PDA

View Full Version : White House, Cheney's Office Subpoenaed


Blitzburgh
06-27-2007, 08:49 PM
EXCELLENT! ..... Let the blood letting begin. It will be fun watching to watch all the legal wrangling and squirming by the White House trying to get out of this one. Now let's hope the the Dems have the kahuna's to follow through on nailing these corrupt bastages until they're convicted. I hope they bring down this entire corrupt and deciptful GOP administration. Let it be a lesson to our country ..... "reap what you sew" These nimrods should have never been trusted to lead our country to begin with. The only good to come out of this administration is that Bush broke the GOP ticket for the next 20 years. Thanks to him, nobody trusts 'em or respect 'em as leaders. :cheers:



By LAURIE KELLMAN
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Senate Judiciary Committee subpoenaed the White House and Vice President Dick Cheney's office Wednesday for documents relating to President Bush's warrantless eavesdropping program.

Also named in subpoenas signed by committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D- Vt., were the Justice Department and the National Security Council. The four parties have until July 18 to comply, according to a statement by Leahy's office.

The committee wants documents that might shed light on internal disputes within the administration over the legality of the program.

"Our attempts to obtain information through testimony of administration witnesses have been met with a consistent pattern of evasion and misdirection," Leahy said in his cover letters for the subpoenas. "There is no legitimate argument for withholding the requested materials from this committee."

Echoing its response to previous congressional subpoenas to former administration officials Harriet Miers and Sara Taylor, the White House gave no indication that it would comply.

"We're aware of the committee's action and will respond appropriately," White House spokesman Tony Fratto said. "It's unfortunate that congressional Democrats continue to choose the route of confrontation."

The showdown between the White House and Congress could land in federal court.

Leahy's committee and its counterpart in the House have issued the subpoenas as part of a sweeping look at how much influence the White House exerts over the Justice Department and its chief, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

The probe, in its sixth month, began with an investigation into whether administration officials ordered the firings of eight federal prosecutors, for political reasons. The House and Senate Judiciary committees previously had subpoenaed Miers, one-time legal counsel, and Taylor, a former political director, in that probe.

But with senators of both parties already concerned about the constitutionality of the administration's efforts to root out terrorism suspects in the United States, the committee shifted to the broader question of Gonzales' stewardship of Justice and, in particular, his willingness to permit the wiretapping program.

Piquing the committee's interest was vivid testimony last month by former Deputy Attorney General James Comey about the extent of the White House's effort to override the Justice Department's objections to the program in 2004.

Comey told the Judiciary Committee that Gonzales, then-White House counsel, tried to get Attorney General John Ashcroft to reverse course and recertify the program. At the time, Ashcroft lay in intensive care, recovering form gall bladder surgery.

Ashcroft refused, as did Comey, to whom Ashcroft had temporarily shifted the power of his office during his illness.

The White House recertified the program unilaterally. Ashcroft, Comey, FBI Director Robert Mueller and their staffs prepared to resign. Bush ultimately relented and made changes to the classified program that the Justice officials had demanded, and the agency eventually recertified it.

The fight was one of the most bitter disputes of the Bush presidency and questions remain over whether the program tramples people's civil rights. The administration says the program is crucial to preventing more terrorist attacks.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8Q1A20G0&show_article=1

Stlrs4Life
06-27-2007, 09:58 PM
Now Blitz, you know they will not believe this, they will just discredit the source. It has to come from a more credible source like Limbaugh.

SteelCityMan786
06-27-2007, 10:30 PM
I believe NOTHING of that site or what it has written. I think it's just another version of the onion.

Chronicgaming
06-27-2007, 10:50 PM
Sadly, this has been reported by other sources as well...

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-wiretap28jun28,1,744235.story?coll=la-headlines-nation&track=crosspromo
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/27/AR2007062701456.html

No real surprises though, we've known about the wiretapping since 2005. I'm definitely not happy about it (the wiretapping), but who knows if the administration will hand over the requested documents.

SteelCityMan786
06-27-2007, 10:57 PM
Sadly, this has been reported by other sources as well...

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-wiretap28jun28,1,744235.story?coll=la-headlines-nation&track=crosspromo
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/27/AR2007062701456.html

No real surprises though, we've known about the wiretapping since 2005. I'm definitely not happy about it (the wiretapping), but who knows if the administration will hand over the requested documents.

Ok now let this be a lesson,

Unless the source is credible, people more then likely won't believe it.

tony hipchest
06-27-2007, 11:08 PM
Ok now let this be a lesson,

.

:rolleyes: thats ok. i'll get my "lessons" from more "credible sources".

:toofunny: -( and this marks post #12,901)

Cape Cod Steel Head
06-28-2007, 01:30 AM
Don't you know that Dick Cheney is above the law? Hell, according to him he's not even part of the executive branch of the government.

stlrtruck
06-28-2007, 09:58 AM
EXCELLENT! ..... Let the blood letting begin. It will be fun watching to watch all the legal wrangling and squirming by the White House trying to get out of this one. Now let's hope the the Dems have the kahuna's to follow through on nailing these corrupt bastages until they're convicted. I hope they bring down this entire corrupt and deciptful GOP administration. Let it be a lesson to our country ..... "reap what you sew" These nimrods should have never been trusted to lead our country to begin with. The only good to come out of this administration is that Bush broke the GOP ticket for the next 20 years. Thanks to him, nobody trusts 'em or respect 'em as leaders. :cheers:


I've grown to learn that it doesn't matter what affiliation a politician is associated with they all LIE and CHEAT to the general public of the United States and yet the people that should do something sit idly by and take payoffs as a means to keep quiet.

While all in the process the AMERICAN PEOPLE GET SCREWED!!!!

IMHO, the only thing that Bush may be guilty of is keep with the status quo that Clinton started :toofunny:

SteelCityMan786
06-28-2007, 10:32 AM
I've grown to learn that it doesn't matter what affiliation a politician is associated with they all LIE and CHEAT to the general public of the United States and yet the people that should do something sit idly by and take payoffs as a means to keep quiet.

While all in the process the AMERICAN PEOPLE GET SCREWED!!!!

IMHO, the only thing that Bush may be guilty of is keep with the status quo that Clinton started :toofunny:

That's for sure.

There are only a SELECT few politicians I can probably trust. A select group of Republicans and maybe 1 democrat(Barack Obama)

That is just the case with Bush. I had high hopes for him, and thought that he was going to get us back on track after Clinton put us into further hell. Even though I'd rather him over to Gore and Kerry any day. If they were president, Taxes would be a lot higher. I'd like to once I start paying taxes to have to spend for myself and not be giving it all to the government.

Mosca
06-28-2007, 11:04 AM
In 2000, I voted for Bush over Gore, with reservations. But I really wanted to believe his message of bipartisanship and healing. In retrospect he lied; his administration has produced the most bitter division in government and among the citizenry that I have seen in my life.

In my opinion Clinton's scandals, both personal and political, are small potatoes next to the blatant power grab and attempt to usurp the Constitution that has been engineered by those around Bush. Those currently in power used a national crisis to try and subtly change the course of our government, to try to set in motion a sea change that would have limited freedom, both socially and economically, for all future Americans.

There's nothing wrong with a strong executive branch, but there is something VERY wrong with an imperial executive branch. We need a government, not a big brother.


Tom

stlrtruck
06-28-2007, 12:51 PM
There's nothing wrong with a strong executive branch, but there is something VERY wrong with an imperial executive branch. We need a government, not a big brother.
Tom

While I appreciate that sentiment, I believe the only way for this to truly happen is if a neutral party were formed...say, the AMERICAN Party and the individuals that ran on this ticket took a solemn oath to uphold the American Way for the American People not the big business types!

And if they fail to do so, then underoath they would be allowed to either rot in prison or be unmercifully put to death (their choice).

And once the ship is righted, then we could go back to being the World Power we once were!!!! (and no this doesn't mean hostile take overs or things like that - it means protecting our soil and our allies)

Cape Cod Steel Head
06-28-2007, 01:08 PM
While I appreciate that sentiment, I believe the only way for this to truly happen is if a neutral party were formed...say, the AMERICAN Party and the individuals that ran on this ticket took a solemn oath to uphold the American Way for the American People not the big business types!

And if they fail to do so, then underoath they would be allowed to either rot in prison or be unmercifully put to death (their choice).

And once the ship is righted, then we could go back to being the World Power we once were!!!! (and no this doesn't mean hostile take overs or things like that - it means protecting our soil and our allies)
There already is an American Party. But the don't appear to understand the concept of seperation of chuch and state!

stlrtruck
06-28-2007, 03:59 PM
There already is an American Party. But the don't appear to understand the concept of seperation of chuch and state!

I was unaware of that party name when I put that one in my message. Then I guess we'd have to name it something else - like THE BLUE COLLAR PARTY! ANd if there's one of those then someone else come up with a name.

Preacher
06-28-2007, 05:33 PM
EXCELLENT! ..... Let the blood letting begin. It will be fun watching to watch all the legal wrangling and squirming by the White House trying to get out of this one. Now let's hope the the Dems have the kahuna's to follow through on nailing these corrupt bastages until they're convicted. I hope they bring down this entire corrupt and deciptful GOP administration. Let it be a lesson to our country ..... "reap what you sew" These nimrods should have never been trusted to lead our country to begin with. The only good to come out of this administration is that Bush broke the GOP ticket for the next 20 years. Thanks to him, nobody trusts 'em or respect 'em as leaders. :cheers:


Oh Lord... Here we go again.

Amazing how people think history began in 2000. :shake01:

revefsreleets
06-28-2007, 06:25 PM
The unfortunate reality is that this issue will always be viewed through partisan glasses. It's pretty clear that al Qaeda is severely crippled. It's also pretty clear that the US government has stepped up its surveillance. It's reasonable to assume that the two are related, and I don't believe I've seen a whole slew of cases of people being illegally tapped and persecuted for it. Nonetheless, here we are.

But if there was an attack post-911, and it was later discovered that there was some kind of FISA tap that could have prevented it, and we DIDN'T wiretap, all the same people who are bitching in this thread at Bush for having them would be bitching at him for not having them.

It's a Catch-22.

Preacher
06-28-2007, 06:31 PM
The unfortunate reality is that this issue will always be viewed through partisan glasses. It's pretty clear that al Qaeda is severely crippled. It's also pretty clear that the US government has stepped up its surveillance. It's reasonable to assume that the two are related, and I don't believe I've seen a whole slew of cases of people being illegally tapped and persecuted for it. Nonetheless, here we are.

But if there was an attack post-911, and it was later discovered that there was some kind of FISA tap that could have prevented it, and we DIDN'T wiretap, all the same people who are bitching in this thread at Bush for having them would be bitching at him for not having them.

It's a Catch-22.

Gotta agree with you on this one!!

revefsreleets
06-28-2007, 06:51 PM
Is it a painful? Am I normally that far off?

silver & black
06-28-2007, 07:33 PM
EXCELLENT! ..... Let the blood letting begin. It will be fun watching to watch all the legal wrangling and squirming by the White House trying to get out of this one. Now let's hope the the Dems have the kahuna's to follow through on nailing these corrupt bastages until they're convicted. I hope they bring down this entire corrupt and deciptful GOP administration. Let it be a lesson to our country ..... "reap what you sew" These nimrods should have never been trusted to lead our country to begin with. The only good to come out of this administration is that Bush broke the GOP ticket for the next 20 years. Thanks to him, nobody trusts 'em or respect 'em as leaders. :cheers:



By LAURIE KELLMAN
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Senate Judiciary Committee subpoenaed the White House and Vice President Dick Cheney's office Wednesday for documents relating to President Bush's warrantless eavesdropping program.

Also named in subpoenas signed by committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D- Vt., were the Justice Department and the National Security Council. The four parties have until July 18 to comply, according to a statement by Leahy's office.

The committee wants documents that might shed light on internal disputes within the administration over the legality of the program.

"Our attempts to obtain information through testimony of administration witnesses have been met with a consistent pattern of evasion and misdirection," Leahy said in his cover letters for the subpoenas. "There is no legitimate argument for withholding the requested materials from this committee."

Echoing its response to previous congressional subpoenas to former administration officials Harriet Miers and Sara Taylor, the White House gave no indication that it would comply.

"We're aware of the committee's action and will respond appropriately," White House spokesman Tony Fratto said. "It's unfortunate that congressional Democrats continue to choose the route of confrontation."

The showdown between the White House and Congress could land in federal court.

Leahy's committee and its counterpart in the House have issued the subpoenas as part of a sweeping look at how much influence the White House exerts over the Justice Department and its chief, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

The probe, in its sixth month, began with an investigation into whether administration officials ordered the firings of eight federal prosecutors, for political reasons. The House and Senate Judiciary committees previously had subpoenaed Miers, one-time legal counsel, and Taylor, a former political director, in that probe.

But with senators of both parties already concerned about the constitutionality of the administration's efforts to root out terrorism suspects in the United States, the committee shifted to the broader question of Gonzales' stewardship of Justice and, in particular, his willingness to permit the wiretapping program.

Piquing the committee's interest was vivid testimony last month by former Deputy Attorney General James Comey about the extent of the White House's effort to override the Justice Department's objections to the program in 2004.

Comey told the Judiciary Committee that Gonzales, then-White House counsel, tried to get Attorney General John Ashcroft to reverse course and recertify the program. At the time, Ashcroft lay in intensive care, recovering form gall bladder surgery.

Ashcroft refused, as did Comey, to whom Ashcroft had temporarily shifted the power of his office during his illness.

The White House recertified the program unilaterally. Ashcroft, Comey, FBI Director Robert Mueller and their staffs prepared to resign. Bush ultimately relented and made changes to the classified program that the Justice officials had demanded, and the agency eventually recertified it.

The fight was one of the most bitter disputes of the Bush presidency and questions remain over whether the program tramples people's civil rights. The administration says the program is crucial to preventing more terrorist attacks.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8Q1A20G0&show_article=1

I trust the GOP about as much as I trust the Dems.... not at all.

Both parties suck. Both parties are all about what they can get for themselve's. Both parties are corrupt. POLITICIANS SUCK!

MACH1
06-28-2007, 07:45 PM
I trust the GOP about as much as I trust the Dems.... not at all.

Both parties suck. Both parties are all about what they can get for themselve's. Both parties are corrupt. POLITICIANS SUCK!

DING DING DING we have a winner.

Blitzburgh
06-28-2007, 08:52 PM
In 2000, I voted for Bush over Gore, with reservations. But I really wanted to believe his message of bipartisanship and healing. In retrospect he lied; his administration has produced the most bitter division in government and among the citizenry that I have seen in my life.

In my opinion Clinton's scandals, both personal and political, are small potatoes next to the blatant power grab and attempt to usurp the Constitution that has been engineered by those around Bush. Those currently in power used a national crisis to try and subtly change the course of our government, to try to set in motion a sea change that would have limited freedom, both socially and economically, for all future Americans.

There's nothing wrong with a strong executive branch, but there is something VERY wrong with an imperial executive branch. We need a government, not a big brother.


Tom



Hell of a good post Tom .... I agree on all accounts. :thumbsup:

Mosca
06-28-2007, 09:34 PM
Hell of a good post Tom .... I agree on all accounts. :thumbsup:

Thanks.

I'll add that politicians on both sides think we're a bunch of idiots who don't know what's good for us, like they do.

And although I side more often with the Dems, I have my eyes open; they only reason the Dems are against this is because it effectively disenfranchises their voter base, which blocks their ability to regain control.

It isn't a battle of altruism vs evil; it just happens that one side blocks the other for its own advantage, which also happens to be good for our personal freedom.

As an aside, I read somewhere that the phone and mail infercepting program produced exactly no useable intelligence against terrorism or Al Qaeda; I have no doubt in my mind that the expansion of power had bothing to do with fighting terrorism, and everything to do with increasing the power of the executive office, Hell, even John Ashcroft opposed it! And say what you will about Ashcroft, and I am no fan at all of the man, but he is as anti-terrorist as you can get, just as much as Cheney is... and even he thought it was too much.

Tom

SteelersMongol
06-28-2007, 09:38 PM
They're all the same everywhere, in the US, in Mongolia, ... just looking out for only themselves. And the funny part is that they all act like they're religious. What a joke.

Stlrs4Life
06-28-2007, 11:13 PM
That's for sure.

There are only a SELECT few politicians I can probably trust. A select group of Republicans and maybe 1 democrat(Barack Obama)

That is just the case with Bush. I had high hopes for him, and thought that he was going to get us back on track after Clinton put us into further hell. Even though I'd rather him over to Gore and Kerry any day. If they were president, Taxes would be a lot higher. I'd like to once I start paying taxes to have to spend for myself and not be giving it all to the government.


Further hell by Clinton? This country was way better off the day Clinton left office and turned it over to GW. Clinto left him with a surplus. W is leaving with a record deficit, that my, or your grandchildren will never be able to pay off. As a matter of fact, it took Clinton nearly 8 yeatrs to get us out of 12 years of hell.


Clinton made 3 major mistakes in office:

1) He got a BJ and lied about it.

2) He agreed with a Republican Congress and approved NAFTA


3) He should have never opened the trade doors to China.

Preacher
06-29-2007, 02:26 AM
Further hell by Clinton? This country was way better off the day Clinton left office and turned it over to GW. Clinto left him with a surplus. W is leaving with a record deficit, that my, or your grandchildren will never be able to pay off. As a matter of fact, it took Clinton nearly 8 yeatrs to get us out of 12 years of hell.


Clinton made 3 major mistakes in office:

1) He got a BJ and lied about it.

2) He agreed with a Republican Congress and approved NAFTA


3) He should have never opened the trade doors to China.

:sofunny::sofunny:

Thanks for the laughter, I needed it after a long week.

HometownGal
06-29-2007, 07:51 AM
:sofunny::sofunny:

Thanks for the laughter, I needed it after a long week.

May I join you in that laughter, Father? :sofunny: :toofunny:

The word of the day is............. sheeple.

SteelCityMan786
06-29-2007, 08:47 AM
In 2000, I voted for Bush over Gore, with reservations. But I really wanted to believe his message of bipartisanship and healing. In retrospect he lied; his administration has produced the most bitter division in government and among the citizenry that I have seen in my life.

In my opinion Clinton's scandals, both personal and political, are small potatoes next to the blatant power grab and attempt to usurp the Constitution that has been engineered by those around Bush. Those currently in power used a national crisis to try and subtly change the course of our government, to try to set in motion a sea change that would have limited freedom, both socially and economically, for all future Americans.

There's nothing wrong with a strong executive branch, but there is something VERY wrong with an imperial executive branch. We need a government, not a big brother.


Tom

Clinton Scandals being small potatoes? I could not disagree with you more on this one, Tom. Lying under oath is considered a felony and he should have been jailed for it as well as impeached and expelled. Also, cheating on his wife(coughs monica lewinsky coughs). The only reason he wasn't impeached and removed is because a select few members of congress wouldn't get their heads of their butts and vote the guy out. It's also because of him that Bush has had a huge mess on his hands that he's been elected TWICE to clean up the mess, but he's cleaned up probably his tax hikes with lower taxes and passed no child left behind(Which is still not up to par). After that what else has he done but add to it. I'm not saying Bush has done a much better job then Clinton has, but what Clinton has done was A LOT worse then what Bush did.

SteelCityMan786
06-29-2007, 08:51 AM
Further hell by Clinton? This country was way better off the day Clinton left office and turned it over to GW. Clinto left him with a surplus. W is leaving with a record deficit, that my, or your grandchildren will never be able to pay off. As a matter of fact, it took Clinton nearly 8 yeatrs to get us out of 12 years of hell.


Clinton made 3 major mistakes in office:

1) He got a BJ and lied about it.

2) He agreed with a Republican Congress and approved NAFTA


3) He should have never opened the trade doors to China.

4.)lying under oath.

5.)Cheating on his wife with his intern

6.)(Insert the other numerous problems he did)

A couple of the more reasons this country has went to shambles since H.W. took office. Not to mention H.W. I feel did less damage in one term.

We were better off with Regan. What bad did he do to us?

Blitzburgh
06-29-2007, 08:58 AM
Look at the Clinton bashers lining up ... ha!, too funny.

Tom hit the nail on the head about Clinton's wrong-doings looking like childs play in comparison to the level of corruption and ineptitude Bush and Cheney have shown in the past 6 years!

LOL, looks like you stirred up the hornets nest Tom!


GOOD JOB!

SteelCityMan786
06-29-2007, 04:31 PM
Look at the Clinton bashers lining up ... ha!, too funny.

Tom hit the nail on the head about Clinton's wrong-doings looking like childs play in comparison to the level of corruption and ineptitude Bush and Cheney have shown in the past 6 years!

LOL, looks like you stirred up the hornets nest Tom!


GOOD JOB!

Ok Timeout here Blitz. How is lying under oath childs play compared to going to war illegally? They're both equal.

Another thing to, let's hear what Clinton did when he had actual grounds to use Military Action against someone who attacked us FIRST. Bush took out the taliban and helped bring the Hamid Karzai lead government to power eliminating another chance of another attack coming from Aganistan.

Also, what about National Securtiy? What did Clinton do about that? NOTHING! I don't want to hear anyone say that it wasn't an issue when Clinton was in office. It's been an issue since 1776 when we became independent. It will always be a major issue.

Obstruction of justice and Unauthorized Wire Tapping are some what equal to me. Why? Both are against the law. In addition, lying is one of the worst offenses you can do(Especially while under oath). Unauthorized Wire Tapping is the equivalent of eavesdropping.

I could add more, but it would take me too long.

Also Democrats in congress, STOP TRYING TO MAKE POLITICAL Statements. You know how annoying that is to those of us who have connections to those fighting in the war in either Iraq or Afghanistan today? It's way too early to place a timetable on Iraq. No wonder why the approval level of congress is at a RECORD LOW!

Bottom Line, Clinton left this country in a mess bad enough that Bush has a hard enough time to clean it up. Now he's getting unfairly the lowest ratings while Clinton has unfairly gotten some of the highest ratings. In my opinion, Bush's Job Approval Should be 45% and Clinton's should have been 4%.

Blitzburgh
06-29-2007, 04:56 PM
Ok Timeout here Blitz. How is lying under oath childs play compared to going to war illegally? They're both equal.

.


Wow, this is too easy .... Stop for a moment and put it in perspective, one involves death of a few thousand of our American soldiers (i.e., human lives that destroyed families) and the other doesn't.... .it was merely lying to cover up an embarassing extra-marital affair to save his marriage.

See?... so you can clearly see ... they're not equal. Not even close. :coffee:

HometownGal
06-29-2007, 05:04 PM
Look at the Clinton bashers lining up ... ha!, too funny.

Tom hit the nail on the head about Clinton's wrong-doings looking like childs play in comparison to the level of corruption and ineptitude Bush and Cheney have shown in the past 6 years!

LOL, looks like you stirred up the hornets nest Tom!


GOOD JOB!

Which appears to be what you wanted, Blitz. YAY! :cheer: Having posted with Tom over the last year or so and coming to respect his opinions, though they often differ from mine with regard to national and world affairs, I seriously doubt that "stirring up the hornet's nest" was his intention.

SCM - why even bother trying to reason with those who are so filled with hatred? Instead of frustrating yourself replying to their drivel, thank God every night that you and your family are safe because we have a President who looked terrorism straight in the eye and said "not happening on my watch". I don't agree with everything GWB has done during his tenure and I'm admittedly damned pissed at his stance on illegal immigrants, but like most Americans - keeping my family safe is paramount to everything else. :cheers:

SteelCityMan786
06-29-2007, 05:18 PM
SCM - why even bother trying to reason with those who are so filled with hatred? Instead of frustrating yourself replying to their drivel, thank God every night that you and your family are safe because we have a President who looked terrorism straight in the eye and said "not happening on my watch". I don't agree with everything GWB has done during his tenure and I'm admittedly damned pissed at his stance on illegal immigrants, but like most Americans - keeping my family safe is paramount to everything else. :cheers:

I'm already frustrated just reading this HTG, so that's like me trying to blow off some steam. I also am saying thank god that the president cares about my safety and of every other American in ths county. If it wasn't for him, I don't think I would feel as safe walking around this country. Also I have had my differences with GWB, but hey, he's a politician, and politicians are people as well. They screw up. To a certain level I can stand them, but once they go to a certain level, then that's when I'll be looking for change.

tony hipchest
06-29-2007, 05:37 PM
Clinton Scandals being small potatoes? I could not disagree with you more on this one, Tom. Lying under oath is considered a felony and he should have been jailed for it as well as impeached and expelled. .


Also I have had my differences with GWB, but hey, he's a politician, and politicians are people as well. They screw up. To a certain level I can stand them, .

:rolleyes: obviously biassed

personally i thought the witch hunt for clinton getting a jobber was a waste of taxpayers dollars, and he shoulda never been under oath in the 1st place. im much more concerned with haliburton screwing the pentagon with no vaseline for wartime contracts.

all taxpayers come away wiping their chin with a "stain on their dress" from that one.

SteelCityMan786
06-29-2007, 05:44 PM
:rolleyes: obviously biassed

personally i thought the witch hunt for clinton getting a jobber was a waste of taxpayers dollars, and he shoulda never been under oath in the 1st place. im much more concerned with haliburton screwing the pentagon with no vaseline for wartime contracts.

all taxpayers come away wiping their chin with a "stain on their dress" from that one.

This would be a perfect time for you to hijack the thread.

MACH1
06-29-2007, 05:54 PM
This would be a perfect time for you to hijack the thread.

Did you hear the spice girls are making a come back........:sofunny:

HometownGal
06-29-2007, 05:56 PM
Did you hear the spice girls are making a come back........:sofunny:

Lives in Potataho. Damn it - wrong thread again. :dang::dang::flap::wink02:

tony hipchest
06-29-2007, 06:01 PM
atleast under clinton, only monica wore one:

http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q23/shortyshane_2006/lewinskydress.jpgi got mine, complimentary with the tax breaks :rolleyes: on my latest return. its a little too small, but i think i'll give it to my daughter in 15 years when shes hooking on the street corner to help pay down the deficit.

:chuckle:

fansince'76
06-29-2007, 06:07 PM
Lives in Potataho. Damn it - wrong thread again. :dang::dang::flap::wink02:

Last one to post wins! I'm in the lead! :chuckle:

SteelCityMan786
06-29-2007, 06:13 PM
Last one to post wins! I'm in the lead! :chuckle:

No you're not. :sofunny:

tony hipchest
06-29-2007, 06:17 PM
Last one to post wins! I'm in the lead! :chuckle:http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q23/shortyshane_2006/dick-thumb.gif:sofunny:

tony hipchest
06-29-2007, 06:20 PM
No you're not. :sofunny:

http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q23/shortyshane_2006/LOSER3.jpg

nor are you. :bouncy:

fansince'76
06-29-2007, 06:43 PM
http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q23/shortyshane_2006/dick-thumb.gif:sofunny:

Is his middle name - damn, wrong thread again. :dang: :chuckle:

silver & black
06-29-2007, 06:44 PM
Hmmm.... thing are heating up. Thats why discussing politics is a bad idea... can we talk about the Spice Girls, like someone suggested? :sofunny:

tony hipchest
06-29-2007, 06:48 PM
Hmmm.... thing are heating up. Thats why discussing politics is a bad idea... can we talk about the Spice Girls, like someone suggested? :sofunny:

http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q23/shortyshane_2006/cheney_emotional_chart-1.jpg

back on topic people. isnt this thread about dick going to jail???? :toofunny:

http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q23/shortyshane_2006/DaddyDickCheney.jpg

Blitzburgh
06-29-2007, 07:19 PM
Which appears to be what you wanted, Blitz. YAY! :cheer:

SCM - why even bother trying to reason with those who are so filled with hatred? Instead of frustrating yourself replying to their drivel, thank God every night that you and your family are safe because we have a President who looked terrorism straight in the eye and said "not happening on my watch". I don't agree with everything GWB has done during his tenure and I'm admittedly damned pissed at his stance on illegal immigrants, but like most Americans - keeping my family safe is paramount to everything else. :cheers:

This coming from a few right wing extremist mods who would rather silence the opposition by banning them ... than dealing with the truth.

Yes, before you go night-night, look at your picture of Bush and pretend that Jesus Bush is hugging you while saying, "It's ok ... "W" is your guiding light and he is protecting you from the evils of the world" :jerkit:

Holy smokes ... with sheepish followers that don't dare open door number one ... marked "The truth" .... it's no wonder this country is going full throttle down the crapper! :banging:

Here's a picture to frame and put over the threshold of your home ... look familiar?

tony hipchest
06-29-2007, 07:28 PM
while that picture is definitely hilarious, directing it at one of our fine mods (whom i respect) as you call them out probably isnt the way to go. i hear what youre saying, but we can still get a point across in a more fun and humerous way. this topic deserves discussion and i find the bias how clinton "is evil" and bush "is just a human who makes mistakes" as laughable.

anyways, i dont wanna come across as telling you what to do. you are your own man, and i just dont wanna see a situation escalate beyond the normal banter where a poster with a strong (and important) view gets banned.

Dick says "Whoa"
http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q23/shortyshane_2006/cheney_baghdad_dick.jpg

SteelCityMan786
06-29-2007, 08:02 PM
This coming from a few right wing extremist mods who would rather silence the opposition by banning them ... than dealing with the truth.

Yes, before you go night-night, look at your picture of Bush and pretend that Jesus Bush is hugging you while saying, "It's ok ... "W" is your guiding light and he is protecting you from the evils of the world" :jerkit:

Holy smokes ... with sheepish followers that don't dare open door number one ... marked "The truth" .... it's no wonder this country is going full throttle down the crapper! :banging:

Here's a picture to frame and put over the threshold of your home ... look familiar?


Hey Blitzburgh, we don't ban people for shits and giggles. We ban people because they have violated the code of conduct beyond an acceptable extent. What I mean by acceptable extent is that they commit something against the rules, are warned by a mod, then listen to the mod.

What you have done is BEYOND acceptable. Calling out a mod.

Now back on topic. I was a Bush supporter yes, but I have gotten driven up a wall by him now that I don't know what to do.

Another thing, we are all entitled to our political views. No one's opinion is wrong. If you have to give people shit about their opinions, expect to get to get it back.

If you can't put up with our opinions in addition to your own, then leave. Or we'll help you with your departure.

revefsreleets
06-29-2007, 08:06 PM
I've always wondered why people who are blinded by hate are always the most vocal. If we establish these simple parameters, this argument cleans up quickly: If you hate either Bush or Clinton so much that you think they are both evil and did everything in their power to destroy the World or whatever, then you probably shouldn't post one way or another about either of them.

I don't let my emotions enter into politics. It doesn't make any sense to do so. Same with Religion. The subjects that people are most passionate about should be the topics that are dealt with most sanely and logically.

Clinton was a smart man. He was a great orator. He did some good things while in office. History, however, will probably not be kind to him. He pretty much maintained the status quo, which are swear words for the far left. He also, however you may feel about it, doinked a ton of chicks, and got caught by a few of them. Maybe he'll be able to overcome that in the same sort of way that history forgave Richard Nixon, but I kind of doubt it. He just didn't do much while in office one way or another.

Bush is a different story. Bush was doomed from the start. He "lost" his election, even though he didn't (we all learned in 4th grade civics that the popular vote takes a backseat to the electoral college), and the game was afoot. If he would have faced any other opponent then Gore, the matter would have been conceded, but we all now know that Al Gore needs an awful lot of attention.

Then 911 hit, and the guy was further doomed. No matter what action (or lack of action) the guy took, he was hopelessly lost to second guessing and hindsight. There really is no way to know how he grades out for at least 5 years, but, all I know is that he faced a pretty difficult situation almost from the get go, and at least he acted. History will judge those actions.

SteelCzar76
06-29-2007, 08:23 PM
This coming from a few right wing extremist mods who would rather silence the opposition by banning them ... than dealing with the truth.

Yes, before you go night-night, look at your picture of Bush and pretend that Jesus Bush is hugging you while saying, "It's ok ... "W" is your guiding light and he is protecting you from the evils of the world" :jerkit:

Holy smokes ... with sheepish followers that don't dare open door number one ... marked "The truth" .... it's no wonder this country is going full throttle down the crapper! :banging:



So,...because someone has a different political vantage point than you do,.....they and their views are worthy of ridicule ? And more importantly,...why do you feel as though your ridicule is of any importance or significance ?

Do you not realize that in terms of politics,...for not matter what actual failures and or success that those whom wield power have,.....for the most part they are all FLAWED and have ALL done and will do their share's of "dirt" (so to speak)

You speak of truth,.... but in reality,......is it not in the 'best interest' in the minds of ALL politicians and their advisors to bend things that you would consider 'Gospel' to better serve the their own ends ?
And that includes YOUR "Sheperds" and or "Guiding light". (The prospective leaders/leader of YOUR"Party")

Perhaps you recieve a measure of satisfaction in pointing out the shortcomings and or failings of George Bush as a leader on Steeler Message board,...because it makes you feel more important than you may be in reality.

But,......somehow i doubt that your name is Bill Maher or that you receive any type of financial compensation for your supposed "socio political" commentary. And your not even 'entertaining' .

And as such,.......you would do well to conduct yourself accordingly.

SteelCzar76
06-29-2007, 08:48 PM
There's nothing wrong with a strong executive branch, but there is something VERY wrong with an imperial executive branch. We need a government, not a big brother.


Tom


The only truth Tom,.....as bitter as this may sound to those whom feel as though 'mankind' is indeed evovled enough or naturally 'pure' enough to do without a 'Big Brother' in terms of goverment and leadership,......this is not,... nor will it ever be the case.

As most people by very nature are governed by their own personal needs and or perspective at the end of the day. And unfortunatly as such,....piety, tyranny, freedom and restriction are all 'relative'.

Mosca
06-29-2007, 08:55 PM
All I'll say about Clinton is that he should have had the balls to do what Bush is doing now, to tell the investigators to shove it up their patoots.

Of course I'm not stirring the pot, and I still believe that Clinton's sins are far less than GWB's. I don't hold it against anyone for thinking otherwise, and I'm sure as heck not going to try to change anyone's mind... just like you won't change mine.

What I said, though, was true; Bush campaigned on the platform of reconciliation, and when he got into office he proceeded to run rampant over anyone who differed. His idea of consensus was (and is), "You concede, or get left behind."

So, he lied. Big deal, he's a politician. But I wouldn't have expected it to be so shameless.


Tom

Mosca
06-29-2007, 09:03 PM
The only truth Tom,.....as bitter as this may sound to those whom feel as though 'mankind' is indeed evovled enough or naturally 'pure' enough to do without a 'Big Brother' in terms of goverment and leadership,......this is not,... nor will it ever be the case.

As most people by very nature are governed by their own personal needs and or perspective at the end of the day. And unfortunatly as such,....piety, tyranny, freedom and restriction are all 'relative'.

Yeah, but see, we have different ways of seeing the world, you and I.

For me, it's not so much about being evolved, as much as that I don't think that those governing are any MORE evolved than you or I, and aren't to be trusted with so much power. Big Brotherism isn't working all that well for the Chinese, nor anywhere else it's been tried.


Tom

tony hipchest
06-29-2007, 09:06 PM
So, he lied. Big deal, he's a politician. But I wouldn't have expected it to be so shameless.


Tom

appearantly, a lie is not a lie unless you do it under oath.

"it depends on what the meaning of is is".

"is" saying one did note inhale, any worse than admitting cocaine use or alcoholism?

it doesnt matter to me either way. ive done worse than do a drug or get a BJ. who am i to judge?

to me, its all about what one does today and tommorow.

SteelCityMan786
06-29-2007, 09:07 PM
So, he lied. Big deal, he's a politician. But I wouldn't have expected it to be so shameless.




He did it under oath though. That's the problem.

Mosca
06-29-2007, 09:09 PM
We're AMERICANS together first, FAMILY IN BLACK AND GOLD second, and after that, believers in different paths to the same end. Under those circumstances, it doesn't make sense to insult each other.


Tom

tony hipchest
06-29-2007, 09:10 PM
He did it under oath though. That's the problem.:banging::banging::banging:

a lie, is a lie, is a lie.

thats like saying its ok for republicans to get blowjobs as long as they dont get caught and be forced to address it under oath.

sorry, im not buying that crap. oath smoath.....

Mosca
06-29-2007, 09:11 PM
He did it under oath though. That's the problem.

I was referring to Bush. I've said all I'll say about Clinton, he is not the topic of discussion.

tony hipchest
06-29-2007, 09:16 PM
We're AMERICANS together first, FAMILY IN BLACK AND GOLD second, and after that, believers in different paths to the same end. Under those circumstances, it doesn't make sense to insult each other.


Tom

you raise a great point. does any steelerfan on this board EVEN care if art rooney, dan rooney or art II is republican or democrat? i dont know and i dont care. regardless of anyones political view in the "locker room" i will still be here to share in the latest steeler news and opinion. all the other stuff is just "gravy"

Atlanta Dan
06-29-2007, 09:22 PM
Yeah, but see, we have different ways of seeing the world, you and I.

For me, it's not so much about being evolved, as much as that I don't think that those governing are any MORE evolved than you or I, and aren't to be trusted with so much power. Big Brotherism isn't working all that well for the Chinese, nor anywhere else it's been tried.


Tom

Tom - With regard to the issue of whether Cheney is more highly evolved than we mere mortals, Ana Marie Cox on the Time.com Swampland blog disagrees with your position
:

Whatever, the important thing here is that Cheney can still kill a man -- or a federal agency -- with his mind.

Also, he can fly.

So elusive is this vice president, the New Yorker magazine once ran a cartoon in which theologians debated the existence of Cheney.


Also, he is not bound by the laws of space and time! Instead of torturing the terrorists, he's going to make sure their parents never meet.

http://time-blog.com/swampland/

Cheney's increasingly demented behavior would be morbidly amusing if he did not have the potential to top off his 8 year reign by going to war with Iran. Do not underestimate the potential for disaster with an Administration which has never been much for accountability that now has a lame duck President and a Vice President who has no interest in courting public approval by running for the top job next year (presumably because he is worn out after being the actual President for the last 8 years)

On a more serious note, Bruce Fein (associate deputy attorney general in the Reagan administration and no wild eyed liberal) lays out the case for Cheney's impeachment

http://www.slate.com/id/2169292

Or read the Washington Post 4 part series on Cheney that ran this week

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/cheney/?hpid=topnews?hpid=moreheadlines

tony hipchest
06-29-2007, 09:42 PM
Cheney's increasingly demented behavior would be morbidly amusing if he did not have the potential to top off his 8 year reign by going to war with Iran. Do not underestimate the potential for disaster with an Administration which has never been much for accountability that now has a lame duck President and a Vice President who has no interest in courting public approval by running for the top job next year (presumably because he is worn out after being the actual President for the last 8 years)

:chuckle: - priceless! (the thought of war with iran (or korea) is pretty wreckless and scary.

but then again the gauntlet has already been tossed in the direction of the "axis of evil", hasnt it?

SteelCzar76
06-29-2007, 09:55 PM
Yeah, but see, we have different ways of seeing the world, you and I.

For me, it's not so much about being evolved, as much as that I don't think that those governing are any MORE evolved than you or I, and aren't to be trusted with so much power. Big Brotherism isn't working all that well for the Chinese, nor anywhere else it's been tried.


Tom



And that is exactly my point Tom. No one,..even our suppossed leaders if you will are entirely worthy of wielding such power. No man or woman born of flesh is. (no matter what "Political Faction")

But,....there must be some measure of an attempt to bring order out of chaos by someone. Regardless as to the fact that they may be just as flawed as those whom they are attempting to govern and or lead. And this must done even in spite of whether or not the masses in their ENTIRETY will be pleased and frolick through a field of daisy's singing. (Filled with the contentment of 'all their hearts desires'.)

.And as i'm sure you are well aware of,....... such 'frolicking' is not 'balance' by any means. (but instead far more akin to anarchy)

The bottom line IMO is as such. It's far easier for some to 'win' on a personal level from the proverbial 'sidelines' pointing out the failings of those whom, (though they are no more 'perfect' than they are),...... are actually giving forth an effort to effect change. Than it is to accept responsibility for themselves.
Or,.... if what they perceive to be such inadequate service to humanity holds so much 'meaning' for them,....,...do all that's neccesary to effect change in such a position themselves.

Is absoloute Tyranny ever the answer ?-NO. It's an extreme that cannot stand any more than,.....dare i say....absoloute "freedom" .

Stlrs4Life
06-30-2007, 12:03 AM
Clinton Scandals being small potatoes? I could not disagree with you more on this one, Tom. Lying under oath is considered a felony and he should have been jailed for it as well as impeached and expelled. Also, cheating on his wife(coughs monica lewinsky coughs). The only reason he wasn't impeached and removed is because a select few members of congress wouldn't get their heads of their butts and vote the guy out. It's also because of him that Bush has had a huge mess on his hands that he's been elected TWICE to clean up the mess, but he's cleaned up probably his tax hikes with lower taxes and passed no child left behind(Which is still not up to par). After that what else has he done but add to it. I'm not saying Bush has done a much better job then Clinton has, but what Clinton has done was A LOT worse then what Bush did.


BS, You atre mistaken, Clinton had to clean up 12 years of previous BS Admins, Reaganomics and Trickle Down Economics never worked.

Stlrs4Life
06-30-2007, 12:05 AM
Which appears to be what you wanted, Blitz. YAY! :cheer: Having posted with Tom over the last year or so and coming to respect his opinions, though they often differ from mine with regard to national and world affairs, I seriously doubt that "stirring up the hornet's nest" was his intention.

SCM - why even bother trying to reason with those who are so filled with hatred? Instead of frustrating yourself replying to their drivel, thank God every night that you and your family are safe because we have a President who looked terrorism straight in the eye and said "not happening on my watch". I don't agree with everything GWB has done during his tenure and I'm admittedly damned pissed at his stance on illegal immigrants, but like most Americans - keeping my family safe is paramount to everything else. :cheers:


It's no different than the hatred you guys spew the other way. I sleep well ever night no matter who was president, he has you right where he and the Republican Party wants you, scared! Forget who said it, but they were right the neo cons, all they know is the old Fear and Smear Tactics.

HometownGal
06-30-2007, 12:17 AM
It's no different than the hatred you guys spew the other way. I sleep well ever night no matter who was president, he has you right where he and the Republican Party wants you, scared! Forget who said it, but they were right the neo cons, all they know is the old Fear and Smear Tactics.

Dom - because I respect you so much as a person, I'm not even going to address this post. No one and I repeat NO ONE has me "anywhere" I don't choose to be, I fear no one and that's all I'm going to say on this.

Chronicgaming
06-30-2007, 11:02 AM
I don't think the current administration is in any position to use scare tactics at this point. With their approval rating at a low point, many folks really won't listen to what they have to say anymore (that's not even counting those that have such blind hatred for Bush). To be honest, I'm not sure how they are still developing policies like wiretapping with such a low approval rating.

I will say that the administration made great use of propaganda during the vote on starting the war in Iraq though. They sold everyone on the war back then, then put themselves in position to use the "flip-flop" card on opposing politicians that saw problems with the current approach later on...

Which brings us to the position we are in today. Now we will probably see an election where an unorganized Democratic party will probably win the election (unless Repubs distance themselves from Bush, or Rudy somehow posts amazing numbers). Thus beginning another 4 years of "fun"... This is why I hate politics. :banging:

(I'm not saying that Bush is the only one that has used propaganda BTW, since most politicians will use it to boost their position given the chance.)

Preacher
07-01-2007, 10:54 AM
This thread stretches credulity....

and has just entered into the land of hilarious.



impeach a president/VP for wiretapping calls to KNOWN suspicious numbers or people...

COME ON... this has been executive priveledge and action since phones were put into use. President Bush is acting on precedent set by EVERY PRESIDENT... including CARTER, REAGAN, BUSH (41), and CLINTON...

Oh yeah... but history started in 2000... and it only took that absolute idiot bush, who is dumber then a doorknob, 8 months to find, fund, organize, infiltrate America, rewrite records, plant bombs in the trade center towers... blow up the towers... then convince ALL the world leaders (probably some kind of psyco-somatic drug that stupid person Bush came up with), to agree with him about Iraq having WMD, then again convice the nation to vote for war via the midterm elections...

Wow... it is amazing what happens when a dumb man gets into office... oh thats right... it is Cheney who is using Bush as a puppet... he is the puppet master... that evil wicked man.

PEOPLE... GET A GRIP. :dang:

I really am getting tired of how venemous people are. It is you all... on BOTH sides of the aisle, that are DESTROYING MY COUNTRY... GROW UP

(Chronic... my post follows yours, but is not directed at yours.... just an FYI)

SteelCityMan786
07-01-2007, 11:07 AM
This thread stretches credulity....

and has just entered into the land of hilarious.



impeach a president/VP for wiretapping calls to KNOWN suspicious numbers or people...

COME ON... this has been executive priveledge and action since phones were put into use. President Bush is acting on precedent set by EVERY PRESIDENT... including CARTER, REAGAN, BUSH (41), and CLINTON...

Oh yeah... but history started in 2000... and it only took that absolute idiot bush, who is dumber then a doorknob, 8 months to find, fund, organize, infiltrate America, rewrite records, plant bombs in the trade center towers... blow up the towers... then convince ALL the world leaders (probably some kind of psyco-somatic drug that stupid person Bush came up with), to agree with him about Iraq having WMD, then again convice the nation to vote for war via the midterm elections...

Wow... it is amazing what happens when a dumb man gets into office... oh thats right... it is Cheney who is using Bush as a puppet... he is the puppet master... that evil wicked man.

PEOPLE... GET A GRIP. :dang:

I really am getting tired of how venemous people are. It is you all... on BOTH sides of the aisle, that are DESTROYING MY COUNTRY... GROW UP

(Chronic... my post follows yours, but is not directed at yours.... just an FYI)

Man, good way to get your anger out Preacher.


Here's the thing though with the wiretapping, he can't do it without permission from the supreme court. It's unconstitutional not to have permission.

Preacher
07-01-2007, 12:07 PM
Man, good way to get your anger out Preacher.


Here's the thing though with the wiretapping, he can't do it without permission from the supreme court. It's unconstitutional not to have permission.

Only if it is DOMESTIC calls to DOMESTIC numbers. if it is an American citizen calling an international number, or an international number into the states, FISA COURTS DONT APPLY.

Preacher
07-01-2007, 12:11 PM
Man, good way to get your anger out Preacher.


Here's the thing though with the wiretapping, he can't do it without permission from the supreme court. It's unconstitutional not to have permission.

And yes... I am getting angry at those who are pushing this animosity.

At this level, it is destructive. And sadly, it is all about oportunism and powergrabbing... The left from the right... the hard right from the middle right.. the middle right trying to find out what to do... the hard left pushing out the middle left...

sad. just sad.

Atlanta Dan
07-01-2007, 12:59 PM
This thread stretches credulity....

and has just entered into the land of hilarious.



impeach a president/VP for wiretapping calls to KNOWN suspicious numbers or people...

COME ON... this has been executive priveledge and action since phones were put into use. President Bush is acting on precedent set by EVERY PRESIDENT... including CARTER, REAGAN, BUSH (41), and CLINTON...

Oh yeah... but history started in 2000... and it only took that absolute idiot bush, who is dumber then a doorknob, 8 months to find, fund, organize, infiltrate America, rewrite records, plant bombs in the trade center towers... blow up the towers... then convince ALL the world leaders (probably some kind of psyco-somatic drug that stupid person Bush came up with), to agree with him about Iraq having WMD, then again convice the nation to vote for war via the midterm elections...

Wow... it is amazing what happens when a dumb man gets into office... oh thats right... it is Cheney who is using Bush as a puppet... he is the puppet master... that evil wicked man.

PEOPLE... GET A GRIP. :dang:

I really am getting tired of how venemous people are. It is you all... on BOTH sides of the aisle, that are DESTROYING MY COUNTRY... GROW UP

(Chronic... my post follows yours, but is not directed at yours.... just an FYI)

Preacher - I assume you were referring to my post, which I did not regard as "venomous." However, since I was not waving the flag for the Bush Administration having it characterized that way by the supporters of this Administration's conduct would not surprise me.

As I stated in my prior post, the impeachment article was written by a senior Justice Department official in the Reagan Administration - the fact that you apparently regard him to be a wild eyed liberal stooge is indicative of how far this Administration has perverted the meaning of the word "conservative."

As far as the "everyone does it" defense to the NSA surveillance program, no, everyone has not done it.

There is a statute that governs the sort of monitoring the Administration sought to undertake - it is called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

Typically, rather than seek to amend the statute, the Administration simply sought to ignore the law and apparently violated its provisions. It got to the point that virtually the entire senior staff of the Justice Department (Attorney General Ashcroft, DAG (Deputy Attorney General) Jim Comey, and Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division Chris Wray) were going to resign if additional oversight was not implemented. These officials were Republican appointees. Unlike Bush and Cheney, these officials regard the U.S. Code as binding law and not simply a series of suggestions that the "unitary executive" can follow if he deigns to do so.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18881810/site/newsweek/

For another perspective, the former chief judge for the seven judge panel that handles the FISA warrant applications is U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth - he is a former Army JAG attorney, served a year in Vietnam, was former head of the Civil Division for the U.S. Attorney's Office in Washington and was appointed to the bench by President Reagan (beginning to see a pattern here that not only lefties are concerned about the actions of this Administration?). While on the bench, he tore Hillary Clinton a new one in rejecting her claims of secrecy to avoid disclosures of her health care panel's deliberations in the 1990s. Again, we are not dealing with a partisan liberal Democrat here.

With regard to the NSA warrantless surveillance program, a recent article gave Judge Lambert's views:

"We have to understand you can fight the war [on terrorism] and lose everything if you have no civil liberties left when you get through fighting the war,"

"The executive has to fight and win the war at all costs. But judges understand the war has to be fought, but it can't be at all costs," Lamberth said at the Washington Convention Center. "We still have to preserve our civil liberties. Judges are the kinds of people you want to entrust that kind of judgment to more than the executive."

Lamberth, who was appointed to the federal bench by President Ronald Reagan, expressed his opposition to letting the executive branch decide on its own which people to spy on in national security cases.

The judge said it is proper for executive branch agencies to conduct such surveillance. "But what we have found in the history of our country is that you can't trust the executive," he said.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which Lamberth led from 1995 to 2002, meets in secret to review applications from the FBI, the National Security Agency and other agencies for warrants to wiretap or search the homes of people in the United States in connection with terrorism or espionage cases. Each application is signed by the attorney general. The court has approved more than 99 percent of such requests.

Shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks, Bush authorized the NSA to spy on calls between people in the United States and terrorism suspects abroad without warrants. The administration said that it needed to act more quickly than the surveillance court could and that the president has inherent authority under the Constitution to order warrantless domestic spying.

After the program became public and was challenged in court, Bush placed it under court supervision this year. The president still asserts the power to order warrantless spying.

White House spokesman Tony Fratto said Bush believes in the program, which is classified because its purpose is to stop terrorists' planning.

The program "is lawful, limited, safeguarded and -- most importantly -- effective in protecting American citizens from terrorist attacks," Fratto said. "It's specifically designed to be effective without infringing Americans' civil liberties."

Lamberth took issue with Bush's approach.

He said the special court, established by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, met the challenge of reacting quickly to the Sept. 11 attacks. Lamberth was stuck in a carpool lane near the Pentagon when a hijacked jet slammed into it that day. With his car enveloped in smoke, he called marshals to help him get into the District.

By the time officers reached him, Lambert said, "I had approved five FISA coverages [warrants] on my cellphone." He also approved other warrants at his home at 3 a.m. and on Saturdays.

"In a time of national emergency like that, changes have to be made in procedures. We changed a number of FISA procedures," Lamberth said.

Normal FISA warrant applications run 40 to 50 pages, but in the days after Sept. 11, the judge said, he issued orders "based on the oral briefing by the director of the FBI to the chief judge of the FISA court."

Lamberth would not say whether he thought Bush's warrantless surveillance was constitutional. "Judges shouldn't give advisory opinions, and I was never asked to give an opinion in court," he said.

But, he said, when the NSA briefed him about the program, he advised the agency to keep good records so that, if any applications came to the FISA court based on information obtained from the warrantless surveillance, the court could rule on the legality.

He said he never got such an application.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/23/AR2007062301125.html?referrer=email

I would respectfully submit it is the knee jerk defenders of this Administration's conduct that need to get through the denial stage of the grieving process (and perhaps quit shouting out their disagreement with alleged "venomous" attacks through the use of CAPS:smile:) and admit it is the supporters of the principles of limited government that have been most betrayed by the conduct of this Administration. If shouting at those of us who voted for W in 2000 but are no longer team players makes you feel better, go right ahead, but it will not change the fact that this is a rogue executive branch (as further indicated in the 4 part Washington Post article on Cheney that is straightforward reporting by very grown up reporters).

Mosca
07-01-2007, 01:28 PM
Thank you Dan, for that well researched rebuttal. I really don't like being portrayed as "venomous" for wanting to keep my civil rights.

And I appreciate the efforts of those conservatives within the government , like Judge Lamberth, who defend and protect those rights. I'm glad that I'm not the only one who is hearing, "DANGER, DANGER WILL ROBINSON!" And I'm thankful that there are people inside the government on both sides who hear it as well. This madness must be stopped.

When THE ENTIRE SENIOR STAFF of the Justice Department threatens to resign over this issue, that should underscore just how much of a transgression it is. John Ashcroft is certainly not "liberal". He is perhaps the most loyal conservative there is.

Our country isn't being destroyed by this dissent; it is being saved. Unless you mean by "our country" its physical manifestations; the buildings, the land, the flesh. But our country isn't just that; it is also the laws that bind and govern us, and that grant us the unique freedom and ability to be our best. The executive branch cannot simply assert privledge and ignore those laws. Those laws are there to specifically PREVENT that from happening; if it is allowed, the logical progression of that idea will be that 20 or 30 years from now elections will be suspended "to ensure continuity of government in these times of crisis", or some such doublespeak.

You don't think it could happen... but if you keep thinking that everything is OK, then it can.

Tom

Preacher
07-01-2007, 03:50 PM
Preacher - I assume you were referring to my post, which I did not regard as "venomous."


No Dan...

You and I disagree regulary, however, I always respect your posts. And that post was a general one... Not specific.

However, the fact that you apparently regard him to be a wild eyed liberal stooge is indicative of how far this Administration has perverted the meaning of the word "conservative."

I think you maybe missed what I said. I stated that conservatives are against him as well.

I do not consider Bush a conservative. His is a moderate. please re-read this part of the post, At this level, it is destructive. And sadly, it is all about oportunism and powergrabbing... The left from the right... the hard right from the middle right.. the middle right trying to find out what to do... the hard left pushing out the middle left...

sad. just sad.

Actually...

I realized that it was in another post just after.

And also... Think about the fact that I do NOT hold back on the right either... see this... At this level, it is destructive. And sadly, it is all about oportunism and powergrabbing... The left from the right... the hard right from the middle right.. the middle right trying to find out what to do... the hard left pushing out the middle left...

sad. just sad.


The entire game is a powergrab game... so no, I am not being politically bias here... It is the ENTIRE GOVT STRUCTURE at this point...

Furthermore...

Notice in the previous post that I included those things such as "Bush blew up the towers on 9-11... Bush is stupid.. etc." I see neither you Tom, nor you Dan, saying those things... so that post was directed to neither of you.

In hindsight, I could have been clearer, I apologize, but I stand behind my original point that politcal witch hunts from both sides are destroying the country... and they HAVE been happening.

tony hipchest
07-01-2007, 04:09 PM
No Dan...

You and I disagree regulary, however, I always respect your posts. And that post was a general one... Not specific.i thought atl. dans retort raised alot of interesting points. i was wondering if any right wing supporter would have a rebuttal, or if the points raised in his post would just be ignored and swept under the rug?

is it possible that the content put a big hole in the "left wing bias" parachute the extreme righties like to use? (not you specifically preacher). is this the point where bill clinton is brought back into the conversation? (again not by you, preacher, i know you dont use those tactics).

and in reading your extended response, i agree that the conspiracy theory that bush (or any american) blew up the towers is absolutely ludicrous. that type of flame baiting is especially destrictive and as probably intended, divisive. ignorant people may actually believe that crap, just like ignorance led people to believe O.J. is still looking for the "real killer"

Livinginthe past
07-01-2007, 04:13 PM
Did Preacher really call Bush a 'moderate'?

The walls of reality have just fallen in.

SteelCityMan786
07-01-2007, 04:21 PM
Only if it is DOMESTIC calls to DOMESTIC numbers. if it is an American citizen calling an international number, or an international number into the states, FISA COURTS DONT APPLY.

Alright now, I see what you're saying.

I knew you had to have court permission for calls in country.

I'm shocked to hear though out of country doesn't apply.

tony hipchest
07-01-2007, 04:39 PM
This thread has become too heated. I think I'm just going to lock it up.the heat has actually cooled. i thought atl dans post was atleast worthy of an intelligent response :hunch:

fansince'76
07-01-2007, 04:39 PM
the heat has actually cooled. i thought atl dans post was atleast worthy of an intelligent response :hunch:

Exactly, Tony - which is why I reopened it.

tony hipchest
07-01-2007, 04:50 PM
Exactly, Tony - which is why I reopened it.thank you fansince. we have alot of intelligent steelerfans (and a few others) her and i enjoy the viewpoints and opportunities to learn. im glad cooler heads have prevailed.

its one thing to support a side one may not fully understand but to flat out censor others points of views is exactly the type of topics this thread is speaking out against. i think we would lose alot of valuable members if only a pro republican point of view were allowed on a footbal board.

silver & black
07-01-2007, 05:33 PM
thank you fansince. we have alot of intelligent steelerfans (and a few others) her and i enjoy the viewpoints and opportunities to learn. im glad cooler heads have prevailed.

its one thing to support a side one may not fully understand but to flat out censor others points of views is exactly the type of topics this thread is speaking out against. i think we would lose alot of valuable members if only a pro republican point of view were allowed on a footbal board.

I have to give props to this forum for allowing political discussions. It is forbidden at RF.net.

I don't engage in political talk to any degree on any forum. I usually keep it to a comment or two, but I do enjoy reading other's points of view. I think this has been a relatively calm and mature discussion, with some very good points of view being shared. You are all to be commended for keeping it civil. :cheers:

Mosca
07-01-2007, 05:47 PM
its one thing to support a side one may not fully understand but to flat out censor others points of views is exactly the type of topics this thread is speaking out against.

Still Tony, I know you agree that there is no need for pointless incendiary rhetoric. Much thanks to the mods for handling it; it can't be any fun to be the diciplinarian, no matter how well deserved the punishment may be.

I think that impeachment of Cheney would be pointless. Even if it were possible to get enough members of Congress to agree (you couldn't), his term would be over before the deed could be accomplished. It would be a waste of energy. It is a more effective strategy to marginalize him and make him defend all the destruction he has wrought, keeping him from wreaking more havoc. Which is what I think all this legal wrangling is about.


Tom

Atlanta Dan
07-01-2007, 06:00 PM
Preacher - thanks for the clarification.

We will agree to disagree on this (not for the first time and certainly not for the last:smile:) but one point I would like to follow up on (as LITP did) is your description of W as a "moderate."

IMHO the issues we have been discussing illustrate how attempting to fit certain conduct into a "liberal/moderate/conservative" template simply does not work.

With regard to the actions of the Bush Administration, we have been dealing not only with warrantless surveillance through the NSA but other conduct, which explicitly has been rejected by the Supreme Court with regard to: claiming the writ of habeas corpus does does not apply to Guantanamo detainees and is beyond the jurisdiction of the federal judiciary (Rasul v. Bush); and claiming that the Administration can unilaterally abrogate the requirements of the Geneva Convention, a treaty ratified by Congress (Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, a decision which one commentator said ranks with U.S. v. Nixon and the decision barring Truman's seizure of the steel mills during the Korean war as one of the most important decisions on the limits of executive power http://www.slate.com/id/2144476/ )

At the same time, on the domestic front the Administration: has run up bust the budget deficits; rammed through Congress the largest entitlement program created since the Johnson Administration (Medicare Part D) with no meaningful consideration of what the long term costs will be; and through what was popularly known as "the Thompson Memo" implemented a policy of telling corporations they faced increased risks of federal criminal indictment if they paid their employees legal fees (which was retracted only after that policy was held by a district judge to violate the Fifth and Sixth Amendments).

I note these policies in support of my contention that the last 6 years have seen a reckless, across the board effort to expand government power that is neither liberal or conservative and certainly is not "moderate" - it is radical.and transcends partisan definitions of what it means to be a Republican or Democrat.

That having been said, thank goodness training camp opens on July 23 and we then can focus on the pressing issues of Faneca's discontent, Troy's contract, and our shared dislike for common foes such as Ray Lewis and Chad Johnson.:cheers:

tony hipchest
07-01-2007, 06:42 PM
Still Tony, I know you agree that there is no need for pointless incendiary rhetoric. Much thanks to the mods for handling it; it can't be any fun to be the diciplinarian, no matter how well deserved the punishment may be.

I think that impeachment of Cheney would be pointless. Even if it were possible to get enough members of Congress to agree (you couldn't), his term would be over before the deed could be accomplished. It would be a waste of energy. It is a more effective strategy to marginalize him and make him defend all the destruction he has wrought, keeping him from wreaking more havoc. Which is what I think all this legal wrangling is about.


Tomi agree. cheney wont go to jail, nor should he. that talk is about as bogus as sending clinton to jail for getting a bj and the witchunt that ensued.

a slap on the wrist to let people know civil rights and the laws in place must still be recognized will suit me fine.

in the meantime i enjoy the wrangling of those who painted clinton as the devil, while trying to whitewash the actions of cheney. (not pointing out anyone specific on this board as it is a pretty level headed board).

just commentary on the political extremes in this country (im taking more jabs at the extremists like limbaugh and those who follow his preachings religiously, more than anything).

and just to cut anyone off who wants to take a jab at my leftist stance, i voted for bush in 04. not because i appreciate what he has done but i felt an immediate "cut and run" strategy may be a disservice to those who have died, and those who are still fighting. of course, i voted with the assumption there was a plan to get us out of iraq within the next 30 years. and i voted with the confidence that all of this would be behind us by now.

its not. on to iran (the next spoke in the "axis of evil")

unfortunately i think things will get worse and our nation will become even more divided if either lame duck guliani or mrs clinton are elected. im pretty sure i will be writing in richardson on my ballot.

HometownGal
07-01-2007, 09:51 PM
its one thing to support a side one may not fully understand but to flat out censor others points of views is exactly the type of topics this thread is speaking out against. i think we would lose alot of valuable members if only a pro republican point of view were allowed on a footbal board.

I totally agree with you, Tony. :thumbsup: Though I may not agree with every single opinion contained in this thread (I don't agree with most of them, quite honestly) - I don't believe in censoring anyone's point of view as long as the debate remains respectable. There is always room to learn and I've learned a thing or two just reading other's posts (thank you Dan :smile:) Contrary to a recently not so dearly departed member's opinion - NO ONE is infracted or banned for their political affiliation - no action is taken unless he/she violated the COC either on the open board or behind the scenes. I've always believed and I continue to believe that good debate is healthy. :cheers:

Preacher
07-01-2007, 10:23 PM
Preacher - thanks for the clarification.

We will agree to disagree on this (not for the first time and certainly not for the last:smile:) but one point I would like to follow up on (as LITP did) is your description of W as a "moderate."

IMHO the issues we have been discussing illustrate how attempting to fit certain conduct into a "liberal/moderate/conservative" template simply does not work.

With regard to the actions of the Bush Administration, we have been dealing not only with warrantless surveillance through the NSA but other conduct, which explicitly has been rejected by the Supreme Court with regard to: claiming the writ of habeas corpus does does not apply to Guantanamo detainees and is beyond the jurisdiction of the federal judiciary (Rasul v. Bush); and claiming that the Administration can unilaterally abrogate the requirements of the Geneva Convention, a treaty ratified by Congress (Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, a decision which one commentator said ranks with U.S. v. Nixon and the decision barring Truman's seizure of the steel mills during the Korean war as one of the most important decisions on the limits of executive power http://www.slate.com/id/2144476/ )

At the same time, on the domestic front the Administration: has run up bust the budget deficits; rammed through Congress the largest entitlement program created since the Johnson Administration (Medicare Part D) with no meaningful consideration of what the long term costs will be; and through what was popularly known as "the Thompson Memo" implemented a policy of telling corporations they faced increased risks of federal criminal indictment if they paid their employees legal fees (which was retracted only after that policy was held by a district judge to violate the Fifth and Sixth Amendments).

I note these policies in support of my contention that the last 6 years have seen a reckless, across the board effort to expand government power that is neither liberal or conservative and certainly is not "moderate" - it is radical.and transcends partisan definitions of what it means to be a Republican or Democrat.

That having been said, thank goodness training camp opens on July 23 and we then can focus on the pressing issues of Faneca's discontent, Troy's contract, and our shared dislike for common foes such as Ray Lewis and Chad Johnson.:cheers:

Atlanta Dan...

First... We will agree to disagree on this (not for the first time and certainly not for the last:smile:)

It actually made me laugh out loud. :wink02:

Now.. on to you more pressing topics...

but one point I would like to follow up on (as LITP did) is your description of W as a "moderate."

IMHO the issues we have been discussing illustrate how attempting to fit certain conduct into a "liberal/moderate/conservative" template simply does not work.

We agree here. That terminology has actually never been the best, however, when discussing (or even worse, typing), it is usually easier to short hand concepts into words...

Let me explain why I said Bush was a moderate, and what I really mean by that.

1. Conservatives believe in small gov. However, as you noted, Bush saw a push for medicare entitlement drug coverage. He got behind it, and made it law. Why? Because he knew that he could take that issue out of the election arguments. However, by doing so, he drastically increased the size of government and spending. Furthermore, He created a dept. of Homeland defense, as a response to calls from the right-minded democrats and left-minded republicans. As a result, just another layer of bueracracy has been added to the govt. Furthermore, the head of the CIA has been REMOVED from his role as the head of all U.S. intelligence agencies, and that role was given to HSA. The problem pre-9-11 wasn't the agencies, it was how they were run. It was the lack of ability to share information and resources. The problem runs all the way back to the gutting of the CIA in the 1970's. Once again, we have had Repub. and Dem. presidents that have refused to do anything about it... I lay the blame on all of them.

2. Social conservatism. While president Bush ran on a platform of social conservatism, he only found the platform during election time. Once the election was over, he could care less about social conservative values. The SCOTUS nominees are a perfect example. He nominated his own lawyer (which he has a right to do, you don't even have to be a lawyer to be on the SC). However, when questioned about her nomination by the conservatives in his party, he just gave a wink, a nod, a smirk, and told us that she was, "One of us?!" What the heck is that? The Conservitives rose up against him and she lost the nomination.

3. Border Security. Here is a fascinating issue where even Reagan, the modern standard bearer of American Conservatism failed. Border security is tantamount to national security. National security is a major issue of conservitism (not saying it is or is not for liberalism, I am speaking specifically of conservitives). However, since BEFORE he was nominated in 1999, he has always held to a more open border policy. Fact is, he has NEVER held to strong closed borders... and shame on the GOP for expecting him to now. However, he has shown he is no conservative.

____________________

Actually.... it would be easier to go the other way...

There are only one action he has taken which is conservative in nature..

1. Cutting taxes, instead of targeting taxes. Conservatives believe that taxes should be the same on everyone.. No tax on income the best, flat tax second best. Lower and lower graduated tax brackets third best. He did do that...
____________________

When it comes to the response to 9-11 and Iraq... It is what I would expect from ANY U.S. President... liberal or conservative.

Thus, if I have to place a label on President Bush... He SURELY is not a conservative... he is a moderate Republican... Yes, he is to the right of McCain and Guilanni... (Gun freedom, or control, pick your politically charged word, he is conservitive on... Pro-life, pro-choice, pick your politically charged word... he is conservitive on... but not much else seperates him from Rudy or McCain.)

AD...

I will get to your other things in day or so... I gotta run and meet the mother in law :jawdrop: for dinner!! (oh yeah.. and were moving over 1 town... so i have limited internet access.)

BTW... TONY... I said the same to you around Easter about a couple questions on Christianity... if you don't mind finding and posting them... I would love to discuss them with you now...

SteelCityMan786
07-01-2007, 10:28 PM
I wouldn't call Rudy and McCain conservatives. I'd consider them more of a Moderate themselves.

Atlanta Dan
07-02-2007, 07:08 PM
Well, the [insert obscenity of choice here] commuted Scooter Libby's sentence

This should remove any doubt that W really does think his Administration is above the law.

I have attempted to avoid vituperation in my descriptions of this gang, but they are inherently and totally corrupt - fish rots from the head down

j-dawg
07-02-2007, 08:22 PM
man i try to stay outta the political talk... but seriously... w.t.f.???

libby, convicted by a jury, gets off??!!!

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e250/veryprofane/ShowLetter.gif

Bush just gave our justice system the big 'ol F you.

Atlanta Dan
07-02-2007, 08:42 PM
Let's just say it pays to have friends in high places, especially if those friends value your continuing silence on certain topics (remember when Scooter's attorney was threatening to call Cheney to testify?)

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

George Orwell - Animal Farm

SteelCityMan786
07-02-2007, 08:58 PM
Let's just say it pays to have friends in high places, especially if those friends value your continuing silence on certain topics (remember when Scooter's attorney was threatening to call Cheney to testify?)

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

George Orwell - Animal Farm

My English teacher had us read that this year for a class novel. Shows us from the animal point of view that their society was very blah.

Cape Cod Steel Head
07-02-2007, 09:11 PM
My English teacher had us read that this year for a class novel. Shows us from the animal point of view that their society was very blah.I don't think that was the point Orwell was trying to make. Now just what has this whole thing taught Scooter.

Mosca
07-02-2007, 09:15 PM
I dunno, I don't really have a problem with ol' Scoot having the jail sentence commuted. He still has to pay $250,000 and has 2 years probation, and his career is a shambles.

He was doing what was expected of him. The conviction, fine, and probation send the same message. The world isn't any safer with Scooter behind bars, so that additional measure is pure vindictiveness, with no other purpose. I agree that it doesn't match the offense. You're penalizing the man for the crime committed by the machine.


Tom

Atlanta Dan
07-02-2007, 09:18 PM
Now just what has this whole thing taught Scooter.

"We must hang together, gentlemen...else, we shall most assuredly hang separately." -
Benjamin Franklin

MasterOfPuppets
07-02-2007, 09:30 PM
"We must hang together, gentlemen...else, we shall most assuredly hang separately." -
Benjamin Franklin:huh:...i thought sadaam said that???

Atlanta Dan
07-02-2007, 10:11 PM
I dunno, I don't really have a problem with ol' Scoot having the jail sentence commuted. He still has to pay $250,000 and has 2 years probation, and his career is a shambles.

He was doing what was expected of him. The conviction, fine, and probation send the same message. The world isn't any safer with Scooter behind bars, so that additional measure is pure vindictiveness, with no other purpose. I agree that it doesn't match the offense. You're penalizing the man for the crime committed by the machine.


Tom

Tom - as part of my day job I have a pretty good working knowledge of the provisions of the U.S. Sentencing Commission Guidelines and motions for bond pending appeal by a convicted felon.

The idea that a sentence within the non-binding provisions of the Sentencing Commission Guidelines is "pure vindictiveness" is, with all due respect, not in accordance with the applicable law.

In every criminal case, the Probation Office makes a recommendation to the Court as to its view of the appropriate Guidelines range. In Libby's case, the Probation Office calculated his offense severity at the level typically used for perjury and obstruction of justice, the crimes for which Libby was convicted. When combined with Libby's first-offense status, this level of severity yielded a sentencing range of 15-21 months. So, readers may wonder, why was Libby sentenced to 30?

The answer is that while the prosecution often agrees with the Probation Office calculation, it did not do so here, and Judge Walton sided with the prosecution. The government argued that Libby's offense severity should not be calculated based on the level of severity the offenses of which he was convicted, but rather by cross-reference to the level of severity of the underlying crimes that were being investigated by the grand jury to which Libby told his lies. Libby did not commit these crimes, himself but his perjury may have impeded their investigation, and thus left them unpunished.

What were these underlying crimes? That grand jury was investigating whether someone violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act (IIPA) or the Espionage Act by revealing that Valerie Plame was a covert CIA agent. Such violations carry an higher offense severity rating that generic perjury/obstruction of justice charges. Using this higher offense severity rating, the government recommended a sentencing range of 30-37 months.

Cross-Referencing: The Guidelines' Approach to Offense Severity When the Crime Is Perjury

Patrick Fitzgerald, the Eliot Ness-like Special Prosecutor, did not invent this cross-referencing for this case. On the contrary, he was following the explicit instructions of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines themselves.

Under the Guidelines, the offense severity for someone convicted of perjury or obstruction is the greater of either the severity rating for generic perjury/obstruction, or the severity rating of the offense being lied about or covered up. In essence, the Guidelines treat someone guilty of perjury or obstruction as an accessory after the fact to the offense underlying the lies and obstruction. [/I]

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/lazarus/20070607.html

With regard to the Sentencing Guidelines, they were pretty much mandatory until the Supreme Court, in the Booker decision, said they are advisory. However, within the last month, the Roberts Supreme Court, in Rita v. United States, has held that "when the judge's discretionary decision accords with the Commission's view . . . it is probable that the sentence is reasonable." Bush appointees Roberts and Alito, along with Justices Scalia and Thomas, agreed with the majority opinin by Justice Breyer

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/21/AR2007062102088.html

Accordingly, under the applicable law and the Sentencing Commission Guidelines, the extraordinary sentence would have been one in which Scooter did not receive a significant prison term.

On the separate issue of Libby receiving bond and not being required to report to prison pending resolution of his appeals, do not believe anything you read about denial of that bond being unusual. The Bail Reform Act of 1984, 18 U.S.C. ? 3143(b), governs the release of convicted defendants on bond pending appeal. The Bail Reform Act requires that (1) the appeal raise a "substantial question of law or fact," and (2) "if that substantial question is determined favorably to the defendant on appeal, that decision is likely to result in reversal or an order for a new trial on all counts on which imprisonment has been imposed." The D.C. Circuit agreed with Judge Walton that no such substantial issue existed with regard to Libby's conviction. After the D.C. Circuit would not bail out Scooter and W the commutation of the sentence was announced within hours.

Of course Libby could have sought to reduce his sentence if he cooperated with the prosecutors and provided "substantial assistance" that resulted in the investigation or prosecution of other individuals (e.g. - Cheney). Under Section 5K1.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines, prosecutors can submit a non-binding recommendation to the sentencing court that a sentence be reduced in consideration of such cooperation. Scooter of course elected to keep his mouth shut.

In his commutation announcement, W states "[i]n making the sentencing decision, the district court rejected the advice of the probation office, which recommended a lesser sentence and the consideration of factors that could have led to a sentence of home confinement or probation." This is a characteristically misleading statement; the probation office recommended a sentence of 15-21 months, not probation.

Bush then states "I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive. Therefore, I am commuting the portion of Mr. Libby's sentence that required him to spend 30 months in prison." This sums it up; in yet another exercise of executive authority, W unilaterally decided a lawful sentence of imprisonment imposed on a White House official convicted of lying to a grand jury was excessive so he commuted it without even following the procedures for pardons and commutations that are established by the Justice Department.

Good luck to any prosecutor seeking to argue for a Guidelines sentence for a perjury conviction after this latest exercise of raw power by this imperial presidency. It is constitutional but it makes a mockery of the concept of equal justice under the law.

I eagerly look forward to hearing from everyone who defended the impeachment of Clinton for lying to a grand jury about receiving a hummer in the White House and was scandalized by his abuse of the pardon power in his last days in office.

Mosca
07-02-2007, 10:17 PM
I guess I'm just numbed to all the abuse then.


Tom

tony hipchest
07-02-2007, 10:21 PM
I eagerly look forward to hearing from everyone who defended the impeachment of Clinton for lying to a grand jury about receiving a hummer in the White House and was scandalized by his abuse of the pardon power in his last days in office.

http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q23/shortyshane_2006/ono_whap.gif

great post. excellent (and educational) info.

revefsreleets
07-03-2007, 05:29 PM
What about Sandy Berger?

SteelCityMan786
07-03-2007, 05:50 PM
I eagerly look forward to hearing from everyone who defended the impeachment of Clinton for lying to a grand jury about receiving a hummer in the White House and was scandalized by his abuse of the pardon power in his last days in office.


I'm baffled over why Bush left libby go. He had a chance to secure some accountability, but he as he has a lot of times during his term, angered numerous Republicans(Not just Democrats and 3rd Party) and chose not to. Bush and Clinton are probably 2 of the worst presidents ever.

tony hipchest
07-03-2007, 07:17 PM
I'm baffled over why Bush left libby go. He had a chance to secure some accountability, but he as he has a lot of times during his term, angered numerous Republicans(Not just Democrats and 3rd Party) and chose not to. Bush and Clinton are probably 2 of the worst presidents ever.atleast in your lifetime anyways. i remember when i was a little older than your age i was able to watch the ist Gulf War on tv like it was prime time entertainment.

i remember the admiration i had for schwartzkopf and powell as i was applying for rotc scholorships and acceptance to all the military academies. i remember the fear i had that we were possibly starting WWIII by taking on 1 of the largest armies in the world. and as we methodically crushed the opposition, i remember the huge disappointment when we didnt finish the job, despite the generals advice, and wondered what kind of message that would send to our enemies. i wondered if they thought of us as "soft" and "weak".

honestly, i dont even know where i would rank G-dub in regards to his father.

HometownGal
07-03-2007, 07:28 PM
Bush and Clinton are probably 2 of the worst presidents ever.

I'd put Lyndon Johnson way before either of them.

SteelCityMan786
07-03-2007, 07:36 PM
I'd put Lyndon Johnson way before either of them.

LJ probably would be ahead as well as Richard Nixon.

Preacher
07-03-2007, 07:55 PM
Well, the [insert obscenity of choice here] commuted Scooter Libby's sentence

This should remove any doubt that W really does think his Administration is above the law.

I have attempted to avoid vituperation in my descriptions of this gang, but they are inherently and totally corrupt - fish rots from the head down

Or...

The whole thing was seen as judicial tyranny and the president used his constitutional responsibilty to check the judicial branch...

it all depends on ones perspective.

Atlanta Dan
07-03-2007, 07:58 PM
atleast in your lifetime anyways. i remember when i was a little older than your age i was able to watch the ist Gulf War on tv like it was prime time entertainment.

i remember the admiration i had for schwartzkopf and powell as i was applying for rotc scholorships and acceptance to all the military academies. i remember the fear i had that we were possibly starting WWIII by taking on 1 of the largest armies in the world. and as we methodically crushed the opposition, i remember the huge disappointment when we didnt finish the job, despite the generals advice, and wondered what kind of message that would send to our enemies. i wondered if they thought of us as "soft" and "weak".

honestly, i dont even know where i would rank G-dub in regards to his father.

I dunno about Bush 41& "finishing" the Gulf War - the UN mandate and financing of the war by Japan, Inc. & the Saudis was to free Kuwait, not to overthrow Sadaam.

Back in the day, when he appeared to be sane, then Secretary of Defense Cheney was asked about going to Baghdad and replied that getting there was not the problem; it was what to do after you arrived.

And the question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam worth?" Cheney said then in response to a question.

"And the answer is not very damned many. So I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the president made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq."

Going to Baghdad, Cheney said in 1992, would require a much different approach militarily than fighting in the open desert outside the capital, a type of warfare that U.S. troops were not familiar, or comfortable fighting.

"All of a sudden you've got a battle you're fighting in a major built-up city, a lot of civilians are around, significant limitations on our ability to use our most effective technologies and techniques," Cheney said.

"Once we had rounded him up and gotten rid of his government, then the question is what do you put in its place? You know, you then have accepted the responsibility for governing Iraq."

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/192908_cheney29.html

Too bad he did not figure out an answer to that question in the intervening 12 years

Preacher
07-03-2007, 08:07 PM
We all need to realize one thing...

Washington and Jefferson would look at our government now... Repub. and Dem....

And just shake thier heads.

j-dawg
07-03-2007, 08:14 PM
Or...

The whole thing was seen as judicial tyranny and the president used his constitutional responsibilty to check the judicial branch...

it all depends on ones perspective.

yep, being convicted by your peers sure is judicial tyranny...

"It is fundamental to the rule of law that all citizens stand before the bar of justice as equals. That principle guided the judge during both the trial and the sentencing." patrick fitzgerald

i'm almost sure it's un-american to not share that perspective... and yet bush snubbed that very fundamental principle commuting scooters sentence...

Preacher
07-03-2007, 08:18 PM
yep, being convicted by your peers sure is judicial tyranny...

"It is fundamental to the rule of law that all citizens stand before the bar of justice as equals. That principle guided the judge during both the trial and the sentencing." patrick fitzgerald

i'm almost sure it's un-american to not share that perspective... and yet bush snubbed that very fundamental principle commuting scooters sentence...

There have been MANY examples of jury's making mistakes...

Kind of funny how we want to uphold the law... but not the part of the law that allows the president to commute sentences...

And no, I was NOT one of those screaming about Clinton doing the same. It was part of the constitution.

Atlanta Dan
07-03-2007, 08:22 PM
Or...

The whole thing was seen as judicial tyranny and the president used his constitutional responsibilty to check the judicial branch...

it all depends on ones perspective.

Bush political appointee James Comey named Bush political appointee and career prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald to investigate the Plame leak. Bush political appointee and career prosecutor Fitzgerald filed an indictment and went to trial before Bush political appointee Reggie Walton. A jury convicted Libby, and Bush political appointee Walton sentenced him. At sentencing, Bush political appointee Walton described the evidence against Libby as "overwhelming" and concluded that a 30-month sentence was appropriate. But your perspective is that the Libby prosecution was the work of judicial tyrants who were just trying to hurt the Bush Administration?

Of course it depends on one's perspective, but there are certain guidelines in place for imposing sentences and commuting sentences:
United States Attorney's Manual Standards for Consideration of Clemency Petitions

The comments and recommendations of concerned and knowledgeable officials, particularly the United States Attorney whose office prosecuted the case and the sentencing judge, are carefully considered

Requests for commutation generally are not accepted unless and until a person has begun serving that sentence. Nor are commutation requests generally accepted from persons who are presently challenging their convictions or sentences through appeal or other court proceeding.

Generally, commutation of sentence is an extraordinary remedy that is rarely granted. Appropriate grounds for considering commutation have traditionally included disparity or undue severity of sentence, critical illness or old age, and meritorious service rendered to the government by the petitioner, e.g., cooperation with investigative or prosecutive efforts that has not been adequately rewarded by other official action
"

http://www.usdoj.gov/pardon/petitions.htm

Guess who followed the guidelines and who did not in this case?.

In the words of that great philosopher Kenny Rodgers, "you got to know when to hold em, know when to fold em, know when to walk away and know when to run."

Your loyalty in attempting to defend the indefensible is admirable, but at some point you might consider keeping your powder dry for more winnable arguments to come.

Atlanta Dan
07-03-2007, 08:26 PM
I'd put Lyndon Johnson way before either of them.

:iagree:

LBJ and his successor Richard Nixon have to be up (or down) there - these are grim times but for those of us old enough to remember the late 60s (urban riots every summer, Bobby & Martin killed in 1968, tens of thousands of American boys killed in Vietnam) the current disputes are a day at the beach.

j-dawg
07-03-2007, 08:27 PM
sure, jury's make mistakes, that's what appeals are for.... and the fact that two of the judges in the appeals court were republican makes the "tyranny" remark moot.

Preacher
07-03-2007, 08:30 PM
Bush political appointee James Comey named Bush political appointee and career prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald to investigate the Plame leak. Bush political appointee and career prosecutor Fitzgerald filed an indictment and went to trial before Bush political appointee Reggie Walton. A jury convicted Libby, and Bush political appointee Walton sentenced him. At sentencing, Bush political appointee Walton described the evidence against Libby as "overwhelming" and concluded that a 30-month sentence was appropriate. But your perspective is that the Libby prosecution was the work of judicial tyrants who were just trying to hurt the Bush Administration?

Of course it depends on one's perspective, but there are certain guidelines in place for imposing sentences and commuting sentences:


United States Attorney's Manual Standards for Consideration of Clemency Petitions

The Pardon Attorney routinely requests the United States Attorney in the district of conviction to provide comments and recommendations on clemency cases that appear to have some merit, as well as on cases that raise issues of fact about which the United States Attorney may be in a position to provide information.

"Requests for commutation generally are not accepted unless and until a person has begun serving that sentence."

http://www.usdoj.gov/pardon/petitions.htm

Guess who followed the guidelines and who did not in this case?.

In the words of that great philosopher Kenny Rodgers, "you got to know when to hold em, know when to fold em, know when to walk away and know when to run."

Your loyalty in attempting to defend the indefensible is admirable, but at some point you might consider keeping your powder dry for more winnable arguments to come.

Dan,

I respect you...

So I am going to stop replying... because in my opinion, over the last few days in political discussions... it has just become WAY to overboard...

When anyone sees demons in every closet, evil in every face, and witches in every cave, it is time to take a breath...

And that is really what I feel is going on here...

This whole discussion has become WAY too polarized... a snap shot of the country at large... My evidence for that is in this very thread... where I have condemned this president myself... Yet still am being painted as defending him, instead of making a logical argument...


Gotta wonder though... What is the possibility of one of the Bengals getting a pardon?

Mosca
07-03-2007, 08:30 PM
Or...

The whole thing was seen as judicial tyranny and the president used his constitutional responsibilty to check the judicial branch...

it all depends on ones perspective.

Well, the evidence against him was overwhelming, and the sentence was pretty much the standard sentence for the crime, well within the guidelines set by the law. I guess serial killers also see their crimes differently than others; I don't think "perspective" is an adequate argument here.

Again, I'm not worked up about it. I don't think Scoot was going to cave, and everything we suspected about this administration and its attitude towards us and its internal workings is being proven true,

81% of Americans think that commuting the prison term was wrong. I'd say that number cuts across party lines rather effectively.


Excluding the current president; as much as I disagree with him, he has not yet been judged by history:

The worst 2 presidents in my 53 years were Ford and Carter, by far. There weren't many good ones. Ike was pretty effective, in retrospect. I prospered well under Clinton. Kennedy didn't have enough time, Nixon and LBJ were about equal, and I'm neutral on Reagan and GHWB; Reagan's international work was stellar, but his trickle-down economics set the path for the stratification of classes we are seeing today. I think history will be kinder to GHWB than we are.


Tom

Mosca
07-03-2007, 08:35 PM
Dan,

I respect you...

So I am going to stop replying... because in my opinion, over the last few days in political discussions... it has just become WAY to overboard...

When anyone sees demons in every closet, evil in every face, and witches in every cave, it is time to take a breath...

And that is really what I feel is going on here...

This whole discussion has become WAY too polarized... a snap shot of the country at large... My evidence for that is in this very thread... where I have condemned this president myself... Yet still am being painted as defending him, instead of making a logical argument...


Gotta wonder though... What is the possibility of one of the Bengals getting a pardon?

Thing is, I don't think people are seeing demons and witches; I think they are reacting in genuine outrage at the perversion of justice.

Again, I'm shrugging at it. It's what I expected, and to me it proves that this administration considers itself and its actions above the law.


Tom

Atlanta Dan
07-03-2007, 08:58 PM
Dan,

I respect you...

So I am going to stop replying... because in my opinion, over the last few days in political discussions... it has just become WAY to overboard...

When anyone sees demons in every closet, evil in every face, and witches in every cave, it is time to take a breath...

And that is really what I feel is going on here...

This whole discussion has become WAY too polarized... a snap shot of the country at large... My evidence for that is in this very thread... where I have condemned this president myself... Yet still am being painted as defending him, instead of making a logical argument...


Gotta wonder though... What is the possibility of one of the Bengals getting a pardon?

I agree to a cease fire but, as I said in response to posters who did not want to read threads on Cowher staying or leaving last season, if someone is not interested in a post that does not make inflammatory personal attacks the simple answer is not to read the thread or posts.

If the Administration wants to infer the probation office recommended probation for Scooter Libby (not true) and claim that there is nothing out of the ordinary about commuting a sentence while the defendant is appealing the sentence and has not served a day of that sentence (not true), I do not think it is overkill to cite source documents (not my personal opinions) to the contrary.

I have said all I will be saying on this subject but if any statement I have made is not factually correct please feel free to correct me just as I have freely pointed out the clear misstatements of the Administration over the last day.

:cheers:

j-dawg
07-03-2007, 09:03 PM
:bomb: what about the rule of law??

Preacher
07-03-2007, 10:35 PM
I have said all I will be saying on this subject

:cheers:

But AD...

I seriously want to know...

Gotta wonder though... What is the possibility of one of the Bengals getting a pardon?:sofunny:

Atlanta Dan
07-03-2007, 10:48 PM
But AD...

I seriously want to know...

:sofunny:

If W or Cheney are Bengals fans, very high (and, if so, Kimo von Olhoffen will not sleep easily until the statute of limitations runs on potential federal charges for his "assault" on Carson Palmer).

SteelCityMan786
07-03-2007, 10:52 PM
If W or Cheney are Bengals fans, very high (and, if so, Kimo von Olhoffen will not sleep easily until the statute of limitations runs on potential federal charges for his "assault" on Carson Palmer).

What assault on carson palmer?

tony hipchest
07-03-2007, 11:31 PM
If W or Cheney are Bengals fans, very high (and, if so, Kimo von Olhoffen will not sleep easily until the statute of limitations runs on potential federal charges for his "assault" on Carson Palmer).im really beginning to wonder if you "practice law" in your spare time.

if so, can i get you on cosignment? i got some "dirty" work i gotta get done with the proper backing.

:chuckle:

SteelCityMan786
07-03-2007, 11:40 PM
im really beginning to wonder if you "practice law" in your spare time.

if so, can i get you on cosignment? i got some "dirty" work i gotta get done with the proper backing.

:chuckle:

Sorta like you never had any dirty work already? :toofunny:

Preacher
07-04-2007, 12:52 AM
If W or Cheney are Bengals fans, very high (and, if so, Kimo von Olhoffen will not sleep easily until the statute of limitations runs on potential federal charges for his "assault" on Carson Palmer).

:toofunny:

Hines0wnz
07-06-2007, 05:47 PM
Congrats Dems, you are more unpopular than the Prez. And this type of politics isnt helping. After all the grandstanding from last year's elections they have managed to backtrack, swindle and divert their gain into some of the worst action (or lack of) in a very long time. I sense voter backlash in 2008.

Preacher
07-06-2007, 05:52 PM
Congrats Dems, you are more unpopular than the Prez. And this type of politics isnt helping. After all the grandstanding from last year's elections they have managed to backtrack, swindle and divert their gain into some of the worst action (or lack of) in a very long time. I sense voter backlash in 2008.

Problem is... Republicans are doing the same.

Which means that in the end, voters will again have to pick between the horrible candidate #1 and horrible candidate #2.

I am so sick of politics.

Atlanta Dan
07-13-2007, 03:47 PM
For anyone who wants to check out a source document (which is what I am citing in my future posts on political hot button isues) as opposed to poster's views on the Scooter Libby matter, attached is a link to Judge Walton's order holding that Libby can still be subject to supevised release even though he will not serve any prison sentence.

In footnote 1 to his order JudgeWalton addresses the "tension" between the President's observation that Scooter's 30 month sentence was "excessive" and various pronouncemnts by the Justice Dept. regarding the reasonableness of guidelines range sentences.

http://howappealing.law.com/LibbySupervisedReleaseDecision.pdf

Mosca
07-13-2007, 09:06 PM
For anyone who wants to check out a source document (which is what I am citing in my future posts on political hot button isues) as opposed to poster's views on the Scooter Libby matter, attached is a link to Judge Walton's order holding that Libby can still be subject to supevised release even though he will not serve any prison sentence.

In footnote 1 to his order JudgeWalton addresses the "tension" between the President's observation that Scooter's 30 month sentence was "excessive" and various pronouncemnts by the Justice Dept. regarding the reasonableness of guidelines range sentences.

http://howappealing.law.com/LibbySupervisedReleaseDecision.pdf


LOL: First, he establishes that the sentence he imposed is at the MINIMUM of the suggested range; then he establishes that the range takes into account a defendant's history (comparing it to other cases of the same crime with a similar defendant)... "Indeed, only recently the President's Attorney General called for the passage of legislation to 'restore the binding nature of sentencing so that the bottom of the sentencing range would be a minimum for judges, not merely a suggestion' [and then he cites his source, Alberto Gonzales]. In light of these considerations, and given the indisputable importance of 'provid[ing] certainty and fairness in sentencing... [and] avoid[ing] unwarranted sentencing disparities' [again he cites the source of his quote], it is fair to say that the Court is somewhat perplexed as to how its sentence could be characterized as "excessive".

My dad is a lifelong Republican. He served as an elected Republican official locally; he has always contributed to the Republican Party, and he is completely loyal. But this has him hopped up mad. He actually said that he would write a letter letting them know what he thinks, but he actually believes that it would get him on a "to watch" list that would interfere with his traveling. He sees the Scooter Libby clemency as the last straw. He would actually vote Democrat in the next election, as long as Hillary isn't nominated.

Tom

tony hipchest
07-13-2007, 10:16 PM
He would actually vote Democrat in the next election, as long as Hillary isn't nominated.

Tomthis is what sucks. hilary seems to be one of the most polarizing figures we could possibly have right now and i cant see more than half the population of america taking her seriously let alone the world. of course i dont know your dad, but i can practically gurantee a life long republican would be a hell of alot more satisfied with bill richardson (D) as president (who i feel is the most qualified candidate on both sides of the fence for the situation we find ourselves in today), as opposed to hillary clinton.

the headline i read today when i logged on is that n. korea has actually reached out to have 1 on 1 talks with america. now im not gonna credit all this to gov. bill, but hes had alot more to do with it than the current admin or democratic candidates.

http://forums.steelersfever.com/showthread.php?t=16226&highlight=bill+richardson

of course this can be called small fry compared to the bigger fishe we are dealing with, but atleast were not biting off more than we are ready to cheww by pressing on against "the axis of evil".

i dont know all the plans he would have as far as getting out of iraq, i just know when it comes to foreign relations he would be taken a hell of alot more seriously than his current running mates. i feel he would be a president most people would trust and feel safe with, and at that is what is most important right now where we have seen the last 3 presidential elections become more and more divisive.

GBMelBlount
07-14-2007, 11:11 PM
[QUOTE=Blitzburgh;260695]EXCELLENT! ..... Let the blood letting begin. It will be fun watching to watch all the legal wrangling and squirming by the White House trying to get out of this one. Now let's hope the the Dems have the kahuna's to follow through on nailing these corrupt bastages until they're convicted. I hope they bring down this entire corrupt and deciptful GOP administration. Let it be a lesson to our country ..... "reap what you sew" These nimrods should have never been trusted to lead our country to begin with. The only good to come out of this administration is that Bush broke the GOP ticket for the next 20 years. Thanks to him, nobody trusts 'em or respect 'em as leaders. :cheers:

Dear Blitz,

Haven't read the thread. Just read your original post. Wow, i think I want to become a democrat. I am really excited about the possibilities! Just need to know exactly what you stand for and why. That way I can hopefully make a rational decision to become a democrat! Please help! :cheers:

Thanks, GB

fansince'76
07-14-2007, 11:20 PM
I'm afraid he won't be able to answer you, GB....

Preacher
07-14-2007, 11:21 PM
I'm afraid he won't be able to answer you, GB....

:sofunny:

Thats what I was thinking!

GBMelBlount
07-14-2007, 11:28 PM
:sofunny:

Thats what I was thinking!

I don't understand? I think John F. Kennedy was an excellent president and a great American! Wasn't he a democrat? Doesn't he stand for the same things that democrats stand for today? Democrats haven't changed since then have they:hunch:

HometownGal
07-14-2007, 11:37 PM
I've stayed out of this thread for a week or so, but in reading it tonight, I have to say to Dan, Mosca, Preacher, Tony and several others -

Thank You for keeping this thread respectable and for being the gentlemen you all are. :cheers:

SteelCityMan786
07-15-2007, 12:25 AM
I've stayed out of this thread for a week or so, but in reading it tonight, I have to say to Dan, Mosca, Preacher, Tony and several others -

Thank You for keeping this thread respectable and for being the gentlemen you all are. :cheers:

No problem. It's better then seeing all out flame wars.

Atlanta Dan
07-15-2007, 09:04 AM
I've stayed out of this thread for a week or so, but in reading it tonight, I have to say to Dan, Mosca, Preacher, Tony and several others -

Thank You for keeping this thread respectable and for being the gentlemen you all are. :cheers:

Thanks HTG - I continue posting on this thread because I enjoy reading the thoughtful responses of other posters (specifically those you note).

OTOH - only 8 days to training camp, when we can again focus on the subject that initially brought us to the forum.

Mosca
07-15-2007, 09:43 AM
I say, huge PUBLIC props to Dan for finding and sharing source material. That raises our discourse to an entirely different level. This is in addition to the private rep I've given him.

For me, these discussions are never about being right or wrong. They are about putting my ideas out there to see if they can stand the scrutiny of someone else's logic and point of view. If my ideas are strong, I should be able to defend them against an unexpected tack, something I either didn't think of, or didn't know about. It's like verbal football; pick the thread, plan the words, organize the paragraphs, and run the post; then see what matchups come out of it, see how my words were parried, see how counter arguments are justified, and then decide how to best defend what I wrote, or adjust what I previously thought to account for something that I think is more reasonable. Yes, sometimes I've had my opinions changed by these discussions; that is always good, to get worthy ideas from others. Because in the arena of ideas winning isn't measured by how well you beat down the other guy (no matter how much some of our pundits on both sides might want you to believe); it's measured by how well your ideas evolve.

The level of political discourse here at SF is by far the highest I've ever seen in a forum where politics isn't the theme. That's because opposing points of view here aren't the enemy; they are the tools for the evolution of our own thoughts. And huge props to the moderators and the administration for recognizing this and keeping it safe and on track.


Tom

Preacher
07-16-2007, 07:15 PM
HTG....

Thanks... It is amazing what happens when adults discuss things... Heck, this thread shows a lot of emotion, but there sure is a difference between emotion and flaming...

Thanks all....



Oh yeah... and about JFK...

JFK would feel like an orphan today... as would Reagan.

In my opinion, Reagan and JFK were closer to each other, and further away from both parties as they are known today.

Atlanta Dan
07-16-2007, 07:34 PM
HTG....

Thanks... It is amazing what happens when adults discuss things... Heck, this thread shows a lot of emotion, but there sure is a difference between emotion and flaming...

Thanks all....



Oh yeah... and about JFK...

JFK would feel like an orphan today... as would Reagan.

In my opinion, Reagan and JFK were closer to each other, and further away from both parties as they are known today.

Preacher - with respect to your view that is shared by many of us that we are living in a time of voting against rather than voting for something (although I am waiting to see if Obama, the only likely suspect for me, is capable of making the leap across our current divides), Peggy Noonan once again nails it in the context of a column in which she seems to have moved from despair to disdain regarding the President whom she previously supported so adamantly.

Americans hire presidents and fire them. They're not as sweet about it as they used to be. This is not because they have grown cynical, but because they are disappointed, by both teams and both sides. Some part of them thinks no matter who is president he will not protect them from forces at work in the world. Some part of them fears that when history looks back on this moment, on the past few presidents and the next few, it will say: Those men were not big enough for the era.

But this is a democracy. You vote, you do the best you can with the choices presented, and you show the appropriate opposition to the guy who seems most likely to bring trouble. (I think that is one reason for the polarity and division of politics now. No one knows in his gut that the guy he supports will do any good. But at least you can oppose with enthusiasm and passion the guy you feel in your gut will cause more trouble than is needed! This is what happens when the pickings are slim: The greatest passion gets funneled into opposition.)

We hire them and fire them. President Bush was hired to know more than the people, to be told all the deep inside intelligence, all the facts Americans are not told, and do the right and smart thing in response.

That's the deal. It's the real "grand bargain." If you are a midlevel Verizon executive who lives in New Jersey, this is what you do: You hire a president and tell him to take care of everything you can't take care of--the security of the nation, its well-being, its long-term interests. And you in turn do your part. You meet your part of the bargain. You work, pay your taxes, which are your financial contribution to making it all work, you become involved in local things--the boy's ball team, the library, the homeless shelter. You handle what you can handle within your ken, and give the big things to the president.

And if he can't do it, or if he can't do it as well as you pay the mortgage and help the kid next door, you get mad. And you fire him.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/

:cheers:

Preacher
07-16-2007, 08:14 PM
AD...

Great post.

Let ask you a question about this entire issue (voting against, instead of for).

It seems to me that during the cold war, the issue of national defense was at the forefront of every election. Thus, whoever the president is, there was a belief that if the unthinkable happened, the president would order nuclear retaliation.

Today, we have no such overarching fear. Thus, secondary issues have become primary in elections, and the fear of making the opponent look weak or unable to govern is not an issue in the post-cold war America.

Or is it simply the fact that with all the press coverage, with all the games that are played... Good, strong candidates simply don't want to get into the national spotlight... thus leaving it to people who seek the position out of weakness... such as a drive for power, drive for credibility, or a drive to fill an internal need of some kind.

GBMelBlount
07-17-2007, 10:24 PM
AD...

Great post.

Let ask you a question about this entire issue (voting against, instead of for).

It seems to me that during the cold war, the issue of national defense was at the forefront of every election. Thus, whoever the president is, there was a belief that if the unthinkable happened, the president would order nuclear retaliation.

Today, we have no such overarching fear. Thus, secondary issues have become primary in elections, and the fear of making the opponent look weak or unable to govern is not an issue in the post-cold war America.

When our country was founded was the purpose of our founding fathers/government much more than protecting our new country? I would say no. I think we are being lulled into complacency because nothing major has happened in our country since 9/11. Personally, if you don't think of "the unthinkable," & plan for it happening, you are inviting disaster. IMO I think we have the same "overarching fear" if not more, than we have ever had. Apparently I don't represent the majority.

Atlanta Dan
07-17-2007, 10:40 PM
AD...

Great post.

Let ask you a question about this entire issue (voting against, instead of for).

It seems to me that during the cold war, the issue of national defense was at the forefront of every election. Thus, whoever the president is, there was a belief that if the unthinkable happened, the president would order nuclear retaliation.

Today, we have no such overarching fear. Thus, secondary issues have become primary in elections, and the fear of making the opponent look weak or unable to govern is not an issue in the post-cold war America.

Or is it simply the fact that with all the press coverage, with all the games that are played... Good, strong candidates simply don't want to get into the national spotlight... thus leaving it to people who seek the position out of weakness... such as a drive for power, drive for credibility, or a drive to fill an internal need of some kind.

Preacher - As usual, insightful observations and a good question. I agree that national defense was always a front burner concern in the "postwar/Cold War" elections until 1992, although it sometimes was social issues (1968) or payback for a particularly bad Administration (1976) that turned certain presidential elections. Cynics would argue that because the defining principle of the Republican party was "anti-Communism," once Communism went away the GOP thought it could not win on domestic issues, prompting the decision to take the legitimate threat of Al Queda and conflate it into an eternal "war on terror."

As for the negative nature of current campaigns, nastiness is not unique to political contests of our era. However, while political realignments start with voters voting against an incumbent party (Hoover in 1932/Carter in 1980) they are cemented by voters deciding they want to vote for the new incumbent rather than simply against the other party (FDR in 1936/Reagan in 1984). When parties are closely balanced and cannot take major risks, elections turn on more trivial concerns. When parties have power to burn or nothing to lose is when ideological breakthroughs are developed by the majority (New Deal) or minority (1964 Goldwater campaign) party.

While events are ripe for the incumbent Presidential party to be trounced in an extinction level event election in 2008, for politics to then proceed to a more positive state based on then voting in subsequent elections for the new incumbent party, IMO the Democrats will need to nominate someone who is a break from the past and address broad issues of economic angst that incorporate such matters as trade with China, immigration, and perceived economic inequality. I think those various symptoms of profound economic uncertainty will combine in future years to be an issue that will dominate politics for some time to come as the U.S. adjusts to no longer being the only big dog in a multi-polar world. In response to the point raised by GBMelBlount, protecting the economic well being of citizens can be just as important as military defense and is not a new concern (GBMelBlount - if you doubt me on this, check out the debates between Jefferson & Hamilton on the role of the federal government in promoting economic growth - Hamilton won that debate). It all depends what you regard as "national security."

With regard to who that realigning candidate may be, suffice it to say it will not be Hillary Clinton. So in answer to your question, I think political discourse will be petty and divisive until a new majority is nailed down by a President with the clout to deliver voters who, like Reagan and FDR, positively adopt his views. Peggy Noonan thinks we may be some time off from that; the only current candidate I see who might cobble together a realigning majority starting in 2008 is Obama. However, I still cannot figure out whether he is (to use a Texas put down), all hat and no cattle.

GBMelBlount
07-17-2007, 11:39 PM
Preacher - GBMelBlount, protecting the economic well being of citizens can be just as important as military defense and is not a new concern (GBMelBlount - if you doubt me on this, check out the debates between Jefferson & Hamilton on the role of the federal government in promoting economic growth - Hamilton won that debate). It all depends what you regard as "national security."

Great point AD, I couldn't agree with you more.

Preacher
07-18-2007, 05:02 AM
AD... Thanks for that response... It made me think, which is always a good thing.

What I wonder however, is if this particular group of citizens is now to fractured to truly see a unifying candidate? In the Democratic party, right now there seems to be 4 truly dividing factors.

1. War in the Gulf. Those who hold to the U.S. pulling out now demands that the people they elect on that platform perform. Right now, the DNC is experiencing a lot of kick back for not delivering a date for a pull-out. There are rumors starting that the Democrats may lose the next presidential election because this group will stay home if their man or woman is not nominated. While there are a number of people from all over the political spectrum that agree with the sentiment, the demand to establish a date and pull out pushes the candidate too far to the left for many.

2. Abortion. Any nominee from the democratic party must be pro-abortion, if a candidate is against the war in the gulf, but also against abortion, he or she is unelectable as a democrat. There are a number of Christians that will not vote Democrat for this reason alone... that may cross over otherwise.

3. Enviromentalism. There is a strong Green streak in the party that demands allegience to what many in the middle or the right would call radical enviromentalism. These people are probably in agreement with the first two issues, but any candidate MUST hold on to the enviromental doctrines of Global warming, Kyoto treaty, etc.

4. Labor. This is a fascinating group. They want... demand protection and almost always vote democrat, however, Reagan was elected in part because of Labor. Enviromentalists will at times be at odds with this group.

The GOP isn't quite as fractured... but the fractures run much deeper

1. Laissez-faire There is a strong segment of the GOP that wants government to completely stay away from business... or personal lives. They want no social change driven by government and consider the tax code as social engineering. This group has been around a long time, as is known as the Rockefeller Republicans, also known now as the Rhino's because if this is the primary drive for a republican, they usually don't care much about other issues. These are also known as the "country club republicans." Interestingly, this group is dying out in the party. While the belief of lower taxes and laissez faire govt. stays with most GOP'ers, it is not the main and driving force of the others listed here.

2. Abortion. This group DEMANDS the GOP to ALWAYS put up a pro-life candidate. Because this group is very strong within the party itself, it prohibits Rudy Giuliani from ever making it out of the primaries, and will cause a revolt in the party... and possibly a third party if a pro-choice republican ever made it to a general election for president. Some of these people ONLY vote GOP, ONLY because of abortion.

3. Law and order republicans... These are the ones that yell and scream about our laws being obeyed... such as border issues, SCOTUS overstepping its boundaries, etc.

2 and 3 will sometimes cross... but there is a distinct difference, and the demand for the candidate is different.

________________

Here are seven different groups that drive politics in our country. The problem is that the way we are currently set up, a candidate has to play towards one or the other of these groups. If they play to the left, it isolates the middle... If they play to the right, it isolates the Rhino's of their own party.

Thus, it seems the problem may be that politicians have learned that instead of playing gumby, and stretching to reach all sides, they should point out to the other party the parts of the candidate that his or her counterparts DONT want. SUch as, Rudy is pro-choice, Clinton thinks she is above the law (whitewater). blah blah blah...

So how do we back away from this current problem? The divisions run deep, and will continue to run deeper, especially because the house and senate are up for grabs every other election now.

BTW... I doubt Obama will be a person to draw the nation together. His ties to his church will really hurt him if he makes it into the general election. His belief on abortion will not allow staunch GOP'ers to vote for him, or elected GOP members to work with him, because they will lose thier base. Rudy will have the same problem in the GOP. Hillary will draw out a major negative vote, as Clinton fatigue still exists. Thompson from the GOP seems to have a strong draw among the Reagan GOP, but he runs smack in the face of the democrat abortion group and labor...

So who do we look for? There is no one that can draw together the country. What it will take... and this is very sad to say, is a major attack and sustained war/rebuild against a single enemy a la WWII.

I just don't see that happening, nor do I wish for it.

What else may turn the tide? Who knows. I just know I am sick and tired of it...

Heck... I haven't even started into the additional issues of the internet, talk radio, podcasting, and the creation of the Super-states in the geo-political make up which is changing the entire political dynamic both within the country and in international politics.

ARGHHHH... Now I have a headache....

When does training camp start!!!