We were talking about Clinton's XO.

Clinton's XO would be legal, as I understand it. The president can issue an executive order to wiretap executive branch employees who have signed a release. That release, as I understand it, is required when accepting those high security positions. No judicial review required to authorize such surveillance of people such as Ames. But an executive order or something equivalent is required. That XO is legal.

George Jr authorized, by executive order, wiretapping of people who were not of the executive branch. He authorized this without judicial review as was required by law. And as we now know, the Asst Attorney General who was in charge at that time refused to condone it. People with questionable backgrounds then went to the hospital to pressure Ashcroft into giving approval. Ashcroft was reluctant but eventually gave in because he was told it was a matter of national security. George Jr's XO is illegal. The only way they could get even Ashcroft to agree was to pressure the man repeatedly in his hospital bed.

An executive order to authorize those wiretapping was not legal. It was just another George Jr half truth to justify illegal wiretaps for the greater glory of George Jr. Another example of a dictator demanding loyalty over American principles and laws. They even had a secret court and had 72 hours, after doing the wiretaps, to get court permission. And still that was not good enough? Their facts were as flimsy as the aluminum tubes for WMDs. So they created their own version of law - without judicial review. Knowing that even that secret court would reject their claims as bogus; these extremists justified wiretapping knowing full well that we will not demand impeachment or any other sanctions.

It’s rather silly to even think George Jr would have any respect for laws. He routinely subverts trade laws to protect big steel at the expense of American workers and their jobs. He unilaterally terminates international treaties on weapon proliferation and anti-missile defense. He lies about how much the drug bill will cost so that excessively high drug prices can be protected AND so that government will price support those profits. He unilaterally attacks another nation on bogus WMDs and outright lies. He has no qualms about a nuclear reactor with a Three Mile Island problem running in Toledo as long as he got his $450,000 fund raiser. His administration's connection to K Street corruption is unprecedented. Just a sampling of how his god (also called Satan) tells him what to do - such as run for the presidency or invade Iraq.

UT, if you think for one moment that this president is innocent, well, I have this mafioso friend who will make you a great deal on free money. This made man is also as honest as George Jr - and he reads his memos.

Speaking of lying, I just saw GWB giving a speech saying that if tax cuts are not made permanent, families making $50,000 a year will pay 50 percent more in taxes.

I'm trying to understand what kind of math he was using, or if he was playing games with words and that he wasn't actually saying that their total federal income tax of all or most families would rise by %50, but that some combination of circumstances and deductions made it theoretically possible to raise the taxes of one or more families by %50.

For example, a family living entirely on dividends from a stock in Yugoslavian eel farming.

I haven't found any analysis yet on factcheck.org. I'd be real curious about it.

From here.

Again, Clinton's XO says nothing about whether someone is in the executive branch or not.

Tw, even distilling facts down to a single sentence has no effect on you. You're impervious to points that don't agree with your POV. Fix this.

UT - why does the XO have to say anything other than authorize the wiretapping of Ames? It does not. An XO order that wiretaps Ames is legal because Ames permits it as part of his employment.

Meanwhile, when George Jr authorizes wiretapping of all in the Cellar only using an XO; that is illegal? Do you say George Jr can wiretap all in the Cellar because Clinton wiretapped an administration employee? Clearly there is no logical thought in that rationalization.

An XO need make no mention anything other than to authorize the wiretap. Clinton's and George Jr's XO could be worded same - a single sentence. And yet Clinton's would be legal because of who it wiretapped. George Jr's would be illegal because he wanted to wiretap the Democratic headquarters in the Watergate, the Cellar, or a completely innocent lawyer in Oregon who just happened to be Muslim - whose child's Spanish homework was cited as part of a conspiracy to bomb trains in Madrid. Look at how absurdly psychotic this 'we must bug everyone' administration has become. Somehow they have the right to bug anyone - and somehow you agree?

UT, repeating the obvious fallacy in your ridiculous arguments - that question how your heavy breathing is affecting your intelligence - has no effect on you. You see. I too can post useless insults. Stop with the insults and explain why a Clinton XO that only says 'wiretap Ames' is not legal? An XO can authorize wiretapping of Ames, not say why, and be perfectly legal. So what is your point? That the XO must go into specific detail on why it is legal - else it is not legal? What is your point of even mentioning Clinton - a totally irrelevant topic?

Hypothetically: Clinton writes an XO that says one sentence: "Wiretap Ames". Nothing more. That is legal. George Jr writes an XO that says "Wiretap Mr. Joe Citizen". That too is a complete XO text. George Jr's XO would be illegal. Why do you have a problem with this obvious fact?

But then why is Clinton's legal wiretap even mentioned by UT? Clinton is not a president who seeks dictatorship much like Nixon did. The question is George Jr who clearly has no respect for laws - probably because god tells him what is right - or righteous. George Jr has but again violated the law. He authorizes wiretaps without judicial approval when judicial approval is required - by law. Why, UT, do you have a problem with patriots who again expose the president as a crook? He wiretaps because he is president and therefore has the right to wiretap anyone. That is criminal.

According to the George Jr admininstration, then J Edgar Hoover also did right to wiretap whomever he wanted. After all, Hoover's only interest was national security - right? Hoover also had no ulterior motives. Neither did Nixon. Clearly each was only violating law for righteous reasons.

I'm getting person because it's the only thing that works.

Clinton's XO does not mention Ames. It doesn't mention federal employees. It doesn't mention anyone. Of the examples you have given, in the post two up ^^, Clinton's XO would be of the illegal variety.

AGAIN, here is Clinton's XO, in its entirety. Read it. Show me where it is limited.

Section 302(a)1 of the Act which is mentioned is limited to communications

Of course, this is a newer version of the law and I cannot state for sure that this was the exact text in Clinton's time. At no point does Clinton mention including US citizens. In fact the phrase Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) means that he is limiting himself to the boundaries of the Act.

Once he ordered the surveillance of US citizens, GWB stepped outside the bounds of the Act. Whether the post-9/11 declaration gave him the right to do so is all that is left to argue here.

if "pursuant to" means "limited to", why would the XO say that physical searches are permitted pursuant to an act limited to communciations?

The second part states:
The point is that Clinton referred to the act in his order and limited the scope of the order to that allowed by the act, which meant not US citizens. That is a big difference from what was done by GWB. All he had to do was submit a request to the FISA court within 3 days after the intercepts.

But the XO says...

Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) of the Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches,

...and you have pointed to section 302(a)(2).

Where? I only see references to 302(a)(1)(A)(i) and 302(a)(1)(A)(ii). 302(a)(1)(B) and 302(a)(1)(C) are also applicable.

oh yer right.

My drawing paper as a kid was tax law...

What about 303(a)(7)? :confused:

Here is a lefty link parsing this xo. This one appears to exclude citizens from warrantless searches.

Clinton's general abuse of xo's was, however, a huge problem as some loc folks are finally noticing, since Bush is now playing the game.

The lefty site is right.

I think I would prefer the word 'correct'. Feel free to use 'kosher'.http://www.cellar.org/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

Anyway, the Bush adminstration's claim is that this is war. Also, considering the request for permanent adoption of the "Patriot" Act, this war will apparently last forever.

Forever? There will always be terrorists and we will always be at war with EastAsia.

Yeah, but we don't have to be at war IN EastAsia

Apparently, the NSA spying started months before 9/11. I guess Congress' authorization of force isn't the actual legal justification for it. I wonder what the next one will be.

[edit]
And no, it can't be "9/11 changed everything" or "if we had these powers before 9/11 we could have stopped it" either.

That guy needs a dog. Go to page 37 of the PDF and read the section marked "major policy issues". A reasonable summary of it would be:

We can't do our job unless we monitor at a very high level. We'll do that, and stay within the law.

This guy's summary of it is

We're gonna listen to what we please. We say so in December 2000 because, WTF, the Bushies are coming in, if this Florida thing gets resolved, and we predict they will want it.

I don't know where you get that. It's not even close to what he's saying:

It's hyperbole. My point is, the document that he calls out as his smoking gun doesn't say any of that.

From the Washington Post of 19 Jan 2006: Just like Vietnam. Exactly like Vietnam.

Meanwhile, this is how the enemy destroys a superior adversay when that adversary is lead by mental midgets: Cutting back while recruiting more to the ranks of our enemies. Meanwhile, who will be leading the invasion of Iran - because we forced Iran to go nuclear by announcing its invasion. No one else in the world is destroying their economy by fighting a Cold War.

Ironic how some Americans so need enemies as to even invent and inspire them to be our enemies.

From here.

I wonder if GWB is going to have this guy stand up in the gallery during his next State of the Union?

Many armies have had to deal with insurgents, and all of them have had to deal with uniformed enemy. How they did so is a measure of who they were.

In WWII, elements of the German military had very brutal, and to some degree effective measures for dealing with insurgencies. Their methods were the grist for many propoganda films and even parodies for decades.

The reasons McCain is upset about stuff like this is that Welshofer's attitude was probably similar to the attitudes of the guards and officers running the 'Hanoi Hilton'. They assumed prisoners had intelligence and propoganda value. They probably felt that breaking them would be a patriotic duty and might save lives.

Up until now, we have publicly taken the high road. We could demonstrate to the world our expectations about how our soldiers were to be treated. We could argue to the United Nations before or after we punished countries who tortured our soldiers that we were holding them to our standards. By being consistent, we could make the case that we were not hypocrites.

The dead man may have been an enemy, but he was also an officer in uniform. He probably did not belong to Al-Qaeda. At the worst, he may have been tied to the insurgents, although that fact was never determined. In the end, he did not provide any useful intelligence and his death probably hurt us.

Assuming Welshofer is convicted, he will probably be pardoned in 6-12 months. It's too bad all of the Joint Chief positions are filled, because he might just be the guy the administration is looking for to retool the Army to more effectively fight terrorism. If there is ever any large scale unrest in this country, he might even get the chance to try out his skills in Virginia.

Fort Carson is located south of the city which neighbors mine. Funny thing I over heard two summers ago.

I went to Chinamart, trying to find some potting soil made in the USA. I was standing in the check out line with my 20 pounds of good American earth in my cart. The two men in front of me were soldiers stationed at Ft. Carson. They began to discuss the death of an Iraqi officer who had been strangled with an electrical cord while zipped in his sleeping bag. The two young men thought this incident was an example of some good, clean fun. They spoke as if they had personally witnessed what they were talking about.

I felt horrified to overhear this bit of conversation. I thought at the time that they were exagerating, the way young men sometimes do when speaking of war time experiences.

Last Veteran's day, the local PBS station showed a documentary about the experiences of young Air Force pilots who were graduates of the US Air Force Academy which is up north of here on the opposite end of town from Ft. Carson. The men in the documentary had been "guests" at the Hanoi Hilton. They said that under torture a man will say anything his captors demand him to say. They described what they had to endure. I had to bail from watching about half way through.

Information obtained by torture is worse than no information at all. If American soldiers are captured over in the Middle East and experience the hospitality of a "Baghdad Hilton," it will hardly be any great surprise. And the US will have no higher ground of moral outrage to express.

The Air Force Pilots who had been captured in the Vietnam War said that one of the things that kept them going was their own inner knowledge of their integrity and that of their country.

South of Colorado Springs and back east in the White House, the integrity component sees to be curiously absent these days.

On a lighter note (hey, you gotta laugh, or you're gonna cry):

All the news you need to know!

Well, THAT made me feel ever so much better! Got any more good news for us? :eyebrow:

The United States spends more money on Iraqi aid then is spent to aid all African nations combined - except Eqypt. And yet still Saddam was able to provide Iraqis with more. Is it not a good thing that we have saved the Iraqi people from themselves? That our president is a business major who knows how to get things done - in Iraq as in New Orleans?

From the NY Times of 9 Feb 2006:

Bullshit
 

Every dime the US has sent to Africa has been ripped off by their leaders. It never gets to the people. Are you suggesting we should be sending more?

More torture, murder, rape, sadism, etc. Zero freedom.

So you really think Saddam and his sons reflected the desires of Iraqis?

He got Afghanistan done. He got Saddam done. He'll get NO done (once they can stop the local crooks and politicans from ripping off the levy reconstruction funds as they've all done over the years.)

There were probably others who said just the opposite but weren't quoted. At any rate, the rate will continue to improve as democracy kicks in and the radicals, insurgents, etc. are prevented from destroying everything we build for the Iraqis.

So you actually believe it when he lied about "Mission Accomplished". And when did we get bin Laden? When was Afghanistan fixed?
Some Lie. Others Define a Solution.
In short, already half of Afghanistan has fallen back into 'enemy' hands. Meanwhile, just like in Vietnam, the administration denies all this. Do you ignore news in Pakistan where the Pakistani army has been driven from regions adjacent to Afghanistan by the Taliban? How can this be if Afghanistan was solved? Or do you only listen to George Jr's repeatedly distorted and incorrect decrees.

How many Americans died or are missing limbs this week in Iraq because it is "Mission Accomplished"? What did that secret report on military readiness declare - serious degradation everywhere directly traceable to stresses created by Iraq. How can this be if Iraq was solved?

So how many prisoners in Guantanamo are being force fed in a prision where Americans practice torture? Let's see. Saddam took 10 years to kill maybe 200,000 of his people. Americans killed almost 98,000 in but two years. You tell me which is god's chosen people? Saddam was not even a threat to his neighbors. So what did we really accomplish? Saddam was not a threat to Iran - so we had to do it.

Clearly Iraq and Afghanistan have been solved. Therefore we need not illegally wiretap because Iraq and Afghanistan were solved. Therefore the military did not recruit 40% who could not pass their standards tests. Therefore the military over past three months did not lower their standards to meet recruiting quotas. Did George Jr or Rush Limbaugh forget to mention those facts?

Last month, Iraq produced less oil than ever during the entire American occupation. How can this be if Iraq has been solved? Except for one (highly touted) day, Iraq has never produced as much electricity as when Saddam ran things. Iraq is a net importer of oil which is why gasoline prices in Iraq are $4 per gallon. No problem. "Mission Accomplished".

Yes, everything will improve ... as the number of attacks increase every month, economic production has been decreasing everywhere, and where even working sewer and fresh water deliveries are all down and decreasing. But don't worry. Be happy. That proves Iraq will be getting better? Just look at all the Americans now pilfering funds because George Jr spends like a drunken sailor - without any accounting of where money in Iraq is going. Some military personal were even found in Phillippines with another $60,000 that we 'spent' to fix Iraq. Why so much corruption? Just like in Vietnam, when the president lies, then corruption is widespread.

Probably the only thing keeping Iraq out of civil war is American presence - because America is considered a common undesirable element. But no problem. The naive still promote a Rush Limbaugh myth that democracy will solve everything - as it did in Haiti and in South Vietnam. Two other nations where democracy was forced upon a people rather than earned by people who wanted it. Democracy also solved all their problems - as George Jr and Rush Limbaugh decree.

But no problem. Thanks to Bremmer, et al, an insurgency has been created from all those fired policemen and soldiers - in direct violation of military principles even taught in 500 BC. "Mission Accomplished".

Saddam and his sons did isolated evil. Thanks to Americans, now even kiddnapping in Baghdad is something greater than 300 kidnappings per month. This in a country that once had almost no kidnapping - where it was safe to walk the streets when Saddam was in power. This in a country where most kidnappings - well over 300 per month - are not even reported. This in a country where Americans cannot even leave the Green Zones without military escort. Even Vietnam was not this dangerous.

But somehow, this time, we have solved Iraq and Afghanistan. Humbug tells us so. Forget reality. Good Morning, Vietnam - only in a different country. Same mistakes. Same lies.

We have "mission accomplished" longer than it took to build armies from scratch, attack all over the world, and win WWII. Since WWII did not take this long, then Iraq and Afghanistan must be "Mission Accomplished".

More bullshit
 

TWit said "This in a country where most kidnappings - well over 300 per month - are not even reported."

If they're not even reported, how do we know?

I don't have the patience to parse and reply to your laborious rash of nonsense right now, but offer the above as only one example of your logic.

Why don't we compromise and stop doing and subsidizing evil in Africa and the Mid-East? Apparently, American commies and fascists both want an interventionist foreign policy, they just want to destroy lives in different ways. Both of you clowns are getting on my last nerve.

That was very profound Griff.

Maybe if Humbug bothered looking for other interpretations rather than using my handle for insult, then maybe Humbug would have discovered the obvious. It means he might see through lies of a mental midget president - including WMDs. it means he might become too intelligent to believe a mental midget. Instead it is easier to insult.

About 300 kidnapping every month are reported in Baghdad. Other (unreported) kidnappings is estimated as well over 300 meaning that Baghdad probably has much more than 600 kidnappings a month. But don't worry. The president said Baghdad residents like this new lifestyle - even though interviews on the BBC of Iraqi residents say otherwise.

However Iraqis are optimistic. They are looking forward to the day that Americans leave. That will happen when? Not until after the invasion of Iran - according to George Jr intentions. We need those 14+ premanent bases to stage attacks on Iran especially since a critical base in Uzbekistan was lost. Is this too much reality for you? Or are you waiting for Rush to tell you how to think?

Ok Humbug. Here is your oppurtunity to show all that you can respond like an adult. That means no insults AND that means logical thoughts. It is a challenge - like PBS fund raising. Can you do it?

Afghanistan is not done. If it were, there wouldn't be any Australian troops there anymore, but there are, so it's not.

BTW...what should the situation be in Afghanistan when it's 'done'?

Step one. Bin Laden is captured. The president could not even let American military accomplish that. Little is told of massive screw ups in Tora Bora due to micromanagement in the White House. We never even tried to accomplish Step One. Afghanistan was not on a preordained 'Axis of Evil' list.

lol

I could have, but that would have been speculation.

Maybe if TWat bothered looking for other interpretations rather than using Bush for insult, then maybe she would have discovered the obvious.

Tsk-tsk.

And more amusing when it's a radical loony.

Bullshit.

More bullshit. Bush never said they like kidnappings you sick prick. But they did like their first free elections. Many great photos of them flaunting their purple thumbs. The only purple they had on their bodies under Saddddam was from amputations and beatings.

As are we all.

There you go again...more mindreader bullshit hyperbole. Just how the fuck do you know his intentions? Tea leaves? Counting spider barks?

Nope, it's a land grab for luxury resorts.

Rush? Never touch the stuff.

Sure, infantile Bush-basher. Can you? :lol:

Try posting something rational instead of the same old lame radical left crap and you'll get a different response.

This could have also been posted in another discussion on this same topic entitled Perverting science for politics where stem cell research, EPA and air quality, logging, Hubble Space Telescope, Union of Concerned Scientists, a Democratic summary About Politics & Science The State of Science Under the Bush Administration (which includes lead in the drinking water is acceptable), science that contradicts Genesis (the bible), hydrogen as a fuel, a silly Man to Mars program, denial of 'over the counter' emergency contraceptives, Philip A. Cooney (a lawyer) who rewrote science papers for the White House, and The White House’s White-Out Problem .

From the NY Times of 16 Feb 2006:

I wonder if the ban extended to papers submitted for publication in professional journals outside NASA's realm of influence? Lot's of nasty implications, if so. And, er, isn't freedom of the press involved here, as well? Bushco's actions come to resemble those of Hitler's pre-war Germany more every day. :eyebrow:

From The Washington Post of 20 Feb 2006: IOW torture was an agenda intended at highest levels of government. Torture was considered two years before Abu Ghriad. This must be wrong because we all know those enlisted men brought those dog collars and leashes with them to Iraq. Clearly without officer knowledge since officers are not charged. Rumsfeld is religious. He would not lie. Therefore what does he mean by 'well-run'. Well-run as defined by extremist religious leaders in America who approve of torture?

BTW, Pennsylvania residents get to vote for Sen Rick Santorum - who approved of actions that resulted in torture. He is now trying to distance himself from previous statements - statements made before those pictures from Abu Ghriad arrived. Santorum is a strong leader and representative of religious Republicans and believes in imposing his religious beliefs in American law.

Ummm - I'll be voting AGAINST Rick Sanitarium. That will be regardless of whom he runs against.

If it's that moron Joe Hoeffel, please, think of the Commonwealth and vote for Santorum.

Beg me! ;)

Even Alfred E Neuman could not be a greater moron than Santorum. Santorum imposes his religious beliefs on others. That means he is little different from bin Laden - both who use worship of pagan gods for their political agenda.

Nothing nice should be said of any politician anywhere who uses his religious beliefs to justify his politics. Even the Catholic Church is starting to back away from that anti-American concept of having religion determine what is moral in government. Santorum is a religious extremist which is why he also endorsed policies that promoted torture. Torture demonstrates what happens when religious extremists attempt to subvert secular governments with their religion.

Voters in PA are also encouraged to vote against most every incumbent in their legislature. PA's Congressmen slipped in an 'almost secret law' that made them the second highest paid Congress in the nation. This from a government in a third to last growing state in the nation.

Unfortunately PA residents are easily brainwashed. They routinely reelect 98% of incumbents which would explain why PA residents might have something good to say even about Rick Santorum - a man who would impose his religion on all others. A man who encouraged religious extremists in Dover PA.

Even Alfred E Neuman would be a better Congressman. Notice how moral Alfred is - as demonstrated by how he sweats – which is more than we can say about Santorum:

I dunno, Santorum always seems to be in a cold sweat.

To justify wiretapping without judical review, senior administration officials declared that Americans have no expectation of privacy; that the Constitution provides no such protection. Meanwhile government, lead by a man who fears transparency, has different rights.

From the NY Times of 20 Feb 2006:

hmmmf! Makes me wonder about the staff at the National Archives. I can't remember if it was there or at the Library of Congress that I was actually allowed to check out one of Thomas Jefferson's journels - yes, the original, written in Mr. Jefferson's own hand - for two hours. I had to give every bit of ID I had and call on professional courtesy as an academic librarian to do it. So someone is scarfing up stuff off the shelves of the archives and no one knew about it? Most odd, I must say!

I don't think they've gone missing, just classified secret and withdrawn from public view. :eyebrow:

Does this sound like a war where Americans are on the offensive?
From the Washington Post of 26 Feb 2006: But George Jr administration spin is that the military already has sufficient troops? Why would we have to leave? Vietnam Deja Vue. Mutinied? When did the George Jr administration mention that when they also claimed by this time 30 Iraqi battalions would be capable of independent operation? Latest Pentagon assesment changes that number from one down to zero. IOW getting public support (ie to identify their neighbors who man that mortar by daylight) is no longer an option. Americans have now fallen back on rebuilding military and police forces that the George Jr administration disbanded - in direct violation even of principles in "Art of War". The one common factor that all insurgent groups and the population agree on: Americans are undesirable. Especially repeated are comment about how American drive through towns shooting indiscriminately. Anyone gets within 300 yards can have their radiator shot out. Yes, this makes friends.

I realize the underlying concepts are repetitive. But the same concepts demonstrate how new facts only point in one direction. The Mission Accomplished war is not being won.

I am struck as how honest so many commanders were in that Frontline report "The Insurgency". One said that he cannot lose this war. But he cannot win this war either. Mission Accomplished? In their first deployment, the 101st Airborne took Mosul. Since Brennen and the George Jr administration had no plans for peace for 7 months and since American bureaucrats never came to Mosul, then this Commander commandeered other funds to start his own nation building. He knew that without such programs, all military victory would be lost. Mosul had no insurgency when the 101st left. After those 101st rebuilding programs terminated, an insurgency started in Mosul.

Ironic that the 101st is now deployed in a country that is what its commander feared. Not only did we not have enough troops. We did not have enough intelligence in the George Jr administration to understand "Mission Accomplished" had never happened yet – phase one of the war. Too little too late because George Jr said Americans don't do nation building. Mission Accomplished. We have met the enemy and he is us. Vietnam deja vue. The president says we are winning this 'Mission Accomplished' war - details be damned - just like an MBA.

How does this differ from a concentration camp? From the NY Times of 26 Feb 2006: ... or where to move Guantanamo prisoners when the Supreme Court finally orders Guantanamo to conform to American and International laws. But the administration says those black sites did not exist. Is somebody lying?

The Democratic process did not save S Vietnam. Deja Vue. Suddenly it will save Iraq and Afghanistan? Do these people learn from history?
From Washington Post of 1 Mar 2006:

He should be up for impeachment, another example of why MBA educated executives are THE reason for failure.
Notice every news service - including international ones - are posting stream after stream of examples - George Jr is the worst American president in generations - maybe in history. Also note silence from those who had less intelligence and therefore voted for him. The article then quotes some adminstration bullshit that are obviously classic lies. Don't even bother to read their Rush Limbaugh spin. It only insults your own intelligence. Instead, back to reality - Oh, so he lied again. I guess his god says that lying is OK - just like his supporters in Dover PA. Don't forget to read that Chicago Tribune report of 4 Sept 2005 - every available resource? I bet he did not even pray to his god because that is what political extremist politicians do - lie. An aircraft carrier capable of making 100,000 gallons of fresh water every day, feeding tens of thousands every day, with six operating rooms and up to 400 hospital beds, and electric power to recharge all New Orleans emergency radios sat at sea unused for five days. Five days it was not allowed to help Katrina victims because top management - the preident - an MBA who is told what to do by god - could not be bothered to help those people. "...we are fully prepared to not only help you..." But then as usual, I don't make this stuff up. George Jr is that anti-American as are people who support this fool:
From the Chicago Tribune of 4 Sept 2005. Register to read this article for free.
Navy ship nearby underused

From the NY Times of 2 Mar 2006:
So while relations between government and industry get better, some trapped men in a Sago mine did not even have 55 gallon barrels storing 24 hours of emergency oxygen. Why should they? It's not required by law. They only had two hours worth of oxygen - whatever they had carried with them. Yes nobody thought the levees would be breached. That too is about good relations rather than being product oriented - solving problems.

Rush Limbaugh is also about good relations. Its called propaganda.

From the Fort Worth Star-Telegram on 1 Mar 2006:
So when do we start going after bin Laden?

From the NY Times of 7 Mar 2006 is a report that only repeats what every decent American has long known. Only enlisted men buy dog collars to torture prisoners. General Miller types don't institute torture first in Guantanamo, and then in two cell blocks in Abu Ghraid:
US routinely condones torture and outright violations of basic human rights. Nothing new here. We can trust George Jr to be honest - to claim these are only criminals. After all, would god's chosen president lie to us? Just look at the videotape of Katrina.

Good thing the abuse is increasing. Otherwise Americans might be at greater risk.

Ironic that N Korea kidnapped citizens from other countries and America stays silent. Instead we name it to make it legal: rendition. No nation does this more rendition than America. And nobody expected the Spanish Inquistion. Once upon a time, that was a joke. Then god selected America's president.

From the BBC of 10 Mar 2006: Let's see. The citizens of Oregon voted for euthanasia. But big brother - fringe extremist whose religion knows what is better for Oregon - decided that Oregaonians are too stupid to authorize euthenasia. Even the Supreme Court chastised a mental midget administration for dictatorial actions. Ironic these same dictators approve of and promote torture. So now victims of another Spanish Inquisition want to die. Again, only George Jr - champion mental midget - knows that is wrong.

When did god so hate you and me to give us George Jr? What is wrong with this logic? Well, it assumes god exists. Only satan would give us George Jr - the worst president since ... well Nixon was only a crook. Those prisioners may be fed by pushing tubes up their noses.

As long time Cellar Dwellers read here, Brent Scowcroft, adviser to and close friend of George Sr, worried long about a potential for Civil War in Iraq. Most back then who read that here probably totally discounted it. Scowcroft was also one of the few among Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfovitz (they initially opposed the rescue) who correctly identified the invasion of Kuwait as a smoking gun. Scowcroft was noted by this author because he tends to see reality. Most readers probably discounted his warnings.

George Jr insists we were winning some fictitious war on terror. Now even George Jr's Sec of Defense is answering what we will do if and when an impending Civil War breaks out.

Another in a long list of citations of facts and reality, ABC News of 10 Mar 2006: So Iraqis will deal with a Civil War that is not happening. How can this be? The president said we were winning the "Mission Accomplished" war. A latest Defense Department assessment puts the number of independently operating Iraqi battalions from one down to zero. So how will Iraqi troops alone quell a Civil War? Deja Vue Vietnam. So an insurgency that was growing by hundreds of percents every year is not as much a threat? Clearly America is winning this "Misson Accomplished" war while threatening to attack Iran.

Someone please show us sanity in any of this. Oh.. This was god's chosen government. And nobody expected the Spanish Inquisition - except this author how many years ago? Yes I am pissed at how our leaders and so many citizens have so much contempt for America and her principles. Clearly we are not torturing people. That would not be Christian .... extremist. Silly me. The solution was so obvious. Deny it will happen.