do, and show that Bush's "16 words" were based on anything related to Wilson or the forged documents. Try it, please. I beg you! I need another good laugh!
Indeed, the fact is, that Bush's State of the Union claim about uranium in those "16 words" has never been disproved. Not in public, anyway. The Brits have never released the details behind the claim, and still stand by it. I am not saying we should think it is true, but we have no basis for claiming it is false, either, since we don't even know the details.
You would know all that if you were only as ignorant as me, I guess. Continuing along in your insane delusional fantasy world has real effects on other people. I hope so. Maybe people will stop believing the lies of the left and learn to evaluate the evidence with an objective mind.
And on the uranium
It is not about citizenship at all. The Fourth Amendment does not protect only citizens. And whether anyone DOES have the right here is what is in question: saying "their citizenship revoked" is assuming the very point in contention, that there is a right to privacy here that the Fourth Amendment addresses.
And finally, when I said international, I did not mean that it takes place solely overseas. On the contrary, the wiretaps were, from what we know, all on calls that were half in the U.S., and half not in the U.S. That would be "international." And there is a long history of Presidents exercising the authority to do that, including Clinton looking at international mail coming to and from the U.S. And then there's two examples of members of the FISA Court of Review echoing the sentiment I've been explaining. Until then, it's still a wiretap of an American citizen, on American soil, and under American law. Now, I cannot point to where this is in the Constitution, which is why I've said many times, for years, that I tend to think it is illegal (you very foolishly attack me as if I favor the idea). But I am not going to be assume that hundreds of years of precedent are wrong. I think it's illegal, but I do not know enough to say so with certainty. (And clearly, neither do you.)
I hope you don't expect anyone to trust your judgment that signing statements are "wrong" when you have demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of these things.
It means I work here.
On Monday, Vice President Dick Cheney said in a speech that the Iraqi dictator ``had long established ties with al-Qaida.''" True. What's that got to do with Iraq being tied to 9/11? About 20 seconds before the end Cheney is quoted on Meet the Press talking about an alleged meeting between Iraqi intelligence and Al-Qaida 5 months before 9/11. Yep. We actually did have intelligence claiming that, too, though most now think it isn't valid.
And what's that got to do with Iraq being tied to 9/11? He said we had intel that Iraq met with someone involved with 9/11, but that is not nearly the same thing. Many Americans also met with people involved in 9/11, leading up to the attack itself. The Washington Post reported Oct. 6 that Cheney often "skated close to the line in ways that may have certainly left that impression on viewers," especially by repeatedly citing the possibility that hijacker Mohamed Atta met with an Iraqi official, a theory disputed by the 9/11 Commission. Shrug. Again, he never said Iraq was tied to 9/11. If people thought that him not saying means something he never said, that doesn't make him culpable for that thing he never said.
I figured someone would provide quotes like this. They do not show what you think they show.
Expressing an opinion is not legally binding, and it is not in any way unconstitutional or unreasonable. You may reasonably think a particular opinion is unreasonable, but certainly not the act of providing opinions. You have made yourself perfectly clear in your journal that you're okay with it. There is no rational reason to be against it. Indeed, it's puzzling why anyone would be. Would you rather he NOT tell us what his Constitutional interpretation of the law is, so we have to guess? You're merely comparing him to other presidents. That would put him on a curve. No, you are, as usual, quite wrong. First, I am not "merely" comparing him to other Presidents; that's self-evidently false, as I am doing many other things. Second, not all comparisons are curves, and mine are not. As it is, impeachment at this time is little more than an excersise in mental masturbation Shrug. I didn't bring it up. I am only commenting on it, like you are. something you're very good at with all your piddly little legalities you use to justify any and all abuses, with little usuful purpose. Translation: "I am not nearly as smart as Pudge so instead of engaging him on the substance, I'll attack him personally." I'm all for nailing the whole bunch after January, 2009 on criminal charges. As soon as you come up with evidence of criminal wrongdoing, you let me know. My, you're so cute when you're self-righteously indignant!
Official seal of our