NY Times: Spying on citizens by Clinton Administration just fine


PDA






progunner1957
January 14, 2006, 10:25 AM
The alleged Bush/NSA phone monitoring is an outrage against humanity, but the Clinton administration's spying on American citizens, which happened tens of thousands of times more often, was just fine with the New York Times.

Once again, the Demosocialist controlled media shows its double standard: Clinton can do no wrong, Bush can do no right.:barf: :barf: :barf:





NY Times: 'Illegal' Spying OK Under Clinton

Last month, when the New York Times revealed to the world that the Bush administration had a top secret National Security Agency program that monitored communications between al Qaeda terrorists and their U.S.-based agents, it strongly condemned the operation as a dangerous and possibly illegal invasion of privacy.

However, the Old Gray Lady wasn't nearly as upset over a much broader surveillance program under the Clinton administration, which routinely monitored millions of phone calls between U.S. citizens without a court ordered warrant.

In fact, the paper called the blanket invasion of privacy a "necessity" - even though it was carried out without the justification provided by the 9/11 attacks.

The American Thinker web site has unearthed Times quotes from 1999, when the paper was reacting to reports on the NSA's Echelon project under Bill Clinton, which randomly trolled U.S. telecommunications looking for trouble.

"Few dispute the necessity of a system like Echelon to apprehend foreign spies, drug traffickers and terrorists," the Times explained helpfully.

The same report quoted an NSA official assuring Times readers "that all Agency activities are conducted in accordance with the highest constitutional, legal and ethical standards.

These days, however, the Old Gray Lady doesn't like to talk about Echelon. In the dozens of stories on the Bush NSA operation since reporter James Risen "broke" the story on December 16, the Times has mentioned the older NSA program only once.

In a December 22 report by Timesman Scott Shane, the paper dismissed "reports on an agency program called Echelon [asserting] that the agency and its counterparts in the United Kingdom, Canada, New Zealand and Australia somehow intercepted all world communications," calling such claims "exaggerated."

If you enjoyed reading about "NY Times: Spying on citizens by Clinton Administration just fine" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
El Tejon
January 14, 2006, 12:04 PM
Yeah, but there was no agreed political plan to hurt the Clinton Administration as there is to undermine Chimpy McHaliburton.:D

AZRickD
January 14, 2006, 12:16 PM
Oy. Echelon and Carnivore.

I'm reliving my early days of web activism.

Rick

Hockeydude
January 14, 2006, 12:50 PM
So just because the Democrats said it then it makes what Bush is doing right? Only simple minded people will be content with the "Democrates did it too" excuse. It just shows that both parties are hypocrites.

Bartholomew Roberts
January 14, 2006, 12:59 PM
Well besides the fact that a "Johhny did it first" is not a viable defense for children, let alone the President of the United States, from a technical legal perspective, the United States did not listen to American citizens (http://www.fas.org/irp/program/process/echelon.htm). Foreign intelligence agencies monitored U.S. communications and shared the information with NSA; much as NSA monitored foreign citizens and shared the communications with those countries. Echelon is a case of violating the spirit of the law while honoring the letter of the law.

In contrast, the recent monitoring of American citizens by the Bush Administration without a FISA warrant is at best a legally grey area. Bush undoubtedly violated FISA. The only question is whether he retained some Constitutional authority to allow him to declare any American communicating internationally a potential "foreign agent" and subject to his powers to gather foreign intelligence OR whether the authorization to use military force also authorized him to spy on Americans.

Boogyman
January 14, 2006, 01:00 PM
The alleged Bush/NSA phone monitoring is an outrage against humanity, but the Clinton administration's spying on American citizens, which happened tens of thousands of times more often, was just fine with the New York Times.

Once again, the Demosocialist controlled media shows its double standard: Clinton can do no wrong, Bush can do no right.:barf: :barf: :barf:


Clinton went through the proper channels and got FISA approval. Bush did NOT. This is ILLEGAL. That's what the outrage is about.

Most of the big media corporations are owned by rich REPUBLICANS. This "liberal-controlled media" drivel is nothing but tired old rhetoric.

It's amazing to me what lengths people will go to ommitting facts, presenting statements out of context, and outright lying, all in a feeble attempt to defend Bush's despicable antics and try to blame everything on Clinton.

Give it up!

taliv
January 14, 2006, 01:01 PM
echelon != phone monitoring

WillBrayJr
January 14, 2006, 01:02 PM
I have nothing to hide. What are they going to do?, haul my @$$ in because I talk to my mom.

Flyboy
January 14, 2006, 01:12 PM
I have nothing to hide. What are they going to do?, haul my @$$ in because I talk to my mom.
When Hillary is President, and you talk to your mom about the neat gun you just bought...

Besides, you miss the fundamental issue: the government is supposed to have probable cause. If they do, they can get a warrant; if not, it's none of their damned business.

tellner
January 14, 2006, 02:29 PM
Except that you'll notice a couple things. When Clinton did it he went to FISA and got warrants. When he didn't have time to he went within 72 hours as mandated by law and got them. In other words, he obeyed the law. Bush ignored the law because he didn't feel like obeying it and because the (conservative, Bush-appointed rubber-stamp) judges had the temerity to deny him six out of the thousands of warrants he demanded.

So the difference, for the fact-impaired, is that Clinton obeyed the law. Bush broke it. And he even broke it before the 9/11 rationalization http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011306Z.shtml.

Besides, it's the tactic of the guilty criminal to say "It doesn't matter if I broke the law. Some other guy broke the law to, so I'm fine." It doesn't wash as a defense, especially from someone who claims to be the paragon of morality.

You can be sure that the Republican Lie Machine in its incarnation as the Arkansas Project would have jumped on Clinton if they thought they could pin anything even remotely bad on him.

Sorry, this time the Republicans have to ride the pipe. They're just generally not man enough to own up to it.

dasmi
January 14, 2006, 02:32 PM
+1.
Well said, as usual.

Well besides the fact that a "Johhny did it first" is not a viable defense for children, let alone the President of the United States, from a technical legal perspective, the United States did not listen to American citizens (http://www.fas.org/irp/program/process/echelon.htm). Foreign intelligence agencies monitored U.S. communications and shared the information with NSA; much as NSA monitored foreign citizens and shared the communications with those countries. Echelon is a case of violating the spirit of the law while honoring the letter of the law.

In contrast, the recent monitoring of American citizens by the Bush Administration without a FISA warrant is at best a legally grey area. Bush undoubtedly violated FISA. The only question is whether he retained some Constitutional authority to allow him to declare any American communicating internationally a potential "foreign agent" and subject to his powers to gather foreign intelligence OR whether the authorization to use military force also authorized him to spy on Americans.

Malone LaVeigh
January 14, 2006, 02:40 PM
It was wrong, and everyone I knew was against it, when Clinton was the boogeyman behind Carnivore, etc. It's wrong now that Bush is doing it. The difference is that Clinton wasn't arrogant enough to consider himself above the law.

We ought to at least be able to hang the SOB we caught. (Metaphorically, of course, I'm not advocating capital punishment...)

PCGS65
January 14, 2006, 03:26 PM
Too many irrational quotes here, so I'll just say

OH HOW THE DEMOCRATS WILL BLAME BUSH TO MAKE UP FOR HOW CLINTON SMEARED THEIR NAME THROUGH THE MUD.:rolleyes:

longhorngunman
January 14, 2006, 03:37 PM
Oh no, ole George might hear me tell my buddy about my new Mauser, oh the horror! Good grief, if anything Bush should have been impeached if he didn't tapp the phones of suspected Al Queda while we are at war. The best is all these internet armchair commandos who get riled up about these phone taps and the Patriot Act, animal ID, despite the obvious need and the fact that the majority of this country is in absolute agreement with the gov. on these matters.

Justin
January 14, 2006, 04:15 PM
Longhorngunman, way to beat the snot out of that strawman there.
The controversy isn't whether Bush was wrong to tap phones. The controversy is that he didn't go through FISA to get a warrant to do so.

Bush.

violated.

the.

Constitution.


And for the rest of you, since when does the 4th Amendment read

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, unless they've piqued the interest of some beaurocrat, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized, except for people who lead exceedingly boring lives."

Every time I actually see someone voice support for eroding the 4th amendment because "I'm so boring, they'd never bother me" it makes my stomach churn.

But I guess the guys who wrote the Bill of Rights were just a bunch of terrorist-loving pinko commies.

Malone LaVeigh
January 14, 2006, 04:17 PM
Oh no, ole George might hear me tell my buddy about my new Mauser, oh the horror! Good grief, if anything Bush should have been impeached if he didn't tapp the phones of suspected Al Queda while we are at war. The best is all these internet armchair commandos who get riled up about these phone taps and the Patriot Act, animal ID, despite the obvious need and the fact that the majority of this country is in absolute agreement with the gov. on these matters.
First, say that when it's Hillary.

Second, a majority, according to polls going back as far as I can remember, support gun control. That make it OK with you? Just because you find yourself with the sheeple on this one doesn't make it right.

Finally, according to the reports I've seen, polls show the country about evenly divided over the current snooping. Only the bootlicking toads are in "absolute agreement."

PCGS65
January 14, 2006, 04:22 PM
Justin, our government is unconstitutional end of story. However two wrongs don't make a right if Mr. Bush did break the law.
Also it's obvious the NYT is operated if not owned by democrats.

taliv
January 14, 2006, 04:30 PM
Justin +1

Justin
January 14, 2006, 04:30 PM
Justin, our government is unconstitutional end of story.

Yeah, but does that mean that any time some public servant violates the constitution it shouldn't at least be documented and denounced?

However two wrongs don't make a right if Mr. Bush did break the law.

What does this even mean? That it's wrong to prosecute someone for violating the constitution?

Also it's obvious the NYT is operated if not owned by democrats.

Hi, welcome to 1992. To be completely honest, given the millions of news outlets that now exist, from portal websites to specialized blogs, to RSS feeds, and programs that email news stories directly to you, the whole "The media are a bunch of leftists" thing has worn a little thin. Of course the media are a bunch of leftists. So what? Go bookmark a bunch of blogs that aren't and be done with it.

Art Eatman
January 14, 2006, 05:05 PM
The US-based Echelon facilities didn't monitor US calls; only overseas stuff. The UK-based Echelon facilities, not needing FISA authorization, monitored US calls and then fed the data to the NSA.

Since the Commander-in-Chief has some amount of authority to spy on enemies and agents thereof, it's possible that Bush's folks' spying was Constitutional. I don't know, one way or the other.

I'm waiting for the legal eagles to work it all out. So far, it's "He said, she said."

Art

longhorngunman
January 14, 2006, 07:13 PM
Many constitutional scholars have said there is no violating the constitution over what Bush did. And think God he did it. It is his solemn duty to do all he can to protect the country from those that want to KILL us. Tell you what if these THR's who are so pissed at Bush can get Al Queada and all radical Islam to declare the end of Jihad and peace with the West then I'll wish them Godspeed in impeaching Bush which is what they want. Until then I'm 100% behind the President and the WOT.

Molon Labe
January 14, 2006, 07:32 PM
I'm 100% behind the President.I'm 100% behind the Constitution.

This means we're at odds with each other.

Bartholomew Roberts
January 14, 2006, 08:28 PM
Tell you what if these THR's who are so pissed at Bush can get Al Queada and all radical Islam to declare the end of Jihad and peace with the West then I'll wish them Godspeed in impeaching Bush which is what they want. Until then I'm 100% behind the President and the WOT.

Well, you can count me as one of those who is pissed at Bush and I voted for him in 2000 and 2004. Feel free to check my past posts if you doubt me. If I had known he would use the power this way, I would not have done it.

Even if the taps are found to be legal, they set remarkably bad policy precedent that won't go away when these terrorists do.

spartacus2002
January 14, 2006, 08:56 PM
Look guys, just jam the system by starting every phone conversation with "President, Allah, Bomb." That guarantees NSA will hoover up your conversation. If we all do it, their supercomputers will melt down.:evil:

Boogyman
January 14, 2006, 09:16 PM
Well, you can count me as one of those who is pissed at Bush and I voted for him in 2000 and 2004. Feel free to check my past posts if you doubt me. If I had known he would use the power this way, I would not have done it.

Even if the taps are found to be legal, they set remarkably bad policy precedent that won't go away when these terrorists do.

I commend you, sir, for having the cajones to admit you regret your decision, if even for this one issue. While I didn't vote for Bush, I, too, am outraged by his abuse of power. And a lot of other things that he won't be held accountable for unless the Democrats take back the House this November.
You wanna see him pay? Then you know how to vote next time...

longhorngunman
January 15, 2006, 12:51 AM
Yeah, that'll solve the problem, vote Democrat!:D I mean come on we know John Kerry would have upheld the constitution. Actually he would have probably given free phones to Al Queda and just eavesdropped on Republicans.:) Really some of you just amaze me, you get spied on by other people, companies, city government, federal government, each and every day and it has been going on for quite awhile and it will only get more abundant as technology increases. If you want total secrecy maybe Osama will rent you a cave somewhere in Pakistan:neener: . Bush doing this just reaffirms why myself and apparently a majority of people voted for him. Because he WILL do what it takes to find and stop Al Queda.

xd9fan
January 15, 2006, 01:26 AM
I'm 100% behind the Constitution.

This means we're at odds with each other.


+1

Both parties are a joke

Waitone
January 15, 2006, 01:37 AM
The jury hasn't even been formed on whether or not Bush had the authority . . . . The realization that Bush did a constitutional nasty is a little late in the game, ain't it? After all, he signed Campaign Finance Control after admitting it was "probably unconstitutional". I said it at the beginning of Bush's first term and I say it again. To Bush the constitution and bill or rights is a pile of poker chips to be used in play his game of Governance Stud. He will sacrifice anything to get what he wants. Get used to it. The dood needs to be watched at all times and called out on loud and clear when he pulls one of his famous boners (c.f Meiers for SCOTUS).

Herself
January 15, 2006, 01:58 AM
Yeah, that'll solve the problem, vote Democrat!
As it turns out, there are other options besides elephants and donkeys. The Founders were quite doubtful of political parties altogether, and made no provision at all for them in the Constitution.

--Herself

Boogyman
January 15, 2006, 01:59 AM
Yeah, that'll solve the problem, vote Democrat!

Heaven forbid, since the republicans are doing such a great job... screwing everything up!

I mean come on we know John Kerry would have upheld the constitution.

Of course... he actually fought for it.

Actually he would have probably given free phones to Al Queda

Yeah, sure, that's what he woulda done...

and just eavesdropped on Republicans.

That was Nixon eavesdropping on Democrats, remember?

Really some of you just amaze me, you get spied on by other people, companies, city government, federal government, each and every day and it has been going on for quite awhile and it will only get more abundant as technology increases.

So I should just shut up, sit down, and get used to it, huh?

Bush doing this just reaffirms why myself and apparently a majority of people voted for him. Because he WILL do what it takes to find and stop Al Queda.

Except focusing our attention and forces on Afghanistan where we had Al Queda and Bin Laden cornered. Instead we invaded Iraq and now it is a breeding ground for Al Queda, which is bigger and more dangerous than it ever was before, and Bin Laden is still out there. And this is why you voted for him?

Oh yeah, I forgot, it's all the Democrats fault...:eek:

PCGS65
January 15, 2006, 08:58 AM
Yeah, that'll solve the problem, vote Democrat!:D I mean come on we know John Kerry would have upheld the constitution. Actually he would have probably given free phones to Al Queda and just eavesdropped on Republicans.:) Really some of you just amaze me, you get spied on by other people, companies, city government, federal government, each and every day and it has been going on for quite awhile and it will only get more abundant as technology increases. If you want total secrecy maybe Osama will rent you a cave somewhere in Pakistan:neener: . Bush doing this just reaffirms why myself and apparently a majority of people voted for him. Because he WILL do what it takes to find and stop Al Queda.
+1, Your absolutely right. Don't let anybody tell you different.
The rest of these guys just want another terrorist attack so they can say "Bush lied", when he took office he swore to protect this country and look what happened. They still want to "get even" for Clinton lying under oath.:rolleyes:

Khornet
January 15, 2006, 12:01 PM
the jury is still out, so I'll save my outrage for a real outrage.

Interesting that Clinton let the Brits monitor US domestic traffic and then feed it to the NSA. So he followed the letter while violating the spirit of the law (a law which may or may not be applicable anyway). Very Clintonesque. But W did the dirty work himself--IF it was actually dirty work, which we don't know yet.

Even more interesting is the NYT double standard. And no, the 'biased mainstream media' concept is not old hat, not by a long shot. Most of America still gets its news that way. And most don't get past the headlines. So when the NYT shouts 'domestic spying' in the headlines, it matters. All too few Americans spend the time to delve into the issue the way the debaters on this forum do.

Lobotomy Boy
January 15, 2006, 12:32 PM
I have nothing to hide. What are they going to do?, haul my @$$ in because I talk to my mom.

Let's see... Where have I seen this logic before? Ever heard of Crystal Night? While many Germans were appalled, most kept silent because they had nothing to hide. They weren't Jews and the pograms were only taking place in the ghettos, so what were the Brownshirts going to do to them?

From what I've read it's starting to look like Bush didn't violate the Constitution, at least not as it is interpreted in today's courts, but that he may have violated FISA, which would qualify as a felony. If this is the case, he should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

I don't believe the Democrats are going to offer any kind of alternative to the mess we're in. I listened to John Kerry on the radio the other night and he was spouting the same oil industry-driven rhetoric about Iran as the Bush administration. Ultimately Democrats and Republicans alike are whores for the same corporate pimps and when they give us the political clap, it's not the Republican or Democratic political clap.

gm
January 15, 2006, 02:02 PM
yup..I support the constitution as well,I also voted for georgie last time because of the moral issues he raised,seems things have gone somewhat downhill since then...now I am wondering.


spying on citizens?yup everones done it..doesnt make it right in my book.specially for someone who is SUPPOSED to follow the constitution and support it.

Molon Labe
January 15, 2006, 02:26 PM
yup..I support the constitution as well,I also voted for georgie last time because of the moral issues he raised,seems things have gone somewhat downhill since then...now I am wondering.Right.

It is impossible for a person to support George Bush and the Constitution.

Biker
January 15, 2006, 02:31 PM
Right.

It is impossible for a person to support George Bush and the Constitution.
It is beginning, just a bit, to look that way.
Biker

longhorngunman
January 15, 2006, 02:59 PM
I'm sure the same people here would be rushing to Bush's defense if he had not allowed these taps to take place and because of that failed to stop a major attack within this country. yeah I'm sure you all would be calling the TV stations writing the newspapers that although we lost millions of lives give kudos to George for "upholding the Constitution".:rolleyes:

Biker
January 15, 2006, 03:05 PM
I'm sure the same people here would be rushing to Bush's defense if he had not allowed these taps to take place and because of that failed to stop a major attack within this country. yeah I'm sure you all would be calling the TV stations writing the newspapers that although we lost millions of lives give kudos to George for "upholding the Constitution".:rolleyes:
If you're trying to speak for me, you're wrong. Life without liberty is no life at all.
Biker

Lobotomy Boy
January 15, 2006, 03:20 PM
I'm sure the same people here would be rushing to Bush's defense if he had not allowed these taps to take place and because of that failed to stop a major attack within this country. yeah I'm sure you all would be calling the TV stations writing the newspapers that although we lost millions of lives give kudos to George for "upholding the Constitution".

There is no greater sign that the Bush apologists have lost this debate than the fact that they can't debate the issue without changing the issure. The issue is not that Bush "allowed these taps to take place" (that's another issue entirely); the issue is that he did so without following the FISA regulations, which is illegal. Whether or not the FISA act is Constitutionally legal is a different debate altogether, though the Supreme Court has ruled it is Constitutional.

I am sick and tired of Bush apologists squawking like trained parrots about how our fearless leader is under attack for wiretaps on U.S. citizens. He's not, though many believe he should be. He's under attack for having the incredible hubris to claim he didn't need to even go through the empty motions of obtaining FISA warrants for these wiretaps. The good lord made you men, not sheep. He stuck brains in those heads of yours--use them instead of squawking like a bunch of empty-headed animals.

Flyboy
January 15, 2006, 03:59 PM
If this is the case, he should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
Counter point: as much as I'd like to see him prosecuted for violating the law, do you really want to see an incumbent Cheney?

Unfortunately, there's not going to be a changing of the guard any time soon, regardless of which offices change hands.

Byron Quick
January 15, 2006, 05:20 PM
I voted for Bush with my eyes wide open in 2000 and 2004. What we've gotten so far is about what I expected. The problem with voting Democratic was the candidates, as usual.

I'm not a Republican. I don't care for Republican policies. I believe Republican policies will lead to catastrophe for America. So why do I vote for Republicans? Simple. I believe that the Republican policies will lead to catastrophe a few decades later than the Democratic policies will lead to catastrophe.

I've hope that something fundamental will change in those few decades.

But I will tell the Democrats something: Jumping up and down, pointing at Republicans, and shouting,"Look at what they've done, you should have voted for Al Gore, John Kerry, Howard Dean, Hilary Clinton, and Bill Clinton, etc. ad nauseum," is a mighty thin damn reed on which to hang your hopes of election.

The Republican Party makes me nauseous; the Democratic Party invokes active vomiting.

The only things that the Democratic Party and the Republican Party disagree on is which areas of our lives should be controlled by government and by how much. Not much of a choice.:barf:

I don't vote for Republicans as such. Rather, I vote against Democrats. I would quite happily campaign for, donate money to, and vote for "none of the above." Unfortunately, I don't have that choice.

Lobotomy Boy
January 15, 2006, 06:19 PM
Counter point: as much as I'd like to see him prosecuted for violating the law, do you really want to see an incumbent Cheney?

I agree that three years of a Cheney presidency is not a very attractive proposition, but I still believe that justice needs to be served.

I'm old enough to remember Watergate and the events leading up to it. Ever since I heard about the Valerie Plame case I've expected the Bush administration to unravel like the Nixon administration. Remember that that is still under active investigation, even though we haven't heard much lately. I wouldn't be surprised if that still came back and pulled an Agnew on Cheney. Either that or the pig valve in his bionic heart will stick open or something and he'll resign for health reasons. I think that by the time Bush is tried and convicted of violating FISA, if he is, Cheney will be out of the picture and whoever Bush chooses to replace him will be the next president.

I believe that the Republican policies will lead to catastrophe a few decades later than the Democratic policies will lead to catastrophe.

That more or less summarizes my political philosophy.

longhorngunman
January 15, 2006, 07:41 PM
Empty headed animals? Sure sign of a lost debate is when a liberal starts up with the namecalling:rolleyes: . The President wasn't stupid, he had his lawyers check and came to the conclusion that he indeed has the powers to do what he did and thank God for it. Don't give me the BS about when Hillary gets in power. Guess what if the American people are dumb enough to vote her in, so be it. You libs are just upset because instead of having your impeachment orgasm you just had a premature ejacualation!:neener: Sorry Bush ain't going anywhere till 2009 so just keep on pouting.

Lobotomy Boy
January 15, 2006, 07:45 PM
Empty headed animals? Sure sign of a lost debate is when a liberal starts up with the namecalling .

I didn't call you an empty-headed animal. I gave you a choice between behaving like a reasoning man or behaving like a mindless sheep. Which option you choose is up to you. You have free will, though your argument indicates you have yet to wake up to that fact.

Sorry Bush ain't going anywhere till 2009 so just keep on pouting.

If, in fact, this proves not to be the case, I will be reminding you of this post.

Biker
January 15, 2006, 07:50 PM
Empty headed animals? Sure sign of a lost debate is when a liberal starts up with the namecalling:rolleyes: . The President wasn't stupid, he had his lawyers check and came to the conclusion that he indeed has the powers to do what he did and thank God for it. Don't give me the BS about when Hillary gets in power. Guess what if the American people are dumb enough to vote her in, so be it. You libs are just upset because instead of having your impeachment orgasm you just had a premature ejacualation!:neener: Sorry Bush ain't going anywhere till 2009 so just keep on pouting.
Another sure sign of a lost debate is when a Bush apologist refers to his opponant as a 'liberal' or 'lib'. For example, I'm quite conservative which is why I no longer support Jorge (sticks in your craw, don't it?
:neener: ) Bush.
Biker

longhorngunman
January 15, 2006, 09:13 PM
Doesn't stick in my craw at all. I know my President is doing his job and pissing off internet commandos like yourself and ole lib boy, so I'm very happy.:D

longhorngunman
January 15, 2006, 09:24 PM
Lobo boy, even the media know this is a dead end story and is fishing for new crap to throw at Bush, I know you libs are hoping that is you get the House and Senate you'll get to impeach Bush. Nope, not when the sane people of this country know that he is doing all he can to catch terrorists. If the libs get cocky enough to try it you then WILL see another civil war in this country.:fire: No matter though, I'll be very surprised that when the dust clears the GOP doesn't end up gaining seats in the Congress.

Biker
January 15, 2006, 09:28 PM
Doesn't stick in my craw at all. I know my President is doing his job and pissing off internet commandos like yourself and ole lib boy, so I'm very happy.:D
Internet commando? I served in the US Army, 1/84 FA 9th Inf Div from 1/73 to 9/75. The internet wasn't around back then. How about you? You an "internet commando"?
Biker

progunner1957
January 15, 2006, 10:14 PM
I mean come on we know John Kerry would have upheld the constitution.

Of course... he actually fought for it.

Boogyman, this has absolutely nothing to do with the original topic - wiretapping - but since you brought it up, I will address it.

Kerry's original assignment as a Swift Boat commander was coastal patrol. Costal patrol on a swift boat was cheesecake duty, as there were no enemies on the coast - they were all inland on the rivers.

When Kerry was ordered inland for river patrol - an assignment where there were actual enemies with actual guns that would actually shoot at him - Kerry threw a sh*tfit. He was unsuccessful at getting reassigned to his original cheesecake duty of coastal patrol.

A tour of duty during the Vietnam war was one year - twelve months. Kerry was a commander of a swift boat for four months. After four months on a swift boat, he was transferred to duty as an Admiral's aide - where he was out of harm's way and could ply his trade of choice - playing political games for personal gain.

According to the men who had to live with him during the four months he was on a swift boat, Kerry was worthless. When he had to patrol the rivers, he would run the boat at full throttle, making the patrol totally ineffective in an effort to avoid taking enemy fire.

According to the men who were there, Kerry did everything possible to avoid closing with and engaging the enemy, the duty which he was under orders to perform.

The men who were there tell us that Kerry's three Purple Heart awards were the result of superficial cuts and scrapes that required minimal medical care and that Kerry applied for the awards himself, knowing that if he received three PH's he would be removed from the war zone.

The men who were there reveal that Kerry's storied Bronze Star award was also applied for (once again) by Kerry himself, was not the result of engaging the enemy, and that Kerry falsified official documents in the application, lying about the events related to the award application.

The bottom line is this: According to the men who were there, Kerry was nothing more than a poser and a "ticket puncher" who did everything possible to avoid closing with and engaging the enemy. Not only was Kerry a ticket puncher, but he was also a coward who shirked his duty and put himself first, not the men under his command.

Boogyman, you may love, adore and cherish John Kerry and the socialist ideology he stands for, and that is certainly your perogative. However, to say that he "fought for the Constitution" is sheer fantasy.

By both his words and actions, John Kerry has made it abundantly and undeniably clear that the concepts of integrity, honor, valor and service to the cause of the Constitution are all concepts that are totally alien to him.

That there are people who continue to parrot the Demosocialist party line that "John Kerry is a war hero" is as feeble and pathetic as it is totally devoid of fact.

Bartholomew Roberts
January 15, 2006, 10:21 PM
First, the namecalling on either side needs to stop immediately. Not only do you do a disservice to whatever side you are arguing for; you are violating the forum rules.

Second, there are numerous threads relating to John Kerry, swift boats, etc. If you want to discuss that topic, please be courteous enough to revive one of those threads and not take this thread off topic.

If you can't argue the facts on this topic, then take it to PM.

Art Eatman
January 15, 2006, 11:04 PM
1. If the shoe do't fit, don't wear the sucker.

2. I wuz gonna close this gone-to-junk thread, but I'll defer to Bartholomew.

3. For now, that is.

:), Art

Silver Bullet
January 16, 2006, 12:29 AM
progrunner1957

Excellent post (#49) !

:cool:

progunner1957
January 16, 2006, 12:34 AM
Thanks!:D

If you enjoyed reading about "NY Times: Spying on citizens by Clinton Administration just fine" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!