Pages

Search Ratttler

Saturday, December 31, 2005

HAPPY NEW YEAR

From all of us at THE RATTLER to all of you and yours, we wish you a happy new year and lots of good luck in 2006.
zombiemaster

THE LIBERAL MEDIA BIAS !




The Liberal Bias shows its ugly head again by signing the Most controversial conservative Journalist it could find:


Bill Bennett signs with CNN: TV Newser
Bill Bennett signs with CNN: TV Newser
TV Newser: Controversial conservative talk show host Bill Bennett will become a CNN political analyst early in 2006, TVNewser has learned....read on
Talking about scraping the bottom of the barrel. It doesn't matter what these people say-they will always get a job because of gutless executives. CNN replaces a republican political operative masquerading as a journalist for this. I'm surprised that MSNBC fired Michael Savage after this hire. When he goes on The Situation Room, will Paul Begala and James Carville greet him like, "Welcome to the team Buddy!" after he shows up?
The Moderate Voice joins in.

Thursday, December 29, 2005

JUST TIRESOME

I really do get tired of constantly correcting wingnut lies. Whenever the misdeeds of the GOP or Bush come to light, the reaction is always the same. The cockroach army swarms the media, spreading lies, half-truths, and false comparisons. And inevitably, a PT wingnut will slither into our room, brain swollen with rank infection.

SnsualSinkerDEN is a perfect example. He tried to defend his party, but got the gong for spreading lies. He repeated the debunked canard about Clinton and Carter engaging in the same type of warrantless wiretaps as Bush. It's a classic wingnut move, combining their insatiable hunger for Bill's cock, basted with a glaze of false equivalence, and wrapped up in a shell of smarminess and jingoism. Too bad for Snsual, we'd heard it before and we ain't buying it.

It only takes Think Progress a few hours to research and debunk these lies, and we should be grateful for both them and Media Matters. I can't even remember what it was like before we had someone pushing back against wingnut lies. I truly think that this battle will not be won necessarily at the ballot box, but when liberal power is fully formed into a network of media outlets, think tanks, and publications that are as effective at combatting the wingnut message as they are at injecting liberal ideas into mainstream thought. This is a new kind of war, and we need to field an effective army. Until then, never give up, and never yield an inch to the lies.

JC

Wednesday, December 28, 2005

MENTAL MIDGETS MAKE MICHING MALICHO


As if it isn't enough for the neocon orgy of criminals to rape the American electorate in consecutive presidential elections, lie the United States into nearly 45,000 war casualties, and shamelessly redistribute the nation's wealth to the already burgeoning bank accounts of the nation's conglomerate corporations and billionaires via monumental tax breaks - and at the expense of middle and low income families - they now wholeheartedly support, indeed demand, the unconditional surrender of all governmental power to the Executive Branch, the Constitution be damned (as it turns out, Bush has already beatified the Constitution calling it a "goddamn piece of paper"). Avid Fascists like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity use their access to the public airwaves to convince their bigoted constituencies that George W. Bush is worthy of such dictatorial authority. And the wee little tadpoles - MosesKnows, MrArchieBunker, Hondo_1887, Karma-NY, Vigilant Reason, Vic Ferrari, Charlie3, Virginia_1776 - you know, the groveling dogmatic grassroots apologists who Bush wouldn't piss on if they were on fire - latch on to the engorged man-breasts of Rush and Sean for their daily dose of life-sustaining propaganda and spin. As luck would have it, neocon suckling pig Hondo_1887 abandoned the teet early last evening to come enlighten us with his trademark mental midgetry. With so much pap to choose from, it was necessary to pare down Hondo's mental magic to one representative rumination that defines how ridiculous a neocon he really is. I'll call it the Law of Neocon Devolution, and it is especially educational:

Hondo_1887: anyway.... they won't make anything about this in Washington legally... it is just politics as usual... .completely legal

Well shut my mouth and stuff me plumb full of greeee-its, we have a legal genius amongst us - and a neocon, at that. With such a powerful persona as Hondo_1887 on team Bush, I fear all those thousands of legal and constitutional experts and scholars who say the President clearly violated the law to the impeachment standard of a "high crime" are simply wrong! What WILL become of those of us who expect our leaders to lead by example (a philosophy that serves our military well) and abide by the law? Those damn Liberals and their expectations - always getting it wrong!

Is this guy a right wingnutcase or what? Just politics as usual? Completely legal? There is no doubt the President violated the law in authorizing warrantless wiretaps of American citizens. The neocons pull "politics as usual" from their bag of dirty tricks in a not-so-subtle attempt to divert attention away from a colossal Presidental faux-pas, but moreso to mask their own "shock and awe" at the legal ramifications even they cannot deny may lead Bush the way of Tricky Dick Nixon. You can see the consternation (or is it constipation?) in Sean Hannity's expressions as he waxes eloquent about how the law is amiss and how Sein Fuhrer will be vendicated. In PT political rooms, you sense the agony already manifest in the right wingnut psyche - the spin-rich compost and the LOLs are applied, dare I say, more "liberally" than ever - which is typically the case when Bush takes a dump and all the neocon bobbling-heads are momentarily undocked from the mother ship. That said, it is important to give the devil his due; Hondo_1887 brings great talent to the Bush corner, and Bush just might be saved by the bell.

But I don't think so. Not this time. This is a major set-back for the Emporer and his loyal courtiers. Bush has massaged and molested the law too many times with impunity, and the latest transgressions may very well have shaken the other two branches of our government out of their 5-year stupor. This characteristically offensive behavior by the Bush Administration is nothing more than the continuation of the power grab Bush and his band of dancing organgrinder monkeys commenced in November 2000. Members of the Legislature and the Judiciary are expressing skepticism early on - from both political parties - and vow to take action to return balance to government as proscribed by the Constitution. The cotillion is over, folks! It's time to get the Bush regime out of their monkey suits and into something more appropriate for criminals - let's see... how about something in a black and white stiped brushed cotton? Heck, Condi Rice might luck-out and enjoy her incarceration close to home where the progressive state of Alabama has retrofitted it's jail-birds with the classic black and white striped prison garb - you know, to give Alabama that highly sought-after nostalgic ambiance on highway clean-up day. Bush, being the great coward that he is, would require the addition of a verticle yellow streak down the back of his pajamas. Anyway, speaking of legal...

...In the landmark case McColluch v. Maryland (1819), the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution was the "supreme law of the land" in accordance with Article VI, and that nobody was above the law; not individuals, not States, not a branch of the Central Government. In an equally important ruling in Marbury v. Madison (1803), the Justices opined that any Act of Congress or any Law or Act of the Government was subject to Judicial Review and that those Acts or Laws found incompatable with the Constitution are unconstitutional and are therefore invalid (and that includes Executive Orders that fly in the face of the law). In 1967, the Supreme Court ruled that the 4th Amendment protections of American citizens could not be sacrificed for the "convenience of the government;" that a "probable cause" threshold must be met by the government to overcome those protections. In 1978, President Carter signed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) into law, which defines in painstaking detail what is required to spy on foreign entities. FISA language explicitly denies the government warrantless electronic surveillance of American citizens in ALL cases. Finally, in 2001, President Bush signed the Patriot Act into law, which requires a warrant to conduct domestic wiretapping (with the exception of computer systems communications where no warrant is required in most cases), and even sports a provision for a 72-hour grace period in cases where expediency would be lost to the legal process. The Patriot Act also allows the FISA judge to order a wiretapping warrant ex parte easing the government's burden of meeting the "probable cause" standard.

So Hondo_1887, might I suggest when you come to a debate, you come at least minimally prepared with some facts? If you're going to make comments such as that cited above, you really need to have some knowledge base from which to mount your position. As usual, you made a smug, matter-of-fact comment - "completely legal" you wrote - and you were utterly unable to provide even a smattering of evidence that what Bush did was legal, and that tells me you are simply mouthing what Rush and Sean tell you to say. The legal history of this wiretapping business is lined up squarely against the President, and with the added revelation that many of the wiretap warrants Bush sought were actually denied by the FISA Courts, there is the additional contention that Bush conspired to violate the law by countermanding the Judges' rejections and by circumventing legal process. Calling this "politics as usual" is disingenuous, and brings into question the neocons' commitment to one of the hallmarks of our nation's longevity - that we are a nation of laws. It is incumbant upon the House of Representatives to perform its constitutional duty and ensure Bush receives his long overdue comeuppance. If Bush and his disciples are purporting that the Constitution does not transcend the times, if they don't believe that the Constitution is held above all men, and if they believe the law and our rights are an impediment to the national security, then America doesn't have long to live - at least as a free and democratic society. We can only hope Hondo_1887 is wrong in his assessment.

Oh, by-the-way, Hondo_1887 suffered a TKO in the 1st Round, and was unavailable to participate in the group photo op! Karma-NY was still too bloodied by last week's thrashing in PT to appear with his peeps...uhhhh....no pun intended!

vacreeper2003

QUALITY ASSURANCE

The following is offered as a service to the Right-Wing Noise Machine. It's like a giant game of Telephone. Take a look at how effectively the effluvia of wingnut spin has trickled down through the pipelines, gathered as frothy phlegm, and been expelled from the gullet of Rush or Sean or Bill to spatter and ooze into the ear of the wretched PT wingnut. Gaze in mute horror as Hondo vomits his ration into the room:

Hondo_1887: so you hold Clinton guilty? why didn't you bring this up when they Clinton had a place physically searched without a warrant?
Hondo_1887: it is actually
Hondo_1887: but he had that placed searched WITHOUT a court or warrant Jesus Claus
Hondo_1887: so it is no myth, rather, it is FACT
Hondo_1887: Jesus.... why would Bush want to wiretap anyone
Hondo_1887: no
Hondo_1887: none
Hondo_1887: we did it because of 9-11
Hondo_1887: so there is NO suspicion since we had to act on terrorism INSTANDLY
Hondo_1887: so it makes PERFECT sense
Hondo_1887: this was PRIOR to the Patriot Act
Hondo_1887: TERRORISTS
Hondo_1887: that's who
Hondo_1887: too obvious for you?
Hondo_1887: foreign communications ONLY
Hondo_1887: ONLY
Hondo_1887: foreign communications ONLY
Hondo_1887: you don't see it was about finding TERRORISTS before the Patriot Act... which is legal prerogative of the Executive and plenty of precident
Hondo_1887: no
Hondo_1887: it is NOT a violation
Hondo_1887: at all
Hondo_1887: Clinton did it
Hondo_1887: Carter did it
Hondo_1887: not a violation and a number of democrats agree it was not illegal at all
Hondo_1887: anyway.... they won't make anything about this in Washington legally... it is just politics as usual... .completely legal
Hondo_1887: but the MEDIA and some DEMOCRATS will play to some stupid democrats to make political headway, but you won't see any LEGAL action taken
Hondo_1887: on it
Hondo_1887: mark my words.... NO LEGAL ACTION WILL BE TAKEN
Hondo_1887: why?
Hondo_1887: because it is legal
Hondo_1887: that's why
Hondo_1887: JUST WATCH WASHINGTON
Hondo_1887: no legal action will be taken
Hondo_1887: and then KNOW I am right (as usual)
Hondo_1887: Jesus is asking CONGRESS as he speaks to LOOK INTO IT.
Hondo_1887: That should say it
Hondo_1887: to all those that think this isn't about PURE POLITICS to Jesus Claus
Hondo_1887: because it IS
Hondo_1887: just politics
Hondo_1887: other Presidents have used Executive powers to go around warrants
Hondo_1887: vadreeper. I know the constitution well
Hondo_1887: the Patriot Act does require warrants AFTER THE FACT. The issue there is HOW LONG AFTER THE FACT
Hondo_1887: vacreeper... you understand that when Bush did the wiretapping after 9-11, there was no Patriot Act at all to refer to.
Hondo_1887: and any President that failed to do some wiretapping after 9-11 should be held accountable as IRRESPONSIBLE.
Hondo_1887: Jesus Claus.... all this stuff is politics. We have no doubts that Bush HAD to do something to try to track down the terrorists involved with 9-11 and do so ASAP. Monitoring foreign communications on suspected Al Qaeda ops is fine with me.
Hondo_1887: Jesus... how many overseas calls do you do?
Hondo_1887: I do VERY few
Hondo_1887: and not to any terrorists
Hondo_1887: vacreeper.... then where is the legal action against Bush if anything you imagine here is true?
Hondo_1887: vacreeper..... I am patient and content
Hondo_1887: Jesus Claus..... the reason they are trying to make the Patriot Act well, is to prevent abuses when less than responsible Presidents get power.
Hondo_1887: And all is good.
Hondo_1887: vacreeper..... sorry, Bush is one of the great Presidents we have had since our founding. Few can claim responsibility for bringing down a tyrant like Saddam and then bring democracy to a region wherein it is unknown. 60 years from now we might see MANY democracies in the middle east. THANK BUSH

I love it. All the lies about Clinton and Carter. All the casual disregard for civil liberties. All the guileless, doe-eyed trust in the good intentions of this criminal regime. It must bring a tear to the eye of the chief propagandist to see a job so well and thoroughly done.

JC

Tuesday, December 27, 2005

WHERE'S LENNY WHEN YOU NEED HIM?

So, it's been an exciting couple of weeks, hasn't it? Bush has apparently decided that, as he has mentioned before, he'd much rather just be dictator. After all, who needs a dumb ol' constitution ruining his fun, right? I'm genuinely enjoying the instantaneous mythology about domestic spying that was injected into the main line by the right-wing noise machine. Our resident trolls in PT are sprinkling us with this regurgitated nonsense.

Sorry, guys. Clinton didn't do this, Carter never did either. Project Echelon followed FISA rules, and Jamie Gorelick was talking about PHYSICAL searches, which Clinton brought under the purview of FISA. In every sense the wingnuts are following their normal plan. Lie, lie, and lie some more. And when that fails, whine about Ted Kennedy killing a woman and Robert KKK Byrd. It's just pathetic.

JC

Monday, December 26, 2005

UNCLE OSAMA



here's a quirky twist.

Sunday, December 25, 2005

12 MYTHS ABOUT SPYING !!!

Thanks to MediaMatters we have 12 myths about Bush's eavesdropping.

Top 12 media myths and falsehoods on the Bush administration's spying
scandal


Summary: Media Matters presents the top 12 myths and falsehoods
promoted by the media on President Bush's spying scandal stemming from the
recent revelation in The New York Times that he authorized the National Security
Agency (NSA) to eavesdrop on domestic communications without the required
approval of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance court.
As The New York
Times first revealed
on December 16, President Bush issued a secret presidential order shortly after
the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks that authorized the National Security
Agency (NSA) to eavesdrop on international phone and email communications that
originate from or are received within the United States, and to do so without
the court approval normally required under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Act (FISA). Facing increasing scrutiny, the Bush administration and its
conservative allies in the media have defended the secret spying operation with
false and misleading claims that have subsequently been reported without
challenge across the media. So, just in time for the holidays, Media Matters for
America presents the top myths and falsehoods promoted by the media on the Bush
administration's spying scandal.


1: Timeliness necessitated bypassing the
FISA court
Various media outlets have uncritically relayed
President Bush's claim that the administration's warrantless domestic
surveillance is justified because "we must be able to act fast ... so we can
prevent new [terrorist] attacks." But these reports have ignored emergency
provisions in the current law governing such surveillance -- FISA -- that allow
the administration to apply to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for a
search warrant up to 72 hours after the government begins monitoring suspects'
phone conversations. The existence of this 72-hour window debunks the argument
that the administration had to bypass the law to avoid delay in obtaining a
warrant. The fact that the administration never
retroactively sought a warrant
from the FISA court for its surveillance
activities suggests that it was not the need to act quickly that prevented the
administration from complying with the FISA statute, but, rather, the fear of
being denied the warrant.


2: Congress was adequately informed of -- and
approved -- the administration's actions
Conservatives have sought to defend
the secret spying operation by falsely suggesting that the Bush administration
adequately informed Congress of its actions and that Congress raised no
objections. For example, on the December 19 broadcast of Westwood One's The
Radio Factor, host Bill O'Reilly claimed that the NSA's domestic surveillance
"wasn't a secret program" because "the Bush administration did keep key
congressional people informed they were doing this." The claim was also featured
in a December 21 press
release
by the Republican National Committee (RNC).
In fact, both
Republicans and Democrats in Congress have said that the administration likely
did not inform them of the operation to the extent required by the National
Security Act of 1947
, as amended in 2001. Members of both parties have also
said that the objections they did have were ignored by the administration and
couldn't be aired because the program's existence was highly classified.
As
The New York Times reported
on December 21, Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-MI), former Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL),
Senate Intelligence Committee ranking member John D. Rockefeller IV (D-WV), and
Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) have stated that they did not receive
written reports from the White House on the surveillance operation, as required
by the National Security Act:
The demand for written reports was added to the
National Security Act of 1947 by Congress in 2001, as part of an effort to
compel the executive branch to provide more specificity and clarity in its
briefings about continuing activities. President Bush signed the measure into
law on Dec. 28, 2001, but only after raising an objection to the new provision,
with the stipulation that he would interpret it "in a manner consistent with the
president's constitutional authority" to withhold information for
national-security or foreign-policy reasons.
[...]
[I]n interviews, Mr.
Hoekstra, Mr. Graham and aides to Mr. Rockefeller and Mr. Reid all said they
understood that while the briefings provided by [Vice President Dick] Cheney
might have been accompanied by charts, they did not constitute written reports.
The 2001 addition to the law requires that such reports always be in written
form, and include a concise statement of facts and explanation of an activity's
significance.
Further, Rockefeller recently released a copy
of a letter
he wrote to Cheney on July 17, 2003, raising objections to the
secret surveillance operation. As the Times reported
on December 20, Rockefeller said on December 19 that his concerns "were never
addressed, and I was prohibited from sharing my views with my colleagues"
because the briefings were classified. The December 21 Times report
noted that House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said she too sent a
letter to the Bush administration objecting to the secret surveillance
operation, and that Graham alleged that he was never informed "that the program
would involve eavesdropping on American citizens."


3: Warrantless searches of
Americans are legal under the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Act
Conservatives such as nationally syndicated radio host Rush
Limbaugh
and American Cause president Bay Buchanan have defended the
administration by falsely
claiming
that the administration's authorization of domestic surveillance by
the NSA without warrants is legal under FISA. In fact, FISA, which was enacted
in 1978, contains provisions that limit such surveillance to communications
"exclusively between foreign powers," specifically stating that the president
may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order only if there is "no
substantial likelihood" that the communications of "a United States person" -- a
U.S. citizen or anyone else legally in the United States -- will be intercepted.
Such provisions do not allow for the Bush administration's authorization of
domestic surveillance of communications between persons inside the United States
and parties outside the country.
FISA also allows the president and the
attorney general to conduct surveillance without a court order for the purpose
of gathering "foreign intelligence information" for "a period" no more than 15
days "following a declaration of war by the Congress." This provision does not
permit Bush's conduct either, as he acknowledged
that he had reauthorized the program more than 30 times since 2001, and said
that the program is "reviewed approximately every 45 days."


4: Clinton,
Carter also authorized warrantless searches of U.S. citizens
Another tactic
conservatives have used to defend the Bush administration has been to claim that
it is not unusual for a president to authorize secret surveillance of U.S.
citizens without a court order, asserting that Democratic presidents have also
done so. For example, on the December 21 edition
of Fox News's Special Report, host Brit Hume
claimed that former presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton issued executive
orders "to perform wiretaps and searches of American citizens without a
warrant."
But as the ThinkProgress weblog noted
on December 20, executive orders on the topic by Clinton and Carter were merely
explaining the rules established by FISA, which do not allow for warrantless
searches on "United States persons." Subsequent reports by NBC chief foreign
affairs correspondent Andrea
Mitchell
and The
Washington Post
also debunked the conservative talking point while noting
that the claim was highlighted in the December 21 RNC press
release
.
From ThinkProgress, which documented how internet gossip Matt
Drudge selectively
cited
from the Clinton and Carter executive orders to falsely suggest they
authorized secret surveillance of U.S. citizens without court-obtained warrants:
What Drudge
says
:
Clinton, February 9, 1995: "The Attorney General is authorized to
approve physical searches, without a court order"
What Clinton actually
signed
:
Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) [50 U.S.C. 1822(a)] of
the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance] Act, the Attorney General is authorized
to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign
intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General
makes the certifications required by that section.
That section requires the
Attorney General to certify is the search will not involve "the
premises, information, material, or property of a United States person.
"
That means U.S. citizens or anyone inside of the United States.
The entire
controversy about Bush's program is that, for the first time ever, allows
warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens and other people inside of the United
States. Clinton's 1995 executive order did not authorize that.
Drudge pulls
the same trick with Carter.
What Drudge
says
:
Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: "Attorney
General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign
intelligence information without a court order."
What Carter's
executive order
actually says:
1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of
the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the
Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire
foreign intelligence information without a court order, but only if the Attorney
General makes the certifications required by that Section.
What the Attorney
General has to certify under that section is that the surveillance will not
contain "the
contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party.
"
So again, no U.S. persons are involved.


5: Only Democrats are concerned about
the Bush administration's secret surveillance
As part of a larger problem of
imprecise reporting, a number of media reports have falsely
suggested
that the debate over the Bush administration's secret surveillance
of domestic communications is purely a partisan dispute between Democrats and
Republicans. For example, on the December 22 broadcast of NBC's Today, Newsweek
chief political correspondent Howard Fineman said: "[W]hile the Bill of Rights
is something we all cherish, I think the Democrats politically need to be
careful, because the president's going to argue, as he already is, that
post-9-11, strong surveillance measures are required."
In fact, several
prominent Republicans have expressed concern that the Bush administration's
actions might violate the law or otherwise be objectionable. On December 18,
Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-SC) said that "I don't know of any legal basis to go
around" the requirement that the White House formally apply to the FISA court
for a warrant to engage in domestic surveillance, while Sen. John McCain (R-AZ)
said it is a "legitimate question" to ask why "the president chose not to use
FISA." After Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales cited executive authority in
defending the legality of the administration's actions, Sen. Arlen Specter
(R-PA) -- who is in charge of organizing an investigation into the issue --
responded that he was "skeptical of the attorney general's citation of
authority."


6: Debate is between those supporting civil liberties and those
seeking to prevent terrorism
Many media figures have created a false
dichotomy by framing the debate over the Bush administration's actions as one
between those who support protecting civil liberties and those who favor
protecting America from another deadly terrorist attack. For example, NBC host
Katie Couric claimed
the debate amounted to "legal analysts and constitutional scholars versus
Americans, who say civil liberties are important, but we don't want another
September 11," while NBC's Mitchell wondered whether Americans
should be more concerned about "[a] terror attack or someone going into their
hard drive and intercepting their emails."
Such statements set up exactly the
false debate put forth by Cheney and Bush to defend the administration's
actions, as Mitchell subsequently noted on the December 21 edition
of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:
MITCHELL: [T]hey set up
successfully, the White House, this premise of you're either for security and
protecting the American people post-9-11 or you're worried about surveillance.
This either-or proposition, when a lot of people say that's a false
choice.


7: Bin Laden phone leak demonstrates how leak of spy operation could
damage national security
Several media outlets have uncritically cited a 1998
Washington Times report on Osama bin Laden as an example of how leaking
information about the Bush administration's domestic spying operation could harm
national security. The media have falsely suggested that the Washington Times
report revealed that the United States was monitoring bin Laden's conversations
on a satellite phone and that bin Laden quickly ceased using the phone after the
report surfaced. In fact, the article only noted that bin Laden was using a
satellite phone, not that the U.S. was monitoring it; according to a December 22 report
by The Washington Post, bin Laden apparently had stopped using the phone by the
time any newspaper reported that the U.S. had been monitoring his conversations.
Further, the Post noted that another report on bin Laden's phone -- that relied
on the Taliban as its source -- preceded the Washington Times article by nearly
two years, while another report predating the Times article relied on bin Laden
himself.
One example of media misrepresenting the bin Laden incident occurred
on the December 17 edition
of CNN Live Saturday, when correspondent Brian Todd reported:
TODD: We asked
one expert how important it is for the NSA and its methods to be kept so secret.
He cited one breach as an example, the damage done when it was made public that
intelligence agencies were monitoring Osama bin Laden's cell phone calls.
In
a December 19 press
conference
, Bush also highlighted the purported bin Laden leak as an example
of why leaking information about the domestic spying operation was a "shameful
act" that is "helping the enemy":
QUESTION: Thank you, sir. Are you going to
order a leaks investigation into the disclosure of the NSA surveillance
program?
[...]
BUSH: My personal opinion is it was a shameful act, for
someone to disclose this very important program in time of war.
The fact that
we're discussing this program is helping the enemy.
[...]
BUSH: Let me
give you an example about my concerns about letting the enemy know what may or
may not be happening.
In the late 1990s, our government was following Osama
bin Laden because he was using a certain type of telephone. And then the fact
that we were following Osama bin Laden because he was using a certain type of
telephone made it into the press as the result of a leak.
And guess what
happened. Osama bin Laden changed his behavior. He began to change how he
communicated.
But as the December 22 Post report
documented, the August 21, 1998, Washington Times article in question "never
said that the United States was listening in on bin Laden"; the article merely
reported that bin Laden "keeps in touch with the world via computers and
satellite phones." The Post also noted that the Washington Times report was not
the first article to note bin Laden's use of a satellite phone: A December 16,
1996, Time magazine report cited the Taliban in reporting that bin Laden "uses
satellite phones to contact fellow Islamic militants in Europe, the Middle East
and Africa." And the day before the Times article, CNN terrorism analyst Peter
Bergen cited a 1997 interview he conducted with bin Laden to report that bin
Laden "communicates by satellite phone." Finally, the Post noted that it was not
until "after bin Laden apparently stopped using his phone" that the Los Angeles
Times first reported on September 7, 1998, that the U.S. had been monitoring his
phone conversations. As a follow-up Post article
on December 23 noted, bin Laden stopped using the phone "within days of a cruise
missile attack on his training camps in Afghanistan."
The false claim that
the Washington Times article was responsible for causing bin Laden to stop using
the satellite phone apparently originated in the 9-11 Commission report, which asserted:
"Worst of all, al Qaeda's senior leadership had stopped using a particular means
of communication almost immediately after a leak to the Washington Times."


8: Gorelick testimony proved Clinton asserted "the same authority" as Bush
In a
December 20 article headlined "Clinton
Claimed Authority to Order No-Warrant Searches
," National Review White House
correspondent Byron York drew attention to then-Deputy Attorney General Jamie
Gorelick's July 14, 1994, testimony
before the House Intelligence Committee, in which she stated that the president
has "inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches." While York's
article did not explicitly draw a parallel between the Clinton administration's
1994 policy regarding such searches and the current Bush administration
controversy regarding unwarranted domestic surveillance, conservative media
figures such as National Review editor Rich Lowry and syndicated
columnist Charles
Krauthammer
have done just that.
But Gorelick's testimony does not prove that the
Clinton administration believed it had the authority to bypass FISA regulations,
as the Bush administration has argued in the case of the NSA's domestic
wiretapping program.
Unlike electronic surveillance, the "physical searches"
to which Gorelick referred were not restricted by FISA at the time of her 1994
testimony. Therefore, by asserting the authority to conduct physical searches
for foreign intelligence purposes, the Clinton administration was not asserting
that it did not have to comply with FISA. In October 1994, Congress passed
legislation -- with Clinton's
support
-- to require FISA warrants for physical searches. Thereafter, the
Clinton administration never
argued
that any "inherent authority" pre-empted FISA. To the contrary, in
February 1995 Clinton issued an executive
order
that implemented the new FISA requirements on physical searches.
By
contrast, the Bush administration has argued that it has the authority to
authorize surveillance of domestic communications without court orders, despite
FISA's clear and longstanding restrictions on warrantless electronic
eavesdropping.


9: Aldrich Ames investigation is example of Clinton
administration bypassing FISA regulations
Some conservatives have
specifically cited the joint CIA/FBI investigation of Aldrich Ames, a CIA
analyst ultimately convicted of espionage, as an example of Clinton invoking
executive authority to overstep FISA by authorizing a physical search of a
suspect without a court order. For example, on the December 21 edition
of CNN's The Situation Room, Republican attorney Victoria Toensing falsely
claimed
that the Clinton administration did "carry out that authority" to
bypass the FISA requirements "when they went into Aldrich Ames's house without a
warrant."
But as with Gorelick's testimony, the Ames investigation took place
before the 1995 FISA amendment requiring warrants for physical searches. In
other words, in conducting these searches, the Clinton administration did not
bypass FISA because FISA did not address physical searches. Further, there is
ample evidence that the Clinton administration complied with the FISA
requirements that did exist on wiretapping: U.S. District Court Judge Royce C.
Lamberth, who previously served on the FISA court, has noted
the "key role" the court played in the Ames case to "authorize physical entries
to plant eavesdropping devices"; and former deputy assistant attorney general
Mark M. Richard established that "the Attorney General was asked to sign as many
as nine certifications to the FISA court in support of applications for FISA
surveillance" during the Ames investigation.


10: Clinton administration
conducted domestic spying
Conservative media figures have claimed that
during the Clinton administration, the NSA used a program known as Echelon to
monitor the domestic communications of United States citizens without a warrant.
While most have offered no evidence to support this assertion, NewsMax, a
right-wing news website, cited
a February 27, 2000, CBS News 60 Minutes report
that correspondent Steve
Kroft
introduced by asserting: "If you made a phone call today or sent an
email to a friend, there's a good chance what you said or wrote was captured and
screened by the country's largest intelligence agency. The top-secret Global
Surveillance Network is called Echelon, and it's run by the National Security
Agency." NewsMax used the 60 Minutes segment to call into question The New York
Times' December 16 report
that Bush's "decision to permit some eavesdropping inside the country without
court approval was a major shift in American intelligence-gathering practices,
particularly for the National Security Agency, whose mission is to spy on
communications abroad."
On December 19, Limbaugh read the NewsMax article on
his nationally syndicated radio show. Limbaugh told listeners that Bush's
surveillance program "started in previous administrations. You've heard of the
NSA massive computer-gathering program called Echelon. 60 Minutes did a story on
this in February of 2000. Bill Clinton still in office." The Echelon claim has
also been repeated by Wall Street Journal columnist John
Fund
and radio host G.
Gordon Liddy
.
The 60 Minutes report appears to have been based largely on
anecdotal evidence provided by a former Canadian intelligence agent and a former
intelligence employee who worked at Menwith Hill, the American spy station in
Great Britain, in 1979. In addition, the report contained footage of an
assertion by then-Rep. Bob Barr (R-GA) that "Project Echelon engages in the
interception of literally millions of communications involving United States
citizens." But the report also included comments from then-chairman of the House
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Rep. Porter Goss (R-FL), who, Kroft
reported, "still believes ... that the NSA does not eavesdrop on innocent
American citizens." Kroft asked Goss: "[H]ow can you be sure that no one is
listening to those conversations?" Goss responded, "We do have methods for that,
and I am relatively sure that those procedures are working very well."
While
Goss did not say in his 60 Minutes interview that the NSA does not spy on the
domestic communications of Americans without a warrant, then-director of central
intelligence George J. Tenet and then-National Security Agency director Lt. Gen. Michael
V. Hayden
said exactly that to Goss's committee less than two months later.
As ThinkProgress has noted,
Tenet testified before the intelligence committee on April 12, 2000. Denying
allegations that Echelon was used to spy on Americans in the United States
without a warrant, Tenet stated: "We do not target their conversations for
collection in the United States unless a FISA warrant has been obtained from the
FISA court by the Justice Department." In the same hearing, Hayden testified:
"If [an] American person is in the United States of America, I must have a court
order before I initiate any collection [of communications] against him or
her."
Hayden also denied the "urban myth" that the NSA "ask[s] others to do
on our behalf that which we cannot do for ourselves." This appears to have been
a response to the allegation -- noted by 60 Minutes -- that the NSA was
exchanging information with foreign intelligence services that did monitor the
domestic communications of Americans. Hayden stated: "By executive order, it is
illegal for us to ask others to do what we cannot do ourselves, and we don't do
it."
Tenet and Hayden's congressional testimony leaves two possibilities:
Either they were not telling Congress the truth, or the claim that the NSA used
the Echelon program to monitor the domestic communications of Americans is
incorrect.
Hayden now serves as principal deputy director of national
intelligence and has vigorously defended Bush's warrantless domestic
surveillance program. At a December 19 press
conference
, he acknowledged that Bush's program goes beyond what is
authorized under FISA. Hayden described it as "a more -- I'll use the word
'aggressive' program than would be traditionally available under FISA."


11:
Moussaoui case proved that FISA probable-cause standard impedes terrorism
probes
Some of the administration's supporters have attempted to defend the
domestic surveillance program by pointing to a purported situation where the
cumbersome FISA regulations prevented crucial intelligence gathering. In a
December 20 Washington Post op-ed,
Weekly Standard editor William Kristol and American Enterprise Institute
resident scholar Gary Schmitt cited the 2001 case of Zacarias Moussaoui as
evidence that the "difficulty with FISA is the standard it imposes for obtaining
a warrant aimed at" a domestic target. Kristol and Schmitt claimed that the
evidence the FBI had compiled against Moussaoui did not "rise to the level of
probable cause under FISA":
Consider the case of Zacarias Moussaoui, the
French Moroccan who came to the FBI's attention before Sept. 11 because he had
asked a Minnesota flight school for lessons on how to steer an airliner, but not
on how to take off or land. Even with this report, and with information from
French intelligence that Moussaoui had been associating with Chechen rebels, the
Justice Department decided there was not sufficient evidence to get a FISA
warrant to allow the inspection of his computer files. Had they opened his
laptop, investigators might have begun to unwrap the Sept. 11 plot. But strange
behavior and merely associating with dubious characters don't rise to the level
of probable cause under FISA.
But contrary to Kristol and Schmitt's argument
that the probable-cause standard established by FISA was too high in this case,
a 2003 Senate Judiciary Committee report
found that the FBI's evidence against Moussaoui was, in fact, sufficient. The
report instead asserted
that FBI personnel who handled the warrant application "failed miserably" in
their efforts to convince FBI attorneys that the threshold for establishing
probable cause that Moussaoui was an "agent of a foreign power" (and therefore
subject to surveillance pursuant to FISA) had been met .
The bipartisan
report, compiled by Sens. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Charles Grassley (R-IA), and
Arlen Specter (R-PA), examined in detail the FBI's handling of the Moussaoui
FISA application, which was delivered to FBI headquarters by the Minneapolis
field office, handled by a supervisory special agent (SSA) there, and ultimately
rejected as insufficient by FBI attorneys. The senators determined that the SSA
in charge of the application provided
the attorneys with a "truncated" version of the evidence compiled by the
Minneapolis agents and failed
to search for additional "information relevant to the application." Moreover,
the report found that both the SSA and the attorneys had employed
an "unnecessarily high standard" for probable cause -- one that exceeded the
legal requirements set out by FISA:
In our view, the FBI applied too cramped
an interpretation of probable cause and "agent of a foreign power" in making the
determination of whether Moussaoui was an agent of a foreign power. FBI
Headquarters personnel in charge of reviewing this application focused too much
on establishing a nexus between Moussaoui and a "recognized" group, which is not
legally required. Without going into the actual evidence in the Moussaoui case,
there appears to have been sufficient evidence in the possession of the FBI
which satisfied the FISA requirements for the Moussaoui application.
Despite
this report's having established that the FBI's misunderstanding of the FISA
requirements resulted in the rejection of the Moussaoui application, a December
23 New York Times article
reported without challenge the FBI's argument that FISA's "cumbersome submission
requirements" were to blame:
Some agents complained that the FISA court's
cumbersome submission requirements and insistence on strict adherence to the law
had contributed to the impression that the court itself was an obstacle to
aggressive investigation of terror cases. As an example, these agents suggested
F.B.I. lawyers did not seek a FISA warrant in the case of Zacarias Moussaoui,
who was arrested shortly before the 2001 attacks, in part because they believed
the court would reject it.


12: A 2002 FISA review court opinion makes clear
that Bush acted legally
Recently, conservative media figures have
misleadingly cited a 2002 opinion
by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review (FISCR) to claim that
the president could authorize warrantless domestic electronic surveillance
despite FISA's restrictions. They have pointed to the court's reiteration of the
president's inherent constitutional authority to conduct foreign intelligence
surveillance without a warrant, which FISA cannot encroach upon. Therefore, they
argue, Bush could authorize NSA's warrantless monitoring of "U.S. persons,"
regardless of FISA's restrictions.
But, as Media Matters documented, this argument is a red herring. Their citation of
the decision to support the contention that Congress cannot encroach upon the
president's constitutional authority ignores constitutional limits on that
authority. Of course a law passed in 1978 would not trump the Constitution --
the supreme law of the land. The question is the scope of that presidential
authority and whether it extends to acts that would violate the provisions of
FISA protecting U.S. persons from excessive government intrusion. Contrary to
these media figures' suggestions, the 2002 FISCR opinion
does not address that question.
Regardless, media figures have asserted that
the FISCR opinion supports the contention that Bush is not bound by
FISA.
Most prominent among these has been National Review White House
correspondent Byron York, who in a post on the National Review Online's weblog,
The Corner, titled "READ
THIS IMPORTANT ARTICLE
," promoted a Chicago Tribune op-ed
by John Schmidt, an associate attorney general under Clinton, supporting the
legality of the administration's surveillance program. Schmidt wrote:
Four
federal courts of appeal subsequently faced the issue squarely and held that the
president has inherent authority to authorize wiretapping for foreign
intelligence purposes without judicial warrant. In the most recent judicial
statement on the issue, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review,
composed of three federal appellate court judges, said in 2002 that "All the ...
courts to have decided the issue held that the president did have inherent
authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence ... We
take for granted that the president does have that authority."
[...]
But
as the 2002 Court of Review noted, if the president has inherent authority to
conduct warrantless searches, "FISA could not encroach on the president's
constitutional power."
The Drudge Report website also cited Schmidt's
Tribune op-ed with a link
captioned "Associate attorney general under Clinton: President had legal
authority to OK taps ..."
Similarly, a December 20 Wall Street Journal editorial
asserted:
FISA established a process by which certain wiretaps in the context
of the Cold War could be approved, not a limit on what wiretaps could ever be
allowed.
The courts have been explicit on this point, most recently in In Re:
Sealed Case, the 2002 opinion by the special panel of appellate judges
established to hear FISA appeals. In its per curiam opinion, the court noted
that in a previous FISA case (U.S. v. Truong), a federal "court, as did all the
other courts to have decided the issue [our emphasis], held that the President
did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign
intelligence information." And further that, "We take for granted that the
President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not
encroach on the President's constitutional power."
Fox News chief Washington
correspondent Jim Angle made a similar claim on the December 20 edition of Fox
News' Special Report with Brit Hume, stating, "In 2002, [FISA's] own court of
review upheld the president's powers and pointed to an appeals court decision,
noting that it, as did all other courts to have decided the issue, held that the
president did have the inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to
obtain foreign intelligence information."
Others who have repeated this claim
in the media include Bradford Berenson, a former associate White House counsel,
who made the assertion on the December 21 broadcast
of PBS' The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer. Berenson worked
in the Bush White House from 2001 to 2003, and after the September 11 attacks
"played a significant role in the executive branch's counterterrorism
response."
—A.S., J.K., J.S., S.S.M., & R.S.K.

HAPPY HOLIDAYS TO ALL

In the spirit of the season...i was a happy holiday to all of our readers and i hope 2006 is a good one for you.....
Zombie

Friday, December 23, 2005

ITS AN ACT!!!!!

You know what...I think it is time I set the record straight about something that's been bugging me for a long time now concerning people on pal talk discussing my mental health. Allow me to set the record straight so this kind of shit will stop.

I am not as sick as I come off to be. I have a simple case of being Bi-Polar. I take meds for it everyday and you know what, the meds keep me in line. Along with that i see a therapist and a regular doctor to make sure I am keeping my self in check and staying healthy, that my meds are adjusted to be sure I can function in society. Also, I practice yoga and mediation as well to keep myself from allowing stress to trigger a set back (those who have seen me have a set back know what I am talking about).
Now, a lot of you are wondering then what is the deal when I come into the room and go off like I do. The answer to that is very simple. I am having a good time in there. I don't take voodoo polictics nor mainstream seriously as debate or information rooms. I take them as a good old fashioned wild west shoot out rooms. Half of the people in there are more sick and unstable as I am, so when in Rome....do as the Romans do. (LOL). Up until now only a handful of people knew this but I think the joke has run its course and I am ready to return to serious debate and tackle the hot-button issues of today (mixed with a little Bush bashing).
In closing please remember that I care for this country and its people and only want the best for it so we can ensure future generations of the blessing it has been to us.
Thank you for reading and please feel free to comments you like.
ZombieMaster (King of All Paltalk)

Thursday, December 22, 2005

IMPEACH!

MEKNOWS MOSESNOSE DOTH LIE TOO MUCH!


Is there no end to the neocon capacity to lie? The sheer number of crimes Bush and his coterie of criminal clowns commits and the equally outrageous lies served up by his managerie of catering sous chefs to shore up those crimes is absolutely phenomenal, and even laughable! Let's examine a recent bowel movement from frequent fibber MosesKnows, a rising star amongst the PT neocon papmeisters, and just one of the many White House lackeys unable to extract his head from Bush's rectum.

MosesKnows can sound very convincing. He doesn't share that shrill school-girl voice that Dr. Vic Ferrari, BS, MBS, PhBS, LLBS, JDBS, MDBS has, and he generally doesn't speak using condescending language; but my friends, in the greatest tradition of Richard Nixon, he is one prolific raconteur. MosesKnows has a red-phone direct line to the Rush Limbaugh Spin-a-Lie and Pharmacy service. And his latest delicacy is sure to please even the most discerning neocon palate.

The topic on everyone's mind these days is, of course, the "snoopgate" fiasco starring Dim Son and his favorite lap-dog, Condi Rice of NSA fame. Dim doesn't think he violated any law, and of course MosesKnows is right there to scoop up the Presidential poo-poo, but not before the stench permeates the neighborhood! Moses proffers that during a time of war, the President, in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief, enjoys plenary powers and has full authority to kick any law to the curb in the name of national security. He cites the Japanese-American concentration camps and the secret searches and seizures of German-Americans' properties during World War II as the rationale for Bush to conduct illegal wiretaps on American citizens during the war on "terra." MosesKnows suggested that a "mature" interpretation of the Constitution leaves no alternative but to ignore the law as a matter of practice and supplant the law with actions expressly forbidden by law if necessary - with no oversight, to boot. "This thing has to run its course," he lowed, "then we can sort it all out when its all done." MosesDoesntKnow that the legal issues surrounding Bush's latest liberty with liberty are the FISA and the Patriot Act, NOT Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution - Moses wants you to think the 18 September 2001 Congressional Authorization to Use Force as agreed to somehow amended the FISA and magically activated some dormant presidential extraordinary powers clause to authorized warrantless wiretapping of American citizens. I would caution Moses to question any opinion coming from an Alberto Gonzales Justice Department - after all, it was HE who advised Bush that torture was not only legal, but desireable! But MosesKnows is too much the Repuke hack to consider good advice.

My initial reaction to MosesKnows' commentary was "What a f-----g idgit!" Now that I've had several hours to ponder MosesKnows' proposal, my response to the hyperbole is "What a f-----g idgit!" The man does not know the value of his own Constitutional rights. He doesn't know much about the Constitution either! It is difficult to remain patient with neocons who defend George W. Bush regardless of the quantity and scope of his crimes.

The problem with Moses' ridiculously flawed interpretation of the Constitution is that he thinks this issue is about George Bush, when in reality it's about We the People. It doesn't matter to Moses and his neocon camaraderie that George Bush has no compunction about breaching the public trust -- a trust that is the very essence of democratic government. MosesKnows purports a recipe for fanatical Fascism in America. And when you ask people like Moses legitimate questions like "do you think the President has any other law enforcement/national security actions in progress or planned that fly in the face of the law," you get the typical neocon non sequitur about Bill Clinton, or you get some half-baked nitwit notional that we should trust Bush and his motives and his friends and his word and everything about him -- implicitly -- because he is a good, honest, hardworking, Christian American (I have to remind Moses to add white, Anglo-Saxon prostestant to the Bush credentials). Moses surmises that Bush will not be impeached, not because he is innocent of the high crime he admitted to, but because he is the President and the President can do as he damn well pleases because he is the President--talk about the circular logic fallacy of begging the question!

One last note: Bush's wiretapping revelation reminds me of his 18 December 2000 "If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier just as long as I'm the dictator" comment. Perhaps the former Texas Governor was trying to tell us something after all--maybe we didn't take him as seriously as we should have! Of course history makes some of us all the wiser to the totalitarian motives of the George Bushs and Dick Cheneys of this world, and some of us (like MosesKnows) become so enthralled in party politics, we forget that history is replete with bad men, who, like someone who is suicidal, often make vague references as to their ill intentions that wind up being missed, second-guessed, spun or ignored by the very people they can hurt the most. MosesKnows is oblivous; oblivious to the fact that George Bush is trampling on his rights as an American citizen, and more importantly, he is oblivious to that green leafy foliage sprouting at the end of his rapidly elongating snout. MosesKnows? MosesKnows nada, nothing, ne rien! MosesKnows how to lie like a rug.

vacreeper2003

FRAUD

This came in from the news wire


Sunnis, Secular Shiites Unite on Election

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - Sunni Arab and secular political groups joined forces Wednesday to decide whether to call for a repeat of parliamentary elections that gave the Shiite religious bloc a larger than expected lead.
The main Sunni coalition has said the elections were tainted by fraud, including voting centers failing to open, shortages in election materials, reports of multiple voting and forgery.
The election commission, known as the IECI, has said it received 1,250 complaints about violations during the Dec. 15 elections, 25 of which it described as serious. But the commission says it does not expect the complaints will change the overall result, to be announced in January.
U.S. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said ``there have been a number of complaints lodged with IECI, and their track record on following up on these things have been pretty good.''
The election commission's initial assessment ``was there no complaints or incidents that they found that would fall into the most severe category that would throw into question the results of the election,'' McCormack said. ``The IECI is going to work through these complaints and we'll see what they come up with.''
The agreement to join forces over registering complaints was reached at a meeting in the offices of a secular bloc headed by former Shiite Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, a U.S. favorite.
``We decided to form an operations room to collect the complaints from all the affected parties and present them to the Iraqi Electoral Commission'' and international organizations such as the U.N., said Naseer al-Ani of the Sunni Arab Iraqi Islamic Party.
He added that ``rerunning the elections was presented by some parties at today's meeting but they were only ideas.''
The bitter climate has raised questions about U.S. hopes that the election would lead to a more inclusive government involving Sunni Arabs, the minority group that formed the core of Saddam Hussein's government and is now the backbone of the insurgency.
Sporadic violence across the country killed 15 people Wednesday, nearly all of them Iraqi police or army soldiers.
In Baghdad's Green Zone, more than 50 representatives of Sunni Arab political groups met in the offices of Allawi's Iraqi National List.
The parties will meet again Thursday for further discussion, according to al-Ani and others who attended the meeting. The Iraqi Islamic Party is one of the three main partners in the Iraqi Accordance Front headed by Adnan al-Dulaimi.
A senior official in the Shiite United Iraqi Alliance, Hasan al-Rubaiei, said the groups were complaining because they were not doing as well as they expected at the polls.
``Yes, there were complaints from all the political groups that may be right or may be wrong. But these complaints do not change the reality,'' al-Rubaiei said. ``They expected to get a higher number of votes but it did not happen. They are going too far.''
But al-Ani said the election commission was ``not able to fulfill its mission.''
``There was tremendous fraud, and it didn't do what it has to do,'' he said.
Their complaints have focused mainly on Baghdad, Iraq's largest electoral district and one which has large numbers of both Shiites and Sunnis. Preliminary results show the Shiite religious bloc with a commanding lead in the capital.

Wednesday, December 21, 2005

CHILDS PLAY

http://d93.k12.id.us/~tech/smile.html

WINGNUT IGNORANCE AS RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCE

Supernova, Champagne or otherwise...

Today I would like to present a business proposal regarding an exciting new source of energy. This amazing breakthrough has the potential to provide a nearly limitless supply of kilowatt hours for a variety of needs while reducing the waste products inherent in petroleum, nuclear, and even hydroelectric power plants.

How many times have you heard the phrase, "What you don't know could fill the Grand Canyon?" Indeed, I imagine we have all had occasion to meet someone whose breathtaking ignorance has inspired such a query. But the question now is this: what if it were possible to harness the voluminous expanse of such ignorance, and turn it into usable electrical energy? Our team of highly-trained scientists, including 3 Nobel Laureates in Quantum Physics, have constructed a device that they call a Q-Tronic Igno-Paradox Transducer. With this device, it is possible to seize the ignorance of a subject, (at a submolecular level) and transform it into millions if not billions of kilowatts in throughput.

Now, I expect that many of you have questions, and the one foremost in your mind must be this: where can we find subjects who contain such tremendous ugnorance? Surely, no one could survive with such energy pressing constantly at the insides of their skull? Or indeed, cross the street in traffic by themselves. But, I assure you, we have found the ideal subjects. Take a look at this transcript of a chat room conversation:

Jesus Claus: WHY CAN'T BUSH USE FISA?
Jesus Claus: tell us, jay
Jay_LOL: why would he use FISA?
Jesus Claus: because, you numbskull, it gives him instant wiretaps
Jesus Claus: you really don't know anything, do you jay?
Jesus Claus: you don't even understand the issue
Jesus Claus: WHY CAN'T BUSH USE FISA?
Jesus Claus: answer, jay
Jesus Claus: tel us why?
Jesus Claus: explain it to us
Jay_LOL: so he should wait 72 hours Claus
Jay_LOL: hopefully, they are still talking
Jay_LOL: because 72 hours to wait for a court is the difference between gathering info and having a plane hijacked Claus
Jesus Claus: JAY!!!!
Jesus Claus: YOU IDIOT!!!!
Jay_LOL: this is war, not a third grade soccer game
Jesus Claus: you don't have to wait 72 hours, you numbskull!
Jay_LOL: yes, lib logic is that if you are wrong once, then you are always wrong
Jay_LOL: unless of course you are lib, then you are entitled to be wrong all the time
iJesus Claus: jay, you're a moron!
Jesus Claus: FISA doesn't make you wait 72 hours, you idiot!
Jesus Claus: FISA gives a warrant within minutes or hours!
Jay_LOL: Claus, look...if you want me to feel for the "rights" of people linked to Al Queda then your pissing up the wrong tree
Jesus Claus: jay, you don't know what you're talking about!
Jay_LOL: in certain situations it absolutely does Claus
Jesus Claus: with FISA, you can negin taps IMMEDIATELY!
GilBatesJr: FISA warrents can be done after the fact too
Jesus Claus: begin
Jay_LOL: Claus, unfortunately, Im one of the few who seem to know what they are talking about
Jesus Claus: EXACTLY, GIL!
Jesus Claus: JAY, you just said that you have to wait 72 hours for a FISA warrant
Jesus Claus: which is EXACTLY backwards!!!
Jesus Claus: you know NOTHING!!!
Jesus Claus: you speak without facts
Jay_LOL: Im one of the few that actually dont give a damn about the "rights" of treasonous people
Jesus Claus: you are completely wrong
Jesus Claus: begone, fool
GilBatesJr: Immediate spying and then do the paperwork the next day or 2
Jay_LOL: yes of course I did
Jesus Claus: you sully us with your presence
Jay_LOL: eat my ass Claus, your a fucking biased asswipe
Jesus Claus: leave us, jay, and return when you know something
Jesus Claus: you have made a critical error in fact
Jesus Claus: you are dismissed

Notice in particular how the Wingnut reacts angrily when his error is pointed out. Yes, my friends, the Wingnut is indeed the ideal source for this type of energy extraction. Once quarantined, the Wingnuts are fed a steady diet of AM Radio and Fox News, which constantly renews the ignorance energy. In addition, it ensures that the only harm a Wingnut can inflict is against his own kind. Now, if you'll follow me, we can enter the Quarantine Zone and observe the "energy coils" in real time. Please be sure to wear your hazmat suits and protective gear correctly. The specimens have been a bit nippy lately, and Jay_LOL in particular has been known to fling his poo at visitors on numerous occasions...

JC

Tuesday, December 20, 2005

AUSSIE ANGST

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

THIS WAS A REAL CONVERSTION

Who's On First for the Next Generation

George: Condi! Nice to see you. What's happening? Condi: Sir, I have the report here about the new leader of China. George: Great. Lay it on me. Condi: Hu is the new leader of China. George: That's what I want to know. Condi: That's what I'm telling you. George: That's what I'm asking you. Who is the new leader of China? Condi: Yes. George: I mean the fellow's name. Condi: Hu. George: The guy in China. Condi: Hu. George: The new leader of China. Condi: Hu. George: The Chinaman! Condi: Hu is leading China. George: Now whaddya' asking me for? Condi: I'm telling you Hu is leading China. George: Well, I'm asking you. Who is leading China? Condi: That's the man's name. George: That's who's name? Condi: Yes. George: Will you or will you not tell me the name of the new leader of China? Condi: Yes, sir. George: Yassir? Yassir Arafat is in China? I thought he was in the Middle East. Condi: That's correct. George: Then who is in China? Condi: Yes, sir. George: Yassir is in China? Condi: No, sir. George: Then who is? Condi: Yes, sir. George: Yassir? Condi: No, sir. George: Look, Condi. I need to know the name of the new leader of China. Get me the Secretary General of the U.N. on the phone. Condi: Kofi? George: No, thanks. Condi: You want Kofi? George: No. Condi: You don't want Kofi. George: No. But now that you mention it, I could use a glass of milk. And then get me the U.N. Condi: Yes, sir. George: Not Yassir! The guy at the U.N. Condi: Kofi? George: Milk! Will you please make the call? Condi: And call who? George: Who is the guy at the U.N? Condi: Hu is the guy in China. George: Will you stay out of China?! Condi: Yes, sir. George: And stay out of the Middle East! Just get me the guy at the U.N. Condi: Kofi. George: All right! With cream and two sugars. Now get on the phone.

APRIL 20, 2004?


It comes down to two things, either Bush is a liar or he doesn't tell the truth!

BUSH Speech,

April 20, 2004

Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time
you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a
wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're
talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order
before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you
think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing
what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution

Monday, December 19, 2005

SNOOPGATE?


Today it comes to past that Bush broke federal law and has admitted to it on Saturday, Sunday and Monday.

He says he'll do it again and he doesn't give a damn about it.

This is a News report about how Bush didn't want the story leaked in the first place.

-MSNBC, AP

Bush’s Snoopgate

The president was so desperate to kill The New York Times’ eavesdropping story, he summoned the paper’s editor and publisher to the Oval Office. But it wasn’t just out of concern about national security.


Dec. 19, 2005 - Finally we have a Washington scandal that goes beyond sex,
corruption and political intrigue to big issues like security versus liberty and
the reasonable bounds of presidential power. President Bush came out swinging on
Snoopgate—he made it seem as if those who didn’t agree with him wanted to leave
us vulnerable to Al Qaeda—but it will not work. We’re seeing clearly now that
Bush thought 9/11 gave him license to act like a dictator, or in his own mind,
no doubt, like Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War.

No wonder Bush was so desperate that The New York Times not publish its
story on the National Security Agency eavesdropping on American citizens without
a warrant, in what lawyers outside the administration say is a clear violation
of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. I learned this week that on
December 6, Bush summoned Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger and executive editor
Bill Keller to the Oval Office in a futile attempt to talk them out of running
the story. The Times will not comment on the meeting, but one can only imagine
the president’s desperation.
The problem was not that the disclosures would
compromise national security, as Bush claimed at his press conference. His
comparison to the damaging pre-9/11 revelation of Osama bin Laden’s use of a
satellite phone, which caused bin Laden to change tactics, is fallacious; any
Americans with ties to Muslim extremists—in fact, all American Muslims,
period—have long since suspected that the U.S. government might be listening in
to their conversations. Bush claimed that “the fact that we are discussing this
program is helping the enemy.” But there is simply no evidence, or even
reasonable presumption, that this is so. And rather than the leaking being a
“shameful act,” it was the work of a patriot inside the government who was
trying to stop a presidential power grab.
No, Bush was desperate to keep the
Times from running this important story—which the paper had already inexplicably
held for a year—because he knew that it would reveal him as a law-breaker. He
insists he had “legal authority derived from the Constitution and congressional
resolution authorizing force.” But the Constitution explicitly requires the
president to obey the law. And the post 9/11 congressional resolution
authorizing “all necessary force” in fighting terrorism was made in clear
reference to military intervention. It did not scrap the Constitution and allow
the president to do whatever he pleased in any area in the name of fighting
terrorism.

What is especially perplexing about this story is that the 1978 law set up
a special court to approve eavesdropping in hours, even minutes, if necessary.
In fact, the law allows the government to eavesdrop on its own, then
retroactively justify it to the court, essentially obtaining a warrant after the
fact. Since 1979, the FISA court has approved tens of thousands of eavesdropping
requests and rejected only four. There was no indication the existing system was
slow—as the president seemed to claim in his press conference—or in any way
required extra-constitutional action.
This will all play out eventually in
congressional committees and in the United States Supreme Court. If the
Democrats regain control of Congress, there may even be articles of impeachment
introduced. Similar abuse of power was part of the impeachment charge brought
against Richard Nixon in 1974.
In the meantime, it is unlikely that Bush will
echo President Kennedy in 1961. After JFK managed to tone down a New York Times
story by Tad Szulc on the Bay of Pigs invasion, he confided to Times editor
Turner Catledge that he wished the paper had printed the whole story because it
might have spared him such a stunning defeat in Cuba.
This time, the
president knew publication would cause him great embarrassment and trouble for
the rest of his presidency. It was for that reason—and less out of genuine
concern about national security—that George W. Bush tried so hard to kill the
New York Times story.

VIRGINIA_1776 AND THE HOLY GRAIL


Most of us are familiar with the very hilarious Monty Python and the Holy Grail, you know, the low budget comedy featuring Tim the Enchanter, the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch, and the Black Knight who tells King Arthur "none shall pass!"

Enter Virginia_1776, yet another Bushite intent upon exonerating the criminal President despite his arrogant admission of guilt--no expense spared. I liken Virginia_1776 to the Black Knight in The Holy Grail. She drew her sword in VooDoo Politics tonight in defense of her beloved King George the Lesser and decended crash, boom, whollop right in the middle of a gunfight. And despite winding up a quadrapalegic with a frontal labotomy, Virginia_1776 eeks out in her last gasping breaths "it's just a flesh wound ... I'm invincible ... Virginia_1776 always triumphs ... Oh! I see you running away ... King George will beat you all" as the conversation moved on beyond her mental capacity.

You have to give Virginia_1776 high marks for stamina - she defended her misguided understanding of FISA longer than any of us expected she would, dodging all manner of proof that she was wrong until Jesus Claus ended her suffering with the proverbial coup de gras: put up or get out! And Virginia_1776 took her battered body and fled the scene, most likely to lick her copious wounds. Such is the life of a neocon. Unfortunately, Virginia_1776, being the salamander she is, will regenerate her missing limbs - and live to lie yet another day.

vacreeper2003

Pageviews