www.nationalview.org and Note From a Madman brought to you by
for your Information Technology needs
owned and operated by Noah "The Madman" Greenberg
This is What Democracy Looks Like
Friday-Sunday, August 18-20, 2006
What's So Illegal about Breaking a Law Anyway?
The judge and other opponents of the illegal federal wiretapping program "do not understand the nature of the world in which we live."
-"G"lobal "W"arming Bush
What I think GW meant to say was "U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor and other opponents of the illegal federal wiretapping program do not understand the nature of the world which I created." Terror has been with our world for a long time now. Terrorists have attacked the US and US bases, embassies and institutions abroad for more than a generation now. But even the administration of Reagan-to-Bush (41), a span of twelve years, we haven't seen the help offered the terrorists that "Junior" and his cronies has offered them.
It's almost like PNAC (The Project for a New American Century), who stated that we need a "catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor" gave al-Qaeda the idea to stage an event like 9/11. After all, they did call for it with that statement, didn't they? And under whose administration did our CIA teach the Taliban, also known as al-Qaeda's hosts, and Osama bin-Laden, to use those same exact tactics yesterday which they are using today? I'll give you a hint: His initials were RR.
"I strongly disagree with that decision (to find the illegal wiretaps, illegal)... strongly disagree,"
Here's a math question for you all. Ready? If I were to ask for a show of hands of those who didn't know that GW "strongly disagreed" with the federal court's decision, how many hands would there be in the air?
Here's another one: If GW's brain left Washington on a train bound for Crawford, TX; and that train made 5 stops along the way, how long would it take until GW realized that the train doesn't go to Crawford, TX?
Never mind. It was a trick question.
"If al-Qaeda is calling in to the United States, we want to know why they're calling,"
I wonder how many times Bush has asked that same question? That must be what he means by "Catapulting the propaganda".
"It was never the intent of the framers to give the president such unfettered control... There are no hereditary Kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution. So all 'inherent powers' must derive from that Constitution."
-Taylor, from her decision
Some of you might remember that GW called the FISA court an "old law". The 1978 FISA law, which was signed into law by then-President Jimmy Carter; might cause some of you to remember that it was passed by both houses of congress prior to its signing by Carter. Its purpose was to make sure that no president could mis-use his (or her) powers to spy on other Americans, especially his (or her) competition, as Richard M. Nixon did prior to his 1972 re-election.
The FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) law is a simple law: The federal government has to get permission from the FISA court before they spy on Americans. They even have three days of "free spying" available to them before they have to get the court's permission. All told, in the eighteen years that this law has been on the books, some estimates have the total number of "no warrants for you" at less than a dozen.
It's hard to argue with the Bushite stance that "if you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear". But I can. This makes it way too easy for dishonest people to mis-use a power of this magnitude. And we know they will because they have.
Bush says he will appeal this ruling. What did you expect from a son of privilege when he doesn't get his way, anyway?
Another Snow Job
White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Bush administration's "Terrorist Surveillance Program" is "firmly grounded in law and regularly reviewed to make sure steps are taken to protect civil liberties."
"We couldn't disagree more with this ruling, and the Justice Department will seek an immediate stay of the opinion and appeal," Snow said in a statement.
the problem Mr. SnowJob is that Bush didn't work within the law. He could have used the FISA law that gives him lots of leeway but didn't. He could have gone to Congress for a revision of the FISA but he didn't. He could had Congressional oversight of this program but he didn't. He could have cracked down on misuses of wiretaps such as eavesdropping on peace groups but he didn't. He could let the media do their job, it happens so infrequently, and report on what's going on but instead he threatened them.
The Repugs are trying to use secret wiretapping as a weapon against political opponents. Their claims that it thwarted a terrorist plot to blow up planes is both absurd and a lie. In fact, the Repugs did nothing, nothing at all, this was all British surveillance done within their laws. The most absurd aspect is that no explosives were found. So I guess just discussing an idea makes you a terrorist now. According to many sources in the BBC, the British government is notorious for getting it wrong; I would not be at all surprised if they got this one wrong as well.
What's Good For Bush Isn't Good For The Rest Of Us
All that news from the last few days about how the screeners and x-rays at airports can't determine whether a liquid is an explosive or not? The White House has scanners that will do just that. To quote John at AMERICAblog:
And just let the White House tell us that these systems aren't really proven technology. Then why is the White House using them at all? Bush had the chance to save American lives and chose his own first. . . . We had money for tax cuts, lots of them. $300 billion for the Iraq war, and counting. But not enough to stop terrorists from blowing up US commercial airliners when we knew about this threat ten years ago.
Hmmm, well if you do buy into the liquid explosives concept, why don't these scanners at airports? Are the Repukes again being weak on defense? They throw billions at a useless war and even more useless occupation in Iraq. They throw billions at tax cuts for billionaires but they have no money to upgrade the airport security system? What gives with that?
"What does this mean? It means President Bush violated his oath of office, among other things, when he swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States. It means he's been lying to us, when he tells us there's nothing illegal he's been doing.
"I hope it means the arrogant inner circle at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue may finally have to start answering to the people who own that address, that would be us, about how we conduct our country's affairs."
CNN's Jack Cafferty on the judge Taylor's ruling against Bush's secret NSA wiretapping program
Well, Mr. Cafferty I hope so too. The best way to begin is by voting Democratic in 2006. Let's put an end to the Bush agenda for good.
About the '04 debate
Bush better think about Osama "that much." He was and still is much more important than Buh's planned war in Iraq war and is much more dangerous than Saddam Hussein ever was.
Now that the Taliban is back, bin-Laden becomes ever more dangerous. And if Dumbya made him a priority by thinking about him after 9/11, then maybe we would have caught Osama rather than having him walking around as a free man. Maybe the Taliban would have been gone permanently as well.
All of this just shows that Dumbya has always had the wrong priorities and has always ignored what most of us consider to be the most important priorities. It's that simple. It's almost like Bush never gets anything right. Even a common man would know that, after the 9/11 attacks, the whereabouts Osama bin Laden should be the main concern,. Dumbya and the right-wing TV news networks and newspapers are on the same agenda and both have said the same thing.
We need to realize that our Bush-Rove-Cheney-Rice run government is clueless to what is important and what is not when it comes to the fight against terrorism. We should think the opposite of what they believe.
In response to, "Tom Kean, Jr., dumber than a bag of hammers, to quote another Kossack," Pat Thompson writes:
As far as Repugs go, Tom Kean Sr. is not one of the worst of the lot. He seemed to be a moderate, and did have some very teensy tiny cajunes when investigating 9/11. But his son does seem like a typical idiotic robotic follower of the Republican party line.
In response to, "think it would be arrogance on our part to re-draw the borders of Iraq," and "Although I'm not, necessarily, endorsing this idea, I do think it has merits. In the end, if it is the best choice, let it be the last bit of arrogance that we push onto the people of Iraq," Pat Thompson writes:
Iraq was created by the British, I believe, drawing arbitrary lines. The Kurds surely want their own nation, and the horrible carnage being perpetrated by the Shiites and the Sunnis against each other would lead me to believe they aren't going to create a nation together in the next century. Old blood feuds last a long time....
In response to, "Oh no! You've been sucked in! Once in, you never get out. First it's backpacks, then you notice how cheap the Charmin toilet paper is. Then you find the bread you really like, the whole grain is only $1.44 there and $4.44 at the regular grocery store," Pat Thompson responds:
Oh no! I hated it so much before I went because of what I already know about Wal-Mart, and I hated the experience all the more. I feel too bad for the employees who make minimum wage and don't get any benefits to shop there. My granddaughter was just hired as a 15 yr. old bagger at ShopRite making $7.50 an hr. I'd rather shop there, where even the new young underage people are making more than minimum wage.
Send your comments to: NationalView@aol.com or firstname.lastname@example.org