Edger - Here they are (none / 0) (#123)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 09:02:10 AM EST
Lie? Here they are. I just copied them.
Edger, you need help.
(Comments shown on original)

---------------------------------------------
Oh yes, right Jim. (none / 0) (#127)
by Edger on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 09:29:23 AM EST
I remember now. .....
---------------
Edger (none / 0) (#129)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 10:14:11 AM EST
So, you call me a liar and when proven wrong you don't apologize, you just make an excuse...
----------------
Whatever, Jim (none / 0) (#130)
by Edger on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 10:19:08 AM EST

As for FISA, as we all know, the issue is welfare for lawyers who want to sue the telecom providers who jumped in there and helped defend the country.

Good move.  Screaming 'terrorist lover' when fighting the 4th Amendment doesn't work these days.

who jumped in there and helped defend the country.

Let me help you with a reality-based POV:

Glenn Greenwald, constitutional lawyer, author and prominent blogger (Greenwald's legal blog) arguing that the NSA program is illegal summarized:[10]

"Ultimately, though, the entire legal debate in the NSA scandal comes down to these few, very clear and straightforward facts: Congress passed a law in 1978 making it a criminal offense to eavesdrop on Americans without judicial oversight. Nobody of any significance ever claimed that that law was unconstitutional. The Administration not only never claimed it was unconstitutional, but Bush expressly asked for changes to the law in the aftermath of 9/11, thereafter praised the law, and misled Congress and the American people into believing that they were complying with the law. In reality, the Administration was secretly breaking the law, and then pleaded with The New York Times not to reveal this. Once caught, the Administration claimed it has the right to break the law and will continue to do so."

        After the Supreme Court's judgment in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, Greenwald wrote: "The administration's theories to justify the President's lawbreaking have always been frivolous. But for those pretending not to recognize that fact, the Supreme Court has so ruled."[11]

The Senate passed an acceptable bill. The Demo controlled House bent over for the lawyers. My congrats to the Demos for showing us that they care more for contributions than they do for the safety of the country.

No, it demonstrates how far the malAdminstration will go through to keep any accountability for their actions from taking place:

On October 7, 2007, The Washington Post reported that House Democrats planned to introduce alternative legislation which would provide for one-year "umbrella" warrants, and would require the Justice Department inspector general to audit the use of those warrants and issue quarterly reports to a special FISA court and to Congress. The proposed bill would not include immunity for telecommunications firms facing lawsuits in connection with the administration's NSA warrantless surveillance program. House Democrats said that as long as the administration withholds requested documents explaining the basis for the program that they cannot consider immunity for firms alleged to have facilitated it.[43] In October 10, 2007 comments on the White House South Lawn, President Bush said he would not sign any bill that did not provide retroactive immunity for telecommunications corporations.[44]

Consider this:

Mr. Bush, you say that our ability to track terrorist threats will be weakened and our citizens will be in greater danger. Yet you have weakened that ability!

You have subjected us, your citizens, to that greater danger! This, Mr. Bush, is simple enough for even you to understand.

For the moment, at least, thanks to some true patriots in the House, and your own stubbornness, you have tabled telecom immunity, and the FISA act.

You. By your own terms and your definitions, you have just sided with the terrorists. You've got to have this law, or we're all going to die. But, practically speaking, you vetoed this law.

It is bad enough, sir, that you were demanding an ex post facto law that could still clear the AT&Ts and the Verizons from responsibility for their systematic, aggressive and blatant collaboration with your illegal and unjustified spying on Americans under this flimsy guise of looking for any terrorists who are stupid enough to make a collect call or send a mass e-mail.

But when you demanded it again during the State of the Union address, you wouldn't even confirm that they actually did anything for which they deserved to be cleared.

"The Congress must pass liability protection for companies believed to have assisted in the efforts to defend America."

Believed? Don't you know? Don't you even have the guts Dick Cheney showed in admitting they did collaborate with you?  Does this endless presidency of loopholes and fine print extend even here? If you believe in the seamless mutuality of government and big business, come out and say it! There is a dictionary definition, one word that describes that toxic blend.

You're a fascist -- get them to print you a T-shirt with fascist on it! What else is this but fascism? Did you see Mark Klein on this newscast last November?

Mark Klein was the AT&T whistleblower who explained in the placid, dull terms of your local neighborhood IT desk how he personally attached all AT&T circuits, everything, carrying every one of your phone calls, every one of your e-mails, every bit of your Web browsing into a secure room, room No. 641-A at the Folsom Street facility in San Francisco, where it was all copied so the government could look at it.

Not some of it, not just the international part of it, certainly not just the stuff some spy, a spy both patriotic and telepathic, might be able to divine had been sent or spoken by or to a terrorist.

Everything! Every time you looked at a naked picture. Every time you bid on eBay. Every time you phoned in a donation to a Democrat. "My thought was," Mr. Klein told us last November, "George Orwell's `1984.' And here I am, forced to connect the Big Brother machine."

And if there's one thing we know about Big Brother, Mr. Bush, it is that he is -- you are -- a liar.

"This Saturday at midnight," you said Thursday, "legislation authorizing intelligence professionals to quickly and effectively monitor terrorist communications will expire. If Congress does not act by that time, our ability to find out who the terrorists are talking to, what they are saying and what they are planning will be compromised." You said that "the lives of countless Americans depend" on your getting your way.

This is crap. And you sling it with an audacity and a speed unrivaled by even the greatest political felons of our history.

Richard Clarke -- you might remember him, sir: He was one of the counterterror pros you inherited from President Clinton, before you ran the professionals out of government in favor of your unreality-based reality -- Richard Clarke wrote in the Philadelphia Inquirer:

"Let me be clear: Our ability to track and monitor terrorists overseas would not cease should the Protect America Act expire.

"If this were true, the president would not threaten to terminate any temporary extension with his veto pen. All surveillance currently occurring would continue even after legislative provisions lapsed because authorizations issued under the act are in effect up to a full year."

You are a liar, Mr. Bush. And after showing some skill at it, you have ceased to even be a very good liar.

Facts be facts, PPJ, thanks for helping me to emphasize that important point.