BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: GUEST,AR282
Date: 31 Dec 05 - 12:33 PM

>>Yes I was putting you on.the purpose is to blatantly state what these anti-war, anti-Bush ninnies are leading to with their twitter about how things are so bad and how stupid and dangerous Bush is.

For one thing they could not say the things they say if the totalitarian sate that they claim to exist really exists.<<

Oh, I see! We're supposed to wait until we are living in a true rule-by-terror regime BEFORE we're allowed to do or say anything. Of course, by then, we'll be killed if we do. So, if it's all the same to you, I'd rather say something now. Just in case things might be headed in that general direction. I believe it was Ben Franklin (look him up) who said, "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." But then he was a liberal hindu commie.

>>If he is so hated, how come his job approval is rising?<<

So is the American death toll in Iraq.

>>Personally I am glad he is president. He is not doing perfect but he is doing doing a thousand times better that Clinton did and Gore or Kerry would have been able to do under the same circumstances.<<

Clinton invaded another nation of false pretexts, changed his reason for doing so once he couldn't prove his original reason and then got 2200 Americans needlessly killed and then had his VP right hand man get indicted for obstructing justice and committing perjury? Clinton watched Enron, Worldcom, Ford, GM and Delphi slide into bankruptcy? Clinton's FEMA did nothing while the Missippi flooded in '93 and left thousands homeless? Did Clinton's people ever out a CIA operative and scream like stuck pigs about the need for strict national security after it was discovered that he ordered a massive spy program on his own country without telling Congress or the courts thereby subverting governmental checks-and-balances required to run a democracy--you know, that stuff Bush claims he's trying to spread in Iraq.

>>There are a few people posting here who have the integrity and honesty and take the time to tell these whiners that they are wrong. Of course that puts the whiners up in arms and trying to strike back belligerently which is exactly what they accuse the Bush administration of doing.<<

Oh, but you're merely lurking in the background and staying out if it and being all aloof, are you?

>>Lurkers please take the time to compare the coherence of the arguments that both sides of this debate present and decide which side is more credible.<<

Yes, lurkers, please do.

>>Those posts reveal the true vicious nature of the Anti-Bushites and anti-war faction.<<

Grrr!

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: GUEST,D
Date: 31 Dec 05 - 12:37 PM

Sissy, I feel an apology is due you although I did recover somewhat. The possibility that I am getting somewhat of a thin skin is probably true and hence the reason I jumped.
I am so tired of the bashing without anyone offering just a simple but plausible reason for GWB impeachment.

While registered as a Repub, I was a Dem for a long time until I realized how much of my and your tax dollars were being wasted due to the 'Great Society' and came to my senses around 1980. Not due to who was President but due to the taxes and laws being heaped on my person.
Truth be known, I am both a Conservative and part Libertarian.

Now since the Dems have no practical solutions to the problems of our country, they are in the attack mode. It has gotten ugly and I dearly hope that attacks such as Condi Rice experienced (comments and cartoons) totally back fire on them. And I am covinced it will - it would appear it already is.
The attacks on Ms. Rice were as racist as I have seen in my years, including a couple marches I participated in during the early 60s'.
I am caucasion and was brought up not knowing a difference.

I can't decide if this vileness and hatred I see here is due to the 'poor loser' syndrome, a belief in the Democrat party that is blind to all other potential, people unhappy with their own plight in life, some of the guys having control freak type wives and this is their only outlet (couple gals also), jealousy of some type or maybe just having a President who has the courage to make decisions and stick with them. The last one always did polls to decide what to do.
Like the public could tell him! However, there are some in the audience who read what they want to hear and base their commentary on part of the scene and come up with declarations that they feel are correct and should be carried out. The key word, feel, is the problem. Allowing feelings to decide is a major mistake. While some of the conduct in carrying out the Iraq war has bugged me. (too much protecting of Mosques to the detriment of our troops)

I am so behind what this President is doing. And I see where people here say he should be impeached, I see others asking for a reason, like, what law has he broken, and the former never coming up with an answer. Instead, they insist the economy is bad while ignoring that economists who say it is great. Losing jobs overseas is another of their false jabs at Bush, ignoring the fact that Congress passed a major bill in 1974 to provide for job growth and job retraining due to Technology change and the globalization of our economy.

I guess I am going to stick with the idea that WJC was such a do-nothing President and was into the party scene, (the reason for the two hugh tents on the grounds of the Whitehouse during his tenure - WJC had more state dinners in his first 5 weeks of office than GWB hosted in his 5 years), that many are embarrassed and find their only recourse is to try to discredit this President. The DC press corps has gone on record that the party scene in DC is almost nil since WJC left office and even thought they are left leaning, perhaps the lack of free booze has caused them to be even more cynical.

The outcome of this Presidents policies and actions cannot be measured in such a short time. I wonder what the present naysayers will think in a few years? Of course, some will instantly reply that they know now.

May you have a good and safe Year, Sissy.

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: Amos
Date: 31 Dec 05 - 01:00 PM

You folks are getting a bit het up here. You're mixing up "whining" with criticizing.

Bush's war may end up with some positive side-effects, or it may not.

But if a man with brains had been handed the same problem, back in 2001, he would have come up with a better solution.

What y'all are missing is that inspired by his lackadaisical and summat bloodthirsty thinking, he has brought about more deaths than the Cole and the 9-11 attacks combined. And a large per centage of those deaths are of people no more guilty of crimes than those in the WTC towers were.

The day will soon come when the US service deaths alone will outnumber all of 9-11's.

You need to confront exactly what it is you are supporting when you accuse anti-war voices of being "whiners". The lust of war is obscuring your powers of reason. Death-mongering is not a rational answer to international situations, regardless of whose extremism is sponsoring it.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: GUEST,G
Date: 31 Dec 05 - 01:08 PM

D was G.

AR282, can you tell me how many indictments WJC had in his administration versus GWB. I think GW has one indicted. Now, go on to the convictions during the WJC reign and add up the years spent in prison by them. We will simply ignore the mysterious deaths of several in the WJC gang.

Where did you read that Ford and GM have filed bankruptcy?

Enrons' Ken Lay worked with the Clinton Department of Commerce in revising/rewriting many of the laws governing businesses such as his.

By the way, what are you doing to stop this 'headlong rush into oblivion'?

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: GUEST,AR282
Date: 31 Dec 05 - 02:39 PM

>>AR282, can you tell me how many indictments WJC had in his administration versus GWB. I think GW has one indicted. Now, go on to the convictions during the WJC reign and add up the years spent in prison by them. We will simply ignore the mysterious deaths of several in the WJC gang.<<

Dear Mr. G. I'm afraid I have some bad news for you. Clinton's reign is over and has been over for more than 5 years now. Everything this country is currently facing was brought about by the man who been there for 5 years and still owes us 3 more. Maybe you need to think about him rather than reliving the glory days of your Clinton-hating years. I'm beginning to think that what you really hate is that he's gone.

>>Where did you read that Ford and GM have filed bankruptcy?<<

Oh, they'll call it by some other name because the public has already stated that they won't buy automobiles from companies that are filing for bankruptcy but that is what it boils down to. And it was caused partly by your president's brilliant decision to invade Iraq which disrupted the global oil supply and partly the car company execs to vest their whole future in gas-guzzling, oil-hungry, fat, weighty pieces of SUV shit.

>>Enrons' Ken Lay worked with the Clinton Department of Commerce in revising/rewriting many of the laws governing businesses such as his.<<

Oh, I see! Clinton and Ken Lay caused the downfall of Enron. The fact that Bush's tax cuts and deficit-widening policies that blatantly favor the wealthy were entirely unresponsible.

>>By the way, what are you doing to stop this 'headlong rush into oblivion'?<<

That's like asking somebody what he's going to do about that car hurtling off a cliff. Watch it hit bottom, I suppose. Can't start cleaning up or helping until that part of it is over. Sorry, but I did the most I could for this country at the polls in 2004 but I guess most of the people weren't ready to admit the truth about Iraq and the president that started it. They're getting ready now.

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: GUEST,Buddy
Date: 01 Jan 06 - 02:15 AM

Bush To Increase Funding For Hope-Based Initiatives

November 23, 2005 | Issue 41•47

WASHINGTON—President Bush announced today that he will sign a bill providing an additional $2.8 billion for private organizations that emphasize the importance of hoping for change.
Enlarge ImageBush To Increase Funding For Hope-Based Initiatives

Bush presents his plan to fund organizations that hope for change.

"This bill acknowledges the immeasurable role of hope in envisioning a better world for everyone," Bush said during a press conference. "Starting today, I ask all Americans to hope together as one nation that the difficult problems that grip our nation will go away someday."

The president's move will help direct federal funds to such groups as the National Hope Foundation, which has been hoping for a cure for cancer for nearly two decades.

"There are many in our country who are without hope," Bush said. "Yet there are many respected organizations in America that are actively hoping things get better. This program will assist these organizations in obtaining government grants, which will allow them to continue the important hoping that must be done."

Among the programs likely to receive funding is Project Hope You Don't Get Sick, a non-profit organization hoping that over 45 million Americans receive the proper health care they need.

Dream Job United, another likely recipient, is a widely acclaimed program in which the ill-prepared and uneducated are trained to hope for job interviews at top companies.

Another project slated for assistance in is a Louisiana-based teen-pregnancy reduction program, in which volunteers hope teens abstain from intercourse.

Under the bill, wish-based initiatives will also be eligible for increased funding. Dozens of independent wishful-thinking foundations, such as America Wishes Things Were Better, expect to receive grants to fund distribution of pennies, wishbones, and birthday candles.

Those with wishes and hopes applauded the president's move, saying that faith alone cannot rectify the nation's social ills.

"Faith-based problem-solving is noble, but we should not discount the power of hope," said veteran hoper Howard Thorndike, who heads the Please Oh Please Institute, a Houston-based wish tank. "'Hail Mary' strategies, for example, are a part of the fabric of our nation, from the football field to the boardroom, and our government ignores such traditions at its peril."

Bush echoed Thorndike's sentiments. "As your president, I have seen firsthand what hoping can do," he said. "I have heard stories of decent people trapped under piles of rubble, and I have hoped that they would be rescued. And eventually, many were. Recently, powerful storms and destructive hurricanes ravaged some of our great cities. I hope that you will join me in wishing that we do not get hit by any more of those."

Bush added: "Laura and I hope every night that good things will happen for our great country. My fellow Americans, I call on you to do the same."

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: Ebbie
Date: 01 Jan 06 - 02:54 AM

DB says: "And I see where people here say he should be impeached, I see others asking for a reason, like, what law has he broken, and the former never coming up with an answer. Instead, they insist the economy is bad while ignoring that economists who say it is great. Losing jobs overseas is another of their false jabs at Bush, ignoring the fact that Congress passed a major bill in 1974 to provide for job growth and job retraining due to Technology change and the globalization of our economy."

Interesting that YOU have decided that bush has not broken the law, that the economy is not bad, that the cynical outsourcing of jobs is good - when that investigation and report is not completed. Get a big towel because you may need it to wipe that mud off your face.

DB says: "I guess I am going to stick with the idea that WJC was such a do-nothing President and was into the party scene, (the reason for the two hugh tents on the grounds of the Whitehouse during his tenure - WJC had more state dinners in his first 5 weeks of office than GWB hosted in his 5 years), that many are embarrassed and find their only recourse is to try to discredit this President. The DC press corps has gone on record that the party scene in DC is almost nil since WJC left office and even thought they are left leaning, perhaps the lack of free booze has caused them to be even more cynical."

That argument is plain silly. Clinton made connections with world leaders - and garnered respect from them. Clinton held press conferences- the bush is afraid of them. (No real surprise there- his handlers are scared of letting him wing it. With good reason. The man can't put five sentences together and have four of them make sense.) Take a look at how often the bush has gone home to the "ranch" (you won't find animals there, folks) in these five years in comparison with what other presidents have done. As for booze swilling- how many of our presidents have been dry drunks?

You are silly.

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: GUEST,Sissy
Date: 01 Jan 06 - 12:34 PM

Guest D is a voice of reason. I agree 100% Although he or she gets into politics a bit far. I can see some good things Clinton did and some bad things and some things he should have done he did not do. I can say the same for Bush.

Some of the vileness is due to the poor looser syndrome and some of it is truely heartfelt. There will always be two or more opposing opinions.

The core of Civilization is that people can bow to the majority. They can make concessions for the purposes of peacefull coexistense. This was the case several years ago but since the Vietnam war people worldwide have increasingly been taking sides and being less willing to just "get along"

There are several things in the world I don't like but I can tolerate them if it makes the overall quality of life better.

To make my statement short, the world is falling into a mind set of complaints and "I am a victim of such and such". No one wants to admit personal responsibility for their situation. This is accompanied by a failure to recognize their true state of well being.

I realize that my problems are the result of my actions and any corrections need to be done by me. I realize that if I am not as well off as I think I should be, there are oppoertunities by which I can make improvements.

A person can take on the attitude of a looser / victim or one can take on the attitude of a winner and someone who can take care of themselves.

Which person is the better off?

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: GUEST,AK47
Date: 01 Jan 06 - 01:13 PM

"Everything this country is currently facing was brought about by the man who been there for 5 years"

Stinkier horseshit cannot be found.

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: GUEST,AR282
Date: 01 Jan 06 - 01:38 PM

>>Some of the vileness is due to the poor looser syndrome and some of it is truely heartfelt. There will always be two or more opposing opinions.<<

Sissy,there is something wrong when people defend their president from criticism by saying that the subject should not be open for debate or discussion.

Characterizing people who would prefer to debate because they see serious wrongdoning being openly committed by their president as sore losers is the very thing you are complaining about. You call the anti-Bush people vile and vicious but that is exactly the behavior you are exhibiting.

>>The core of Civilization is that people can bow to the majority.<<

That's the core of slavery not civilization. Good lord! The purpose of civilization is that people can work together to achieve great things as a race as well as indiviuals!! My god, for the last 12,000 years, the only real achievement of civilization in your mind is that the minority bow to the majority??? That's rich.

>>They can make concessions for the purposes of peacefull coexistense. This was the case several years ago<<

Yeah, we call them The Indian Wars.

>>but since the Vietnam war people worldwide have increasingly been taking sides and being less willing to just "get along"<<

This is completely assinine. We've had much larger, bloodier wars in the world before Vietnam. For you, only the wars that Americans were in actually matter.

>>I realize that my problems are the result of my actions and any corrections need to be done by me. I realize that if I am not as well off as I think I should be, there are oppoertunities by which I can make improvements.<<

Right. So when this lawless president got reelected and his party, unwilling to stop him, got an even tighter grip on Congress, I realized that corrections have to be made by me. That if my country is not as well as it should be, and the world as a whole, there is an opportunity by which I can make improvements. I can write my congressman. I can write any congressmen right through email. I can debate the issue in online forums where people curious to hear both sides can come and learn and participate if they so desire. I can vote in the midterms in November.

>>person can take on the attitude of a looser / victim or one can take on the attitude of a winner and someone who can take care of themselves.<<

Right.

>>Which person is the better off?<<

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: Amos
Date: 01 Jan 06 - 02:21 PM

Once you decide to be a person who takes care of himself, do you then decide not to try and correct injustice? To be quiet rather than speak sooth? Is that your version of personal responsibility, Sissy?

'Cuz it ain't mine.

I don't know who you are referring tom, but neither I nor those I know around here consider themselves victims of anything, and I am sure we all understand that our own conditions come from our own decisions.

It is in order NOT to be a silent victim that I write and forward the writings of others.

Thanks for your Grand Psychological Insights.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Jan 06 - 02:54 PM

Hmmmmmm??? The "personal responsibility" card hasn't been played in a while...

(Well, Bobert, that's because alot of the folks who a couple years ago were pounding that drum have now been caught with their hands in the cookie jar...)

Oh?

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Jan 06 - 03:43 PM

Name the "cookie jar, can you?

It has always been a case of "personal responsibility".
Some simply don't get it.

That has greatly discouraged by the so-called "Great Society" which really encouraged some to coast by. Thank you, LBJ

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: dianavan
Date: 01 Jan 06 - 09:01 PM

Sissy says, "The core of Civilization is that people can bow to the majority."

Since when?

I thought the measure of a civilized society was the way in which they treat the less fortunate. Or was it the way in which they treat those who are imprisoned? Either way, I have never heard anything about bowing to the majority.

Unless you can sight a reputable source, I can only imagine that this idea was formed by an uneducated and uninformed person who has absolutely no compassion for others.

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: GUEST,Old Guy
Date: 01 Jan 06 - 09:50 PM

What is Amos a victim of besides Scientology? Did he inlist or was he drafted?

We have a government to take care of the less fortunate. And to provide security.

Because a few dissagree and are not willing to be part of a civilized society, they want anarchy just like the Islamic extremists.

Here is perfect example of such extremism:

To his credit, President LB Johnson had money allocated, $60 million, to build flood gates like they have in the Netherlands, that could be closed to keep lake Pontchartrain from flooding New Orleans in the event of a bad hurricane.

A minority of "environmentalists" (read left wing nutcases) did not want the floodgates built because they claimed it would harm the environment.

The minority won by filing lawsuits and tying up the project. I wonder if any of them got flooded out of their homes and are whining about the Bush adminstration?

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: GUEST,Sissy
Date: 01 Jan 06 - 09:52 PM

Like I said, vicious rhetoric reveals the true nature of those that can't get along.

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: Amos
Date: 01 Jan 06 - 11:26 PM

In response to a RW extreme accusation about the inherent "treason" of revealing the President's illegal wiretaps, acorrespondent offers these remarks:

">> revealing an ongoing intelligence operation *in wartime*.
(emphasis added)

Here we see "The Essential Big Lie" repeated yet again,
asserting that we are somehow "at war".

(NOTE: This is not to single-out Mr. Bray per se but rather to
note how pervasive this collective misapprehension has become.)

Unless the Congress took a vote which somehow went unreported,

*THERE WAS NO DECLARATION OF WAR BY THE US CONGRESS*

The US Constitution is extremely specific as to what is
required for the United States to "go to war". Congress
has the sole power to declare the United States to be "at war",
quite specifically to counterbalance the powers of the President.

President George Bush did not seek nor did the US Congress grant an
official Declaration of War; therefore the US is not "at war"
and there is no condition of "in wartime".

No Declaration of War, no "war powers" - it's just that simple;
anything else is an attempted "end-run" around the Constitution.

There is no Constitutional recognition for "kinda sorta like war",
and the continued reliance on this non-condition is
particularly ironic given President Bush's preference for Supreme
Court justices who interpret the Constitution "as written".
Congress complicitously repeating the infamous
"Gulf of Tonkin Resolution" fiasco after 9/11 doesn't make the
current situation "war" any more than it ensured success in
the Vietnam "conflict".

From the historical record, it seems to be immensely useful for the
suppression of dissent that this central assertion be pounded into a
populace again and again, that they are indeed "at war" with
A Great Enemy, thereby lending credence to assertions that
critical thinking about that government's behavior is even
more dangerous than usual.

The legal facts, however, are transparently clear:
there has been no Declaration of War by the US Congress,
therefore the US is not "at war". Claims to the contrary
are simply untrue, innocently or otherwise.

My larger point is that it is hard enough to have
reasoned discourse about something this emotionally charged
(and with such immense political spoils at stake)
without allowing the conversation to be subverted
by an erroneous premise extremely convenient
to one participant."

---

It is an interesting question how Congress can grant war powers without declaring war. Hmmmmmmmm?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: GUEST,Old Guy
Date: 01 Jan 06 - 11:55 PM

Amos the war expert:

When was the last time war was declared?

All wars after that date were illegal according to you. Go back to the first illegal war and start bitching about that one instead of skipping over all of them until you get to the one you want to use to discredit the President that you have a personal grudge against.

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: Peace
Date: 02 Jan 06 - 12:00 AM

"Go back to the first illegal war and start bitching about that one instead of skipping over all of them until you get to the one you want to use to discredit the President that you have a personal grudge against."

I see you've been let out again, OG. You are really hung up on this 'personal grudge' thing. Please find a new expression. You are beginning to sound like a record that skips, and skips, and skips, and skips, and skips, and skips, and skips, and skips, and skips, and skips, and skips, and skips, and skips, and skips, and skips, and skips, and skips, and skips, and skips, and skips, and skips, and skips, and skips, and skips, and . . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Jan 06 - 12:11 AM

OG: Senility at its best. But you hang in there.

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: dianavan
Date: 02 Jan 06 - 12:15 AM

Old Guy - The point is not whether a war is legal or illegal. The point is whether it is a war, an invasion or an occupation. The president can have war powers granted by Congress only if they have declared war. No war - no war powers.

The president is not granted extraordinary power during an occupation.

Sissy - Instead of spouting "vicious rhetoric" please cite the source of your information regarding civilization.

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: Ebbie
Date: 02 Jan 06 - 12:35 AM

Old Guy (I hate to think that your advanced age has anything to do with your stances), if I recall correctly the Lake Pontchartrain proposal was dropped by Reagan. Further, the project proposal was flawed- if it were to work it would have had to encompass a much wider area with many facets. I don't remember any more in just what way but it involved the wetlands.

One major reason for the inundation of New Orleans was the despoliation and exploitation of its wetlands; instead of leaving it fallow to accomplish its natural purpose, developers have drained it, built on it, extended the city upon it.

Every place I have lived in these last 20-30 years has been mindful of and - often in bitter protest - been guided by federal laws and guidelines concerning its management.

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: GUEST,AR282
Date: 02 Jan 06 - 12:42 AM

Even if we were officially at war, I don't know where Bush is getting the idea that he can do anything he wants--including lying to Congress, deceiving the people, subverting checks & balances, taking money from the treasury, and violating the 4th amendment--but is not accountable to anyone.

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: GUEST,Old Guy
Date: 02 Jan 06 - 01:08 AM

In the 1970s, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity Hurricane Barrier Project planned to build fortifications at two strategic locations, which would keep massive storms on the Gulf of Mexico from causing Lake Pontchartrain to flood the city. An article in the May 28, 2005, New Orleans Times-Picayune stated, Under the original plan, floodgate-type structures would have been built at the Rigolets and Chef Menteur passes to block storm surges from moving from the Gulf into Lake Pontchartrain.

The floodgates would have blocked the flow of water from the Gulf of Mexico, through Lake Borgne, through the Rigolets [and Chef Mentuer] into Lake Pontchartrain, declared Professor Gregory Stone, the James P. Morgan Distinguished Professor and Director of the Coastal Studies Institute of Louisiana State University. This would likely have reduced storm surge coming from the Gulf and into the Lake Pontchartrain, Professor Stone told Michael P. Tremoglie during an interview on September 6. The professor concluded, These floodgates would have alleviated the flooding of New Orleans caused by Hurricane Katrina.

The New Orleans Army Corps of Engineers and Professor Stone were not the only people cognizant of the consequences that could and did result because of the environmental activists. Former Louisiana Congressman and Speaker of the House Bob Livingston also referred to environmentalists whose litigation prevented hurricane prevention projects.

Why was this project aborted? As the Times-Picayune wrote, Those plans were abandoned after environmental advocates successfully sued to stop the projects as too damaging to the wetlands and the lake's eco-system.

Specifically, in 1977, a state environmentalist group known as Save Our Wetlands (SOWL) sued to have it stopped. SOWL stated the proposed Rigolets and Chef Menteur floodgates of the Lake Pontchartrain Hurricane Prevention Project would have a negative effect on the area surrounding Lake Pontchartrain. Further, SOWLs recollection of this case demonstrates they considered this move the first step in a perfidious design to drain Lake Pontchartrain entirely and open the area to dreaded capitalist investment.

On December 30, 1977, U.S. District Judge Charles Schwartz Jr. issued an injunction against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Lake Pontchartrain hurricane protection project, demanding the engineers draw up a second environmental impact statement, three years after the corps submitted the first one. In one of the most ironic pronouncements of all time, Judge Schwartz wrote, It is the opinion of the Court that plaintiffs herein have demonstrated that they, and in fact all persons in this area, will be irreparably harmed if the barrier project based upon the August, 1974 FEIS [federal environmental impact statement] is allowed to continue.

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Jan 06 - 01:15 AM

Is Amos so feeble that he needs protectors?

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: Amos
Date: 02 Jan 06 - 02:24 AM

Old Guy:

I didn't write that. It was submiited by someone smarter than me, and much smarter than you, to a discussion list.

I suggest you take a break.

All these personal insults are beginning you make you sound as dim as Martin.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: GUEST,G
Date: 02 Jan 06 - 07:03 AM

AR282, com'n on, get a life! Don't you realize that if GWB had lied to Congress and the Dems were fairly sure it happened, that they would have Articles of Impeachment filed long ago? Rather, they just do the political lip service stuff such as Conyers is doing.

I was fairly non-commital with WJC (yes, I know he is out of office!)
but I never scrounged around for untruths about him. Allowed him to run out his term, wasting his intellect (what a shame) and knowing that his party attitude regarding the Presidency and ignoring then current problems/situations would be cleaned up by someone else.

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: Ebbie
Date: 03 Jan 06 - 01:54 AM

Hmmmm. That's a new thought: I wonder if the bush ever wonders who is going to clean up after him, and how they will do it. Nah. Anyone who is willing to mortgage not only our children's future but our grandchildren's isn't concerned about pesky details.

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: GUEST,B
Date: 03 Jan 06 - 02:37 PM

Amos submits political satire as the "Truth"

He can't tell satire for truth.

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: Ebbie
Date: 03 Jan 06 - 05:07 PM

Like many other exaggerations, satire bears more than a smidgen of truth.

But trust me- Amos is in no way confused.

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: Peace
Date: 03 Jan 06 - 05:25 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: GUEST,Old Guy - PM
Date: 02 Jan 06 - 01:08 AM


Old Guy--why didn't you credit your source in that post? It is NOT your writing.

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: Amos
Date: 03 Jan 06 - 06:21 PM

I have never failed to see the difference between satire and sober reality, although Bush has had me going a few times.

A coorespondent on another list issues the following heartfelt diatribe on this topic, and signs his name to it.

"Did my ancestors eke out a bare existence on Plymouth Rock to practice
their faith for this?

Spying on ourselves as the Russians only could have in the most
fevered dreams of the KGB.

Did my ancestors fight and die for the American Revolution for this?

Calling it necessary to stop terrorist attacks when all that was
needed to stop 9/11 was strong doors and locks in cockpits.

Did they fight and die on the battlefields of the Civil War for this?

Even Lincoln suspending habeaus corpus was at least done in the open.

Did my grandfathers fight in Europe and the Pacific for this?

Inherant power under the Constitution to do this is beyond laughable.

Has the entire last 400 years of struggle of my ancestors been utterly
in vain?

Has America forgotten utterly what it is?

Have the darkest nightmares of George Washington and the dangers of
party politics finally been realized?

Why is all of the debate about the NSA spying revolving around it's
legality? How is that even possible here?

Can anyone see right from wrong anymore in America?

Can anyone remember what it means to be an American?

Where is the Spirit of America?

Do not vote for any incumbent, Democrat or Republican, in coming
elections, or it will be the worse for us all. They are both corrupt
parties, fighting over power that they are loathe to give up.

We The People are Sovereign here.

The Republican and Democratic Parties are not Sovereign, and have no
inherant right to exist.

We The People ARE the Government of this Nation, and it seems to be
long past time that we administered a refresher course in that lesson
at the ballot box, to both of those old and corrupt parties.

How is it that the rules to stand for office in this nation are so
convoluted and nearly impossible to meet for anyone not personally
wealthy or backed by the Republicans or Democrats?

Does either of those parties truly even remember what those words MEAN?

Have we truly become the worst in what we hate? How is unquestioned
rule by one or the other different from unquestioned rule by one
party?

Does anyone understand what this program means?

It WILL lead to abuses of personal power that make the 47 year rule of
the FBI by it's first director seem tame and pale, and whomever grabs
the reigns of such an apparatus will not easily give them up.

Who in the Democratic party has already been blackmailed by data
gathered by this program? If they haven't yet, give it at most one
more election cycle.

How would electing another batch of Democrats truly make things any
different?

What excuse would they grab hold of to do the same, and how long would
that temptation of power take before they gave in to it?

My God, what ever happened to the plain meaning of the text of the 4th
Amendment?

What ever happened to the plain meaning of the law being what it meant?

What ever happened to individuals actually running for office and
truly representing the interests of those around them in their
communities?

When was the last time that the outcome of elections for the House of
Representatives was not almost entirely a foregone conclusion?

It no longer matters if any individual candidate means well
personally, if they are a member of one of the two major parties they
are supporting a corrupt apparatus.

Would you sell your birthright for a mess of potage?

Do not vote for major party candidates if you still know what the
Spirit of America is.

If it still lives, prove it at the ballot box. Start write in
campaigns for independent candidates, and do not donate to the two
major parties. Vote with your wallet as well.

Vote the two parties out of power while you still can, as electronic
balloting will soon make anonymous voting a dream of the past, and it
will then be too late.

Ask these difficult questions, forward and post this message, and do
not take excuses for an answer.

-David Mercer
Tucson, AZ



This essay is public domain and may hence be distributed in any media
with or without attribution, in whole or in part."

---

Those are difficult questions, and they deserve thoughtful answers, although I don't know whether we will be able to provide them here....

A

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: Amos
Date: 03 Jan 06 - 08:08 PM

From an ACLU representative:


The ACLU has just posted a number of materials on our web site aclu.org and
the new nsawatch.org that we hope will add to the debate.

Those items include:

1. A new ACLU ad calling for a special counsel to investigate the
President's illegal surveillance of U.S. Citizens.The add appeared in
today's NY Times, as well as the web site along with related materials at
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/spying/.

The text of the ad compares the words of President Nixon and President Bush,
both of whom denied allegations of illegal spying. Next to the image of
Nixon, the advertisement says: "He lied to the American people and broke the
law." Below that is an image of President Bush, with the words, "So did he.

2. The Updated NSA Watch site (formerly known as Echelon watch):
http://www.nsawatch.org/ which contains a wide variety of materials and
links documenting the NSA's extraordinary communication interception
capabilities ("sigint"), which are part of an international arrangement
sometimes referred to as "Echelon".

3 A new piece explaining how the "NSA Spying on Americans is Illegal" at
http://www.aclu.org/privacy/spying/23279res20051229.html

Since the Administration has sought to cast its unprecedented and lawless
spying on American's as "legal", I have included the text of our piece
below. You are, of course, free to use as much or little of it and the rest
of this message as you would like.

Have a good New Year,

Barry Steinhardt

ACLU Technology and Liberty Project

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: GUEST,Woody
Date: 03 Jan 06 - 11:13 PM

Encarta:

The Constitution of the United States gives Congress alone the authority to formally declare war. But in several past conflicts Congress has relinquished this authority to the president. In fact, Congress has not issued a formal declaration of war since World War II.

U.S. presidents after World War II have assumed most of the authority to send U.S. troops into battle. The Korean War (1950-1953), for example, was regarded by the U.S. government as a police action rather than as a war, and President Harry S. Truman never sought a declaration of war from Congress. And in 1964 Congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which effectively ceded to President Lyndon B. Johnson the ability to wage war against Vietnam. Congress passed a similar resolution on January 12, 1991, authorizing President George H. W. Bush to use force against Iraq in the Persian Gulf War.

There was no declaration of war for any of these:

1950 Communist North Korea invades South Korea. President Truman sends American troops to defend South Korea. The U.S. goes on to lead forces from 15 other nations in the Korean War (1950–1953).

1950 Puerto Rico. Jayuya uprising crushed in Ponce Oscar Collazo and Griselio Torresola were sent to assassinate President Truman. Torresola was killed and Collazo was critically wounded in a shootout with capital police and Truman's bodyguards.

1961 Bay Of Pigs Cuba. Ustrasined troops invade Cuba to overthrow Castro. Kennedy withholds promised air support.

1964 The U.S. Senate passes the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution at the request of President Johnson. The Resolution approves U.S. military involvement in the Vietnam conflict.

1966 Guatemala. Green Berets intervene against rebels.

1973 President Nixon orders a halt to offensive operations in North Vietnam on Jan. 15 and representatives from all sides sign a peace pact, ending the longest war in U.S. history. The last American troops depart by March 1973.

1983 President Reagan orders an invasion of Grenada to establish order on the island and eliminate the Cuban military presence there. A U.S. peace-keeping force remains until 1985.

1986 Raid on Tripoli Libya following a bomb attack on a West Berlin discotheque.

1989 President Bush sends troops to Panama to depose and capture Manuel Noriega, who had been indicted for drug trafficking.

1991 Persian Gulf War—the U.S. leads a coalition of 32 countries to drive Iraq out of Kuwait, which it had invaded.

1993 Mogadishu Somalia A U.S.-led multinational force attempts to restore order to war-torn Somalia so that food can be delivered and distributed within the famine-stricken country.

1994 After Haiti's democratically elected president Jean-Bertrand Aristide is ousted in a coup in 1991, a U.S. invasion three years later restores him to power.

1994–1995 Bosnia During the Bosnian civil war, which begins shortly after the country declares independence in 1992, the U.S. launches air strikes on Bosnia to prevent ethnic cleansing. It becomes a part of NATO's peacekeeping force in the region.

1998 Afghanistan, Sudan: American cruise missiles pounded sites in Afghanistan and Sudan in retaliation for the bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

!998 Iraq President Clinton said "adm (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons. Operation Desert Fox, a strong, sustained series of attacks, will be carried out over several days by U.S. and British forces, "Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces," "Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors," Clinton also stated that, while other countries also had weapons of mass destruction, Hussein is in a different category because he has used such weapons against his own people and against his neighbors. "I think you give the commander in chief the benefit of the doubt," said George W. Bush, governor of Texas, on August 20, 1998, the same day as the U.S. counterstrikes.

1999 Kosovo Yugoslavia's province of Kosovo erupts in war in the spring of 1999. A U.S.-led NATO force intervenes with air strikes after Slobodan Milosevic's Serbian forces uproot the population and embark on a plan of ethnic cleansing of Kosovo's ethnic Albanian population.

2001 Operation Enduring Freedom—the U.S. invades Afghanistan and deposes the Taliban, who had sheltered terrorist leader Osama bin Laden.

2003 The U.S. launches Operation Iraqi Freedom, an invasion of Iraq, as part of the war on terrorism.

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: dianavan
Date: 04 Jan 06 - 02:25 AM

Did those presidents spy on U.S. citizens without warrants?

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: GUEST,G
Date: 04 Jan 06 - 05:40 AM

Dianavan; Yes, Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton and Bush 2.

What is your point?

Amos, your 03 - 6:21 PM post bears several readings. Probably I will surprise some when I say I do agree with you on many things. However, not when it comes to blaming one person as I perceive you to be doing.

However, that is simply my perception of things and I can be wrong many times. Well, not many, but some.

I am pretty much convinced what this president is doing will ultimately be decided as correct. Give it some years.

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Jan 06 - 01:20 PM

Johnson spied on Goldwater

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: GUEST,Woody
Date: 04 Jan 06 - 01:33 PM

June 07, 2005 (before NSA gate)
Johnson's "Watergate"
LBJ vs. Goldwater.

By Lee Edwards

It was a political scandal of unprecedented proportions: the deliberate, systematic, and illegal misuse of the FBI and the CIA by the White House in a presidential campaign. The massive black-bag operations, bordering on the unconstitutional and therefore calling for impeachment, were personally approved by the president. They included planting a CIA spy in his opponent's campaign committee, wiretaps on his opponent's top political aides, illegal FBI checks, and the bugging of his opponent's campaign airplane.

The president? Lyndon B. Johnson. The target? Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona, the 1964 Republican presidential candidate.

Here are three examples of a presidential abuse of power for political purposes that constitute an even graver offense than Watergate.

In the fall of 1964, the White House turned to the CIA to get advance inside information about the Goldwater campaign, although the senator could hardly be described as a "domestic enemy" (the only valid excuse for agency action). E. Howard Hunt, later convicted for his part in the Watergate break-in, told a congressional committee a decade later that he was ordered to spy on Goldwater's headquarters. He said that President Johnson "had ordered this activity" and that White House aide Chester L. Cooper "would be the recipient of the information."

CIA Director William Colby admitted that Cooper prepared campaign material for Johnson and obtained advance texts of Goldwater speeches through a "woman secretary," clearly suggesting that the agency planted someone inside the Goldwater campaign organization.

The Democrats constantly used the covertly obtained information to undercut Goldwater initiatives. In early September, for example, the Goldwater campaign announced the formation of a Task Force on Peace and Freedom that the AP described as one of the most "unusual tactics in the history of American politics." Three hours before the Goldwater task force was unveiled, the White House announced that President Johnson had created a 16-member panel of leading authorities to consult with him on international problems. The White House announcement trumped the Goldwater plan. Democratic campaign speechwriter John Roche revealed that he and his colleagues got advance texts of Goldwater's major speeches. "When I innocently inquired how we got them," Roche said, "the reply was 'don't ask.'"

Goldwater's regional political directors were convinced that the telephones of the Republican national headquarters in Washington were bugged. At one private meeting aides discussed the possibility of a campaign stop by Goldwater in the Chicago area. Midwest director Sam Hay called the Republican chairman of Cook County, who agreed it was a good idea but promised to keep the trip confidential. Within the hour, a reporter called to say that he had heard Goldwater would be coming to town and wanted the details.

Senator Goldwater recalled that two correspondents once questioned him about a proposal not yet made public: that if elected, he would send Eisenhower to Vietnam to examine the situation and report back to him. Goldwater insisted he discussed the Eisenhower mission with only two members of his personal staff, but the two reporters swear they heard about it at the Johnson White House.

Most disturbing of all was the FBI's bugging of the Goldwater campaign plane where the senator and his inner circle often made their most confidential decisions. The bureau's illegal surveillance was confirmed by Robert Mardian, when he was an assistant attorney general in Nixon's first term.

During a two-hour conversation with J. Edgar Hoover in early 1971, Mardian asked about the procedures of electronic surveillance. To Mardian's amazement, Hoover revealed that in 1964 the FBI, on orders from the Oval Office, had bugged the Goldwater plane. Asked to explain the blatantly illegal action, Hoover said, "You do what the president of the United States orders you to do." William C. Sullivan, the bureau's number two man, confirmed to Mardian the spying operation against the Goldwater campaign.

Why did President Johnson order the Anti-Goldwater Campaign and illegally use both the CIA and the FBI as his personal political instruments? All the polls agreed he would win and by a handsome margin. But Johnson wanted the mother of all political landslides, eclipsing FDR's record presidential victory in 1936 and at the same time burying six feet deep Barry Goldwater and American conservatism. Johnson nearly succeeded in the first objective, receiving 61.5 percent of the popular vote, but miserably failed in the second.

Of all the men who have run for and lost the presidency in modern times, only Barry Goldwater and the central themes of his campaign were vindicated so quickly. Reviled and rejected in 1964 as no other presidential candidate in the 20th century, Goldwater was easily reelected to the U.S. Senate in 1968 while the president who had won by one of the largest margins in presidential politics dared not seek reelection. Just twelve years later, the Great Society was exposed as a trillion-dollar bust and Ronald Reagan, an unabashed conservative, became our 40th president.

— Lee Edwards is distinguished fellow in conservative thought at the Heritage Foundation and the author of many books, including the just published To Preserve and Protect: The Life of Edwin Meese III.

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: bobad
Date: 04 Jan 06 - 01:57 PM

"Lee Edwards is distinguished fellow in conservative thought at the Heritage Foundation "

"the Heritage Foundation is running the most effective media operation in American politics. Heritage has succeeded with a savvy strategy: Raise a lot of money from rich people with a right-wing agenda. Hire writers, commentators and out-of-office politicians who share that agenda, and call them "fellows," "policy analysts" and "distinguished scholars." And, always, back them up with a public-relations juggernaut that's second to none."

http://www.fair.org/extra/9607/heritage.html

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: Amos
Date: 04 Jan 06 - 01:59 PM

Wal, I don't really think it is all attributable to one particpant. Just as, when a lookout falls asleep, it is not really the fault of the Captain, usually; but RHIR, RHIP; and leaders have to bear tyhe burden of responsibility for what goes on on their watch. Whether Rove, Cheney, Rummie, or some other neocon was behind any individual decision is ambiguous and not to be known by the likes o' me!

All that aside, he wants the glory and legacy of the Presdency and its place in history. He also needs to wear the shame and embarassment of the stupidity thereof.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: Amos
Date: 04 Jan 06 - 04:00 PM

Today's New York TImes opines:

When the government does not want the public to know what it is doing, it often cites national security as the reason for secrecy. The nation's safety is obviously a most serious issue, but that very fact has caused this administration and many others to use it as a catchall for any matter it wants to keep secret, even if the underlying reason for the secrecy is to prevent embarrassment to the White House. The White House has yet to show that national security was harmed by the report on electronic spying, which did not reveal the existence of such surveillance - only how it was being done in a way that seems outside the law.

Leak investigations are often designed to distract the public from the real issues by blaming the messenger. Take the third leak inquiry, into a Washington Post report on secret overseas C.I.A. camps where prisoners are tortured or shipped to other countries for torture. The administration said the reporting had damaged America's image. Actually, the secret detentions and torture did that.

Illegal spying and torture need to be investigated, not whistle-blowers and newspapers.

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: Amos
Date: 04 Jan 06 - 04:16 PM

Well, LBJ is really kind of irrelevant to this discussion, thanks. As for the Congress giving up its war powers, that's as may be. What i want to know is how do we know when "Terrorism" wants to sign a treaty of surrender?

There is a huge semantic kafluffle going on here, of the kind Bush's henchmen are so good at. A state of war, legally and logistically and every other way, is a very different thing than a campaign to exterminate a condition, such as the war on drugs is supposed to be. They are really two different words that happen to use the same root word and The Bush Klan takes advantage of this overlap by intimidating people with the "we're at war card".

If they had done it right they would have declared war on Al Queda, and its leader, instead of haring off to Iraq because the Bushies were pissed at Saddam Hussein. He was obviously a minor contributor at best, but a personal or commercial agenda led the Klan to choose him. Besides, with Saddam, there was at least a known nation involved. Funny how said nation has not surrendered yet, though. Oh, but we weren't at war with Iraq, were we? Wait...who were we at war with? I forget...


A

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: Amos
Date: 04 Jan 06 - 05:59 PM

From Politechm, a discussion list:

Pelosi's Declassified Letter on NSA Activities



Washington, D.C. - House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi today released the
following letter, which she wrote four years ago when she was Ranking
Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, and was recently declassified
at her request. The letter to Lieutenant General Michael Hayden, then
National Security Agency (NSA) Director, expressed concerns about NSA
electronic surveillance activities and the authority for those activities.
Pelosi also released the response letter from Hayden. Both Pelosi's letter
and Hayden's response were redacted when they were declassified.



The text of letters follow and copies of the declassified letters are in
attached documents:
October 11, 2001

Lieutenant General Michael V. Hayden, USAF
Director
National Security Agency
Fort George G. Mead, Maryland 20755
Washington, D.C. 20340-1001

Dear General Hayden:

During your appearance before the committee on October 1, you indicated
that you had been operating since the September 11 attacks with an
expansive view of your authorities with respect to the conduct of
electronic surveillance under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
and related statutes, orders, regulations, and guidelines. You seemed to
be inviting expressions of concern from us, if there were any, and,
after the briefing was over and I had a chance to reflect on what you
said, I instructed staff to get more information on this matter for me.
For several reasons, including what I consider to be an overly broad
interpretation of President Bush's directive of October 5 on sharing
with Congress "classified or sensitive law enforcement information" it
has not been possible to get answers to my questions.

Without those answers, the concerns I have about what you said on the
1st can not be resolved, and I wanted to bring them to your attention
directly. You indicated that you were treating as a matter of first
impression, [redacted ] being of foreign intelligence interest. As a
result, you were forwarding the intercepts, and any information
[redacted ] without first receiving a request for that identifying
information to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Although I may be
persuaded by the strength of your analysis [redacted ] I believe you
have a much more difficult case to make [redacted ] Therefore, I am
concerned whether, and to what extent, the National Security Agency has
received specific presidential authorization for the operations you are
conducting. Until I understand better the legal analysis regarding the
sufficiency of the authority which underlies your decision on the
appropriate way to proceed on this matter, I will continue to be concerned.

Sincerely,

NANCY PELOSI
Ranking Democrat




18 October 2001

The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
Ranking Member, House Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence
H-405, The Capitol
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Representative Pelosi:

Thank you for the opportunity to clarify any ambiguity that may have
arisen as a result of my briefing on October 1 to members of the House
and Senate Intelligence Committees.

In my briefing, I was attempting to emphasize that I used my authorities
to adjust NSA's collection and reporting.

[redacted] ]

Again, thank you for allowing me to clarify this matter.

MICHAEL V. HAYDEN
Lieutenant General, USAF
Director, NSA

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Jan 06 - 06:42 PM

As fir the Heritage Foundation, it was originally organized by a bunch of former Nazis and Nazi symphathizers who were wooed by the Republican Party after WW II...

Ain't changed much over the years...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: dianavan
Date: 05 Jan 06 - 01:02 AM

Woody asks, "Why did President Johnson order the Anti-Goldwater Campaign and illegally use both the CIA and the FBI as his personal political instruments?"

I have no idea. Johnson was wrong to do that and also wrong to mastermind the assassination of ........... Oh, never mind. Just more Texas politics.

The point is, just because you are president doesn't mean you are above the law. If anything, constitutional law, Congress and the Judiciary should be guiding forces and he should be accountable to all citizens. Whatever happened to positive role-models.

The scum rises to the top.

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: GUEST,Woody
Date: 06 Jan 06 - 12:33 AM

I didn't ask why. I would like to know how people can claim anything that happened before Jan 1 2001 does not matter unless it suits their agenda.

War has not been decalerd since WW2. America has been involved in several wars under Democrat and Republican presidents so why is there so much emphasis on "was was not declared"

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: GUEST,B
Date: 06 Jan 06 - 02:57 PM

I guess this thread will die without an answer from the Liberals about why they keep yelling "War has not been declared" "It's illegal" when this has been the policy for decades.

Is it because they don't want to enforce the "LAW" when a Democrat president breaks it?

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: Peace
Date: 06 Jan 06 - 03:03 PM

Has zip to do, IMO, with whether or not war has been declared. It has everything to do with 'this is a bad war'--a bullshit war.

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Jan 06 - 03:14 PM

All wars are bad. This one may turn out to have some very positive results, however.

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: Old Guy
Date: 21 Jan 06 - 01:16 AM

Bobert likes to go back in history only when it suits his agenda:

As fir the Heritage Foundation, it was originally organized by a bunch of former Nazis and Nazi symphathizers who were wooed by the Republican Party after WW II...

Ain't changed much over the years...

Bobert