Bush Urges Congress to Pass Wiretap Bill
Lawmakers Hustle to Act Before Recess
WASHINGTON -- Congress is rushing to expand the military's authority to wiretap phone calls and e-mails on US soil. The Bush administration, warning that terrorists may soon attack again, is pressuring lawmakers to approve the legislation before they leave town this weekend for their annual August vacations.
The proposal, the details of which remain murky, had received little public discussion before this week and has not undergone the normal committee review process. It would apparently give the National Security Agency legal approval to resume one type of the warrantless wiretapping that President Bush authorized after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. U.S.
The White House says the legislation is necessary to give the spy agency the ability to eavesdrop on suspected terrorists without court-approved warrants. Leaders in the Democratic-controlled Congress say they are willing to pass a version of the bill, and have spent the week in closed-door negotiations on the details.
But civil liberties groups urged Congress to slow down. Democrats have said the anticipated legislation will expire in several months, but the American Civil Liberties Union warned that such laws often end up on the books permanently.
"Our message to Congress is 'Do not rush into this, or you may later find that you regret it the way many members regret the Patriot Act,' " said Tim Sparapani of the ACLU, referring to the bill Congress hurriedly passed the month after 9/11 and made permanent in March 2006.
Lawmakers and administration officials have said little about what the bill would accomplish because it involves classified surveillance technology. A draft of the Democrats' legislation had not yet been released yesterday, and a rival Republican bill, introduced Wednesday, is vaguely worded.
Still, a sketch of the legislation has begun to emerge from fragments of information in media reports and analyses of the Republican bill by legal specialists.
The focus appears to be the NSA's ability to monitor certain calls and e-mails routed through telecommunications switches located on US soil. The agency wants to be able to eavesdrop on overseas-based calls and e-mails passing through those switches without court oversight.
A 1978 law requires the NSA to obtain a warrant from a secret national security court when it listens to calls on US soil. The law was written before changes in technology led some foreign calls to go through American switches.
One proposed change would make clear that the NSA does not need a warrant to intercept foreign soil-to-foreign soil communications, even if it does so by tapping into a device on US soil. But the more controversial change apparently focuses on whether the agency needs a warrant to spy on an overseas target who communicates with people whose location is unknown -- and sometimes turn out to be Americans.
"From what I can tell, the legal issue is how [the warrant law] applies when . . . the government has no idea where the people are on the other end of that [overseas] person's calls and e-mails, but they want to monitor from the US switch," Orin Kerr, a law professor and former Justice Department official, wrote on a legal blog yesterday.
Analysts said the Bush administration apparently wants Congress to change the law to allow the NSA to eavesdrop on such communications without warrants, as long as its primary target is overseas. One part of the negotiations between the White House and Congress concerns who should audit the NSA to make sure it does not abuse that authority. The Bush administration has proposed that Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales oversee the program, but Democrats want to give such authority to the national security court.
The dispute dates to the weeks after the 2001 terrorist attacks, when Bush secretly authorized the NSA to tap into Americans' international phone calls and e-mails without warrants. Such warrantless wiretapping was prohibited by the 1978 surveillance law, but Bush said he had the wartime power to bypass the statute.
The warrantless wiretapping program came to light in December 2005, prompting a long-running debate over the rule of law and the limits of presidential power during wartime. The administration insisted it had acted legally, but in January, Gonzales announced that the warrantless wiretapping program had ended with an agreement between the administration and a judge on the national security court.
The judge issued a classified order that allowed the NSA's surveillance to continue under the court's oversight. But several months later, another judge on the court decided that the order was illegal. That months-old ruling, which prompted the current debate, was disclosed this week by House minority leader John Boehner during an interview on Fox News.
The administration has not explained why it asked Congress to change the statute instead of reviving the warrantless surveillance program it conducted from 2001 to 2006. Asked whether the administration no longer believed its theory about presidential power, a Justice Department spokesman said, "Given all the ongoing negotiations over these [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] matters right now, we're going to decline comment."
Yesterday, three senators -- Russ Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, Robert Byrd, Democrat of West Virginia, and Bernie Sanders, Independent of Vermont -- asked the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, to underscore in the coming legislation that it is illegal to bypass the surveillance statute's procedures.
"We are reluctant to amend [the law] without assurances that the administration will actually follow the law," they wrote.
© Copyright 2007 The Boston Globe
Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
68 Comments so far
Show AllWith no oversight you spy on your political enemies, that should be obvious. Then you extend your enemies list to include all those protesters that are such a problem. Then you include anyone that is not on your side. Remember, you are either with us or you are against us. All the signs are there if you just look.
"Bush Urges Congress to Pass Wiretap Bill"
And they did !! Heil To The Feuhrer ! And this is the kind of democracy we insist on exporting.
I am absolutely at the end of my tether regarding the gross and unethical chicanery and deception in which this president and his cabal have engaged over the past 6 years. They have absolutely no regard for either the law or for the Constitution, and are especially contemptuous of The Bill Of Rights.
These people constitute the most dangerous threat to American values in our country's history, and they will get us into another war and worse unless the nation shows him the depth of our opposition and keeps him busy with an impeachment proceeding.
Go here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070804/ap_on_go_co/senate_rollcall_terrorism_1
to find out how YOUR Senator voted on S. 1927. Mine got an earfull (Smith from Oregon). Because of their vote on this issue, they ain't goin' back to the Senate - EVER! Doesn't matter if they are Dem or Repug. They are gone if we have an election in '08.
The House is supposed to vote on this tonight. I tried to call my Rep. but their offices are closed. I did call yesterday, but I don't know how to find out what is going on right now. Anybody got any ideas?
DailyKos seems to be on top of this. And boy are they pissed! I've never heard them be so anti-Democratic party before. The Dem's may have just cut their own throat on this one.
Go Erma---Go TnathanT You both make cogent argument.
We must use the best tools at hand as we do not have time to organize a new party--- of course the democRATS are enabling--- we must bring enough pressure on them to stop that. The thought of losing their precious sinecures in the next election cycle is the biggest stick I can think of to hold over their heads. Cajole, promise, threaten them with loss--- demonstrate in the streets---- strike--- do whatever is necessary--- Please read the following:
Here is profound evidence that the facist pig is already rooting:
Take a look at the latest Presidential Executive order...
Call-to-Action
From: G. Edward Griffin and Aaron Russo
On July 17, President Bush signed an Executive order that authorized blocking the use of any property held by anyone he says is a threat to the "stabilization" of Iraq. That means anyone who opposes his Middle East foreign policy now is subject to loss of home, automobiles, savings, investments, and anything else considered as property. Read the document here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.html .
This is about as serious as it gets. There have been many assaults on our freedom in the last few years, but none with such totality and finality as this. We must draw the line in the sand on this issue. The American people must re-discover their indignation, get off their couches, and send a tsunami of protest to Washington. Here are three things you can do:
1. If you don't already know the name and contact information of you Congressman and Senator, look it up in Google. Send them a short but explicit message to the effect that you expect them to (1) introduce or support fast-track legislation to rescind the Executive Order issued July 17 relating to blocking property of those who disagree with President Bush's policy in Iraq and (2) call for impeachment of the President NOW.
2. Make a list of every organization, publication, journalist, web site, talk-show host, and community leader who understands the significance of this Executive Order and send it to us at ge.griffin@verizon.net so we can build a coalition of activists on this issue. Also send them a note or call them in person to urge them to align with the coalition and take action.
3. Send this message to everyone you know.
That's it. There is no need to explain why this is important, and there is nothing that can be said that would be more motivating than the stark possibility of a police state in which citizens loose their property if they disagree with der Fuhrer (the Leader).
Drop everything else and do this NOW.
G. Edward Griffin and Aaron Russo
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
Executive Order: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq
White House News
Message to the Congress of the United States Regarding International Emergency Economic Powers Act
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, as amended (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.)(IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.)(NEA), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code,
I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, find that, due to the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by acts of violence threatening the peace and stability of Iraq and undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq and to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people, it is in the interests of the United States to take additional steps with respect to the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 of May 22, 2003, and expanded in Executive Order 13315 of August 28, 2003, and relied upon for additional steps taken in Executive Order 13350 of July 29, 2004, and Executive Order 13364 of November 29, 2004. I hereby order:
Section 1. (a) Except to the extent provided in section 203(b)(1), (3), and (4) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(1), (3), and (4)), or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted prior to the date of this order, all property and interests in property of the following persons, that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of United States persons, are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in: any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense,
(i) to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of:
(A) threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq; or
(B) undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people;
(ii) to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, logistical, or technical support for, or goods or services in support of, such an act or acts of violence or any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; or
(iii) to be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order.
(b) The prohibitions in subsection (a) of this section include, but are not limited to, (i) the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order, and (ii) the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person.
Sec. 2. (a) Any transaction by a United States person or within the United States that evades or avoids, has the purpose of evading or avoiding, or attempts to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.
(b) Any conspiracy formed to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.
Sec. 3. For purposes of this order:
(a) the term "person" means an individual or entity;
(b) the term "entity" means a partnership, association, trust, joint venture, corporation, group, subgroup, or other organization; and
(c) the term "United States person" means any United States citizen, permanent resident alien, entity organized under the laws of the United States or any jurisdiction within the United States (including foreign branches), or any person in the United States.
Sec. 4. I hereby determine that the making of donations of the type specified in section 203(b)(2) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(2)) by, to, or for the benefit of, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order would seriously impair my ability to deal with the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 and expanded in Executive Order 13315, and I hereby prohibit such donations as provided by section 1 of this order.
Sec. 5. For those persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, I find that, because of the ability to transfer funds or other assets instantaneously, prior notice to such persons of measures to be taken pursuant to this order would render these measures ineffectual. I therefore determine that for these measures to be effective in addressing the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 and expanded in Executive Order 13315, there need be no prior notice of a listing or determination made pursuant to section 1(a) of this order.
Sec. 6. The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense, is hereby authorized to take such actions, including the promulgation of rules and regulations, and to employ all powers granted to the President by IEEPA as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this order. The Secretary of the Treasury may redelegate any of these functions to other officers and agencies of the United States Government, consistent with applicable law. All agencies of the United States Government are hereby directed to take all appropriate measures within their authority to carry out the provisions of this order and, where appropriate, to advise the Secretary of the Treasury in a timely manner of the measures taken.
Sec. 7. Nothing in this order is intended to affect the continued effectiveness of any rules, regulations, orders, licenses, or other forms of administrative action issued, taken, or continued in effect heretofore or hereafter under 31 C.F.R. chapter V, except as expressly terminated, modified, or suspended by or pursuant to this order.
Sec. 8. This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right, benefit, or privilege, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, instrumentalities, or entities, its officers or employees, or any other person.
GEORGE W. BUSH
THE WHITE HOUSE,
July 17, 2007.
# # #
So last night only 28 Democrats voted against this and our constitutional rights went further down the tube. I am so fed up with these so called Democrats that care so little about us. I hope all of the rest of you who post comments on this site are also writing your local newspapers and congress. I advise using congress.org for the latter as they make the process easy.
Hi
I'm amazed to see so many US citizens blogging as it there was still a two party state in existance in the USA. WAKEUP THERE IS NO LONGER THE DEMOCRACY AT WORK LIKE YOU ONCE BELIEVED AND YOU NEED TO FORM A NEW OPPOSITION AND FORGET ABOUT THE DEMOCRATS CHANGING ANYTHING. Frankly all this drivel about the Democarts have not done this or that is a complete boar. The Democrats are part of the same corrupt systems that needs to make you believe there is a real opposition. There might be an opposition of sorts but NOT an alternative. The Democrate will do NOTHING to change the system as they ar part of the system.
If you want to save your Republic you need to accept that the Democrats are as much of a problem as Bush and find a new opposition that will seek to reform the system. While you waste energy writing about the failings of the Democrats you prove that you have not worked out how it is actually in play. WAKE UP.
So, who in the administration will be providing oversight to make sure even MINIMAL constitutional protections are in place? Alberto Gonzales?
Sounds like a non-starter to me.
Bush wanted. Bush got. That sums up our government pretty well.
ERMA, the facts you offer are indeed depressing; your anecdotes equally dispiriting, and yet another betrayal (Does it really even make sense to call their actions betrayals at this point?) by the Dems in the Senate. Times are dismal indeed. Our experiences of the general level of political awareness sound congruent as well, while you and I are clearly in agreement on the idea that, as you put it, "the reality is that we are about an inch away from a full-blown Bush dictatorship which the Repugs and Bush-Enabling Dems have helped create." Where we differ is that I do not think that we are slaves yet, even though Warren Buffet has claimed that our nation is becoming a "debt peonage society." Is my notion that I remain a citizen and not a consumer/debtor/slave merely whistling in the dark, or what you call "big tough talk"? Perhaps it is, but the alternative is immobilized despair or expatriation. (Expatriation looks better all the time, but the new world order is just that.) I prefer to think of my attitude as Jamesian pragmatism: I won't successfully accomplish something if I doubt my ability to do so at the outset, so I refuse the doubt. Note that this pragmatism doesn't allow me to fly, only to achieve something that's actually possible. It's hard to know now if, as Richard Rorty put it, America can still be achieved. Note also that refusing the doubt is not HOPING (I wish this text box accepted italics!) for something better. I think that hope's been off the table for a couple decades at least. But the Senate bill does have a 6 month sunset provision, so there's an immediate target for people to take up with their "elected representatives." Or not.......... At any rate, the Republican party is about to collapse under the weight of its own internal contradictions, just look at their presidential candidates' inability to hold the moneyed interests and the religious fanatics together. And when push comes to shove will American military leaders go along for the ride with a rogue administration that turns the military on the precious homeland? Though W himself might enjoy such a spectacular melodrama, Henry Wallace's 1944 diagnosis of the fascist threat remains a better, more sober guide. Wallace wrote that "the American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels of public information. With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power" (http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/082103F.shtml) (Yes, B O'RE-illy, this means you). 1944 and it still rings true, which means that some struggles are long, circuitous, and dogged. But the struggle goes on. Perhaps both parties will collapse as things go south and other opportunities present themselves in the form of reform candidates or parties. Who knows? The future is a big place.
tnathant August 4th, 2007 3:30 am,
When I wrote my earlier post about the Dem kool-aid drinkers I did not have you in mind.
I've been calling for action ever since 2000 only to be told to "get over it." That's what I was told after the 2000 stolen "election" when I protested with others.
There was no protest after the 2004 stolen "election." The People just accepted the results and did nothing about that other than to say "oh, Kerry lost."
Nor did The People do anything about the stolen midterm "elections."
I'm convinced that "The People" are not going to do anything. It will have to get much, much worse for the **possibility** that The People **MIGHT** rise up.
I've personally been calling for action for some time now. I have been calling for The People to engage in long national strikes AND take to the streets by the MILLIONS and MILLIONS in every city and town across this nation, particularly in the District of Columbia.
Do I think that's going to happen? Hell no.
Most people can't be bothered. From my experience, if anything people are tuning-out. The fact that the national voter turnout for the 2006 "election"---I read in two different places---was in the 40% range. I think it was something like 42%. It was somewhere around there. Very low. Less than half. Anyway that speaks to my point that people are tuning-out. Many are also most likely completely disgusted and want no more to do with this corrupt system in DC so they chose not to vote too - especially since we have a corrupt fraudulent voting system put in place by the Repugs and Dems who helped push for the e-voting machines. Speaking of people tuning out, I've said this before on here but recently I mentioned Cindy Sheehan and Libby to some acquaintances who I know to be very progressive. They had never heard of Cindy Sheehan (they asked "who's she?") and didn't know what I was talking about when I brought up the Libby saga.
The reality is that we are about an inch away from a full-blown Bush dictatorship which the Repugs and Bush-Enabling Dems have helped create. The "YES" Bush Dems are not about to "MIGHT" oppose it when they have been equals with the Repugs in creating this dictatorship since 2000. And there is really nothing---other than the two things I've already mentioned above---that any of us can do about that. Why? Because we have no control over the completion of this dictatorship. The Senate showed us that Friday night, 3 August 2007. These people in congress and in the White House do as they damn well please no matter how much big tough talk a person engages in about not giving up. One may not give up but that sure as hell doesn't mean that things will not proceed on as planned by the Bush Crime Family and their enabling congress.
Anyone confused about the democrats' acquiescence to this madness need only recall the attempted murder of Senators Daschle and Leahy with the anthrax letters. I seem to remember that they were balking at the Patriot act at the time.
Could it be that the "loyal opposition" is too much in fear for their lives to oppose this administration?
ERMA re: your post above. Being troubled by the CSPAN coverage doesn't qualify me as a "Dem. koolaid" drinker. I marched in the streets with ACT-UP before then Pres. Reagan could bring himself to say the word AIDS and I know just how oppression by my own government feels in my blood and bones. The Dems were pretty lame then too. I marched against this war before this war started, only to be dismissed as a "focus group" by yet another authoritarian Republican administration. Those of us in the reality-based community also know that the weak-spined Dems are all that stand between us and overt fascism, i.e. a substantial and formal alteration of our government. So guess what, I find that troubling, and feel free to pick on my choice of words. The left's insatiable appetite for eating its own means that even though we on the left (at least those to the left of the Brownbacks, DeLays and their ilk) while enjoying a substantial national majority have routinely had our electoral hats handed to us since Reagan came to office. Further, I don't think that now is the time for above-the-fray cynicism: it's time for anger to motivate action, which my post above calls for explicitly. As far as I'm concerned cynicism fuels burnout and withdrawal, which only abet the crisis we face as a nation. Yeah, the Dems are pathetic AND they are the only tool ready to hand that MIGHT presently oppose the fascist Republican threat. That they have been singularly ineffective is frustrating, maddening, and deeply, deeply TROUBLING!! Where's the spirit of Shirley Chisholm, Barbara Jordan, or the wily Tip O'Neil when you need it? The "concept of America" is always something that has had to be fought for in a bitterly divided public sphere: recall the controversy over Adams's Alien and Sedition Acts at the outset of this democratic experiment, then the Civil War, the Know-Nothings, Women's Suffrage, Civil Rights, and on and on. Violent political disagreements, ineffective opposition, craven fear mongering, economic exploitation, xenophobia, racism, authoritarianism, and militarism are nothing new to this country. Giving up now is not a choice, it's a cop-out. The cheapest high is a moral high: I'm not wrapping myself in the anti-flag.
Any law of this nature should require an annual vote by congress to confirm or deny its continuation.
What concerns me is that it will gradually disappear from the public consciousness and so will be able to assume a life of its own.
QUOTE:
provoice August 4th, 2007 1:30 am
Does anyone know exactly when the concept of America died?
END QUOTE
Yes, the night of the Judicial Coup in December of 2000 when George W Bush and Dick Cheney were selected (by friends of the Bush Crime Family) to occupy the White House.
Clearly, spying on Americans is for political reasons as criminals and terrorists will use other forms of communication to beat the system.
Secondly, it is a waste of resources to use such a broad roundup of millions of communications to find the extremely rare phone call that will specifically incriminate anyone.
Finally, the calls will be monitored by computers seeking code words. An innocent inclusion of a word or phrase thought to be used by terrorists will result in careful monitoring of my 80 year old mother's phone calls.
Unless something really happens before the election to motivate the dems base I can easly see the repubicans winning back the house and the senate by a bare majority. Mostly due to the fact that many dems (and indies) will either just not vote or vote 3rd party in 08.
I think the dems really f'd themselves over on this one big time.
Feed the machine...
The heroin is in the nuclear missiles.
Yes, "hope" is a four letter word and so was "vote" for all the good it did us.
Does anyone know exactly when the concept of America died?
I'm not sure what I was doing that distracted me from the moment that the final gasp of life burst from the breast of America, but it must have been important... because I seem to have missed the exact moment that it happened.
I seem to have missed the moment when it became OKAY for our benevolent leaders to spit on our Constitution... to breach every promise of privacy and personal freedom that we as American citizens had... to flagrantly ignore federal court decisions... and to throw away the jobs, homes and security of the American workers in favor of profits for the corporate hierarchy.
There was a time when I foolishly believed that it was just the political party in power in the White House that was at fault, but now I see that BOTH parties have sold us out in favor of cheap foreign labor, unprotected borders and ports, and allowing us to be sodomized by the insurance companies, banks, oil companies and drug manufacturers.
The America I knew is dead, and I will mourn her.
Here's an alternative view: The Bushits have not, even to the slightest, varied from their initial plan, the basis of which was laid down decades ago. Is Bush as stupid as he sounds and appears, or is it just a persona adopted by a devious, vicious plutocratic fascist? He and those who support, control, and believe in his message are perhaps the most successful fascists in history. No, they have no respect for belief, faith, the Constitution, the Rule of Law, freedom, democracy, or anything else the United States stands for. It all exists only for their personal use. Every other human on the planet is destined to be their toilet paper. The Bushits will survive! At least in their own minds. And "hope" is a four-letter word.
Ryszard
Outrage doesn't begin to describe it. I'm disgusted with the lot of them. A court ruled that this type of spying, without a warrant is illegal. FISA judges are available 24/7, so there is not one justified reason for a law to be passed to avoid that court. If anyone thinks this law would be anything other than a loophole for this criminal administration to say, "oops, we didn't mean to eavesdrop on law abiding citizens/war protesters/political opponents/political enemies", they are sadly mistaken. The fact that Bush wants no oversight other than that of his trusted lapdog Alberto Gonzales is the only proof I need.
I've long since had enough. I do hope this latest outrage is enough to convince a lot of fence sitters that the Democratic "party" is just one faction of the behemoth Corporate Party that controls virtually every outlet of the federal and most state governments. If you want real change, you have to abandon this rather pathetic supplicating to the Corporate Party for breadcrumbs.
It passed.
Meanwhile, Conyers continues to hide under his desk from Bush and Cheney.
Pelosi continues to pocket whatever it was that took Impeachment Off the Table.
Bush threatens martial law; Cheney threatens nuking Iran. Our sub-tabloid news media reports on obesity, Paris Hilton, and American Idol.
Have you had enough yet..?
Only those who are STILL drinking the Dems' koolaid will be "shocked" or "surprised" at this story (below). And they will play it down by saying they are "troubled" by it. TROUBLED?
One of the koolaid drinkers said yesterday on here, "the Dems are listening to us." What drugs are some people on? (the Dems' koolaid is their drug of choice).
Those who have been paying close attention since 2000 expect to read this type of headline from the Bush-Enabling Dems who control the Senate. It is a given:
Senate Passes Bush Spy Bill
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/08/03/ap3987355.html
there can be only one reason Bush wants to bypass the FISA rubber stamp....he wants to spy on people he has no business spying on (i.e. Democrats) and wants no oversight to expose his crimes
Don't the Dems control the House and Senate? Yet...
House rejects Democratic spy bill
By LARA JAKES JORDAN, Associated Press Writer 1 minute ago
WASHINGTON - Congress and the White House struggled Friday over expanding authority to eavesdrop on suspected foreign terrorists in a high-stakes showdown over national security.
The House rejected a Democratic proposal opposed by President [sic] Bush that would give him that authority for only four months. The largely party-line vote in favor of the bill was 218-207, short of the two-thirds majority needed under rules limiting debate.
Senate Democrats, meanwhile, prepared to concede to a bill [Erma's Ed. well surprise, surprise!...who would have thunk that? So the Bush-Enablers continue enabling] supported by the White House limiting that authority to six months [Ed. Yeah right]. It also would allow the director of national intelligence and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to carry out the expanded eavesdropping for four months before a court signs off on it. [Ed. the fact is the Bush Crime Family will be eavesdropping permanently and taking away even more of our civil liberties despite the political spew in this article].
The House vote left the bill's fate in doubt.
[Ed. Get a load of this:] "I hope that there are no attacks before we are able to effectively update this important act," said Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee.
Bush earlier Friday coupled his demand for legislation with a threat to veto any bill that his intelligence director deemed unable "to prevent an attack on the country." [Ed. From within you mean? Such as another 9-11 inside job? Another false-flag situation, eh?]
[Ed. More BS follows:] "We've worked hard and in good faith with the Democrats to find a solution, but we are not going to put our national security at risk," Bush said after meeting with counterterror and homeland [Ed. In]security officials at FBI headquarters. "Time is short." [Ed. Oh, so your inside job is going to happen soon, huh?]
Presidents have authority to call Congress back in session from a recess, but the last time it was used was in 1948, by Harry Truman.
The Bush administration began pressing for changes to the law after a recent ruling by the secret FISA court that barred the government from eavesdropping on foreign suspects whose messages were being routed through U.S. communications carriers, including Internet sites.
Negotiators spent Friday trying to narrow differences between what Bush wanted and Democrats' demand for court approval before intelligence agents get expanded authority to tap into overseas phone calls and Internet traffic of suspected terrorists. [Ed. The world's #1 terrorists are parked in the White House and at the Pentagon and their Dem/Repug Enablers are parked in the Capitol building.]
Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, called the administration plan "more likely to protect the American people against terrorist attacks by those who want to do us harm." [Ed. Utter garbage. The ones who want to do us harm are at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.]
Current law requires court review of government surveillance of suspected terrorists in the United States. It does not specifically address the government's ability to intercept messages believed to come from foreigners overseas — what the White House calls a significant gap in preventing attacks planned abroad.
Senate Democrats backed off [Ed. surprise, surprise. They "backed off" to help Bush once again yet some Dem koolaid drinkers say "the Dems are listening to us." There isn't a day that goes by that these Dems don't help Bush.] their initial demands to have the surveillance process reviewed by the FISA court before overseas eavesdropping without warrants could begin. Instead, the bill headed for passage there largely mirrors what the Bush administration wanted. It would require:
_Initial approval by Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. The White House agreed to add McConnell after Democrats balked at giving that authority to Gonzales alone.
_FISA court review within 120 days. The final Democratic plan had called for court review to begin immediately and concluded within a month after the surveillance started.
_The law to expire in six months to give Congress time to craft a more comprehensive plan. [Ed. A "more comprehensive Bush-Enabling plan" is what it will be in the end.]
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070804/ap_on_go_pr_wh/terrorism_surveillance
I've been watching live CSPAN coverage of the House debate on the FISA bill and it has been deeply troubling. The Republicans are arguing for a concentration of power that is profoundly un-Constitutional and are typically accusing Democratic opposition of being supporters of terrorism. In a word, what you can witness on CSPAN is the rise of fascism by means of the suspension of the Constitution's separation of powers, judicial oversight, and Congressional participation in government. That the near-entirety of the Republican caucus defends the creation of an imperial presidency disturbs me much more than the fact that Bush/Cheney/Gonzalez/Rice cabal is singleminedly pursuing such an aim. This FISA bill is more than dangerous; it is revolutionary. It is a de facto fascist coup, which, as all readers of this will know, some argue has already happened with the Supreme Court's decision in Bush v. Gore. Perhaps, but in that case, this FISA bill boldly consolidates in legal form the permanent suspension of key elements of American civil liberties. By declaring the whole world a battlefield in the "long war" the administration seeks to create a basis from which to preempt the hard fought centuries of progress from authoritarianism toward participatory democracy: think how such notions as the "unified executive" violate American legal tradition, or for that matter how the administration's novel interpretation of anti-torture laws and habeus corpus violate the well-established canons of jurisprudence, or how allowing the executive branch to issue warrants on its own authority violates the Constitution's 4th amendment. The FISA bill encodes much of that agenda into law and we should all be very, very angry and adamant in our opposition.
Key 89---- I do not usually go on the attack--- but your statement "We are the Chosen ones" makes me see red----- there are no chosen ones. We all are equal---- and accountable for our actions--- this statement is unacceptable intellectuall, and places you on the same plane as those we all detest. Grow up.
Well Moses,
In my opinion, the Bush regime did not want to prevent 9-11. As far as I'm concerned it was an inside job and I thought that at the time. Either they knew it was going to happen and allowed it to happen to accomplish their goals, or they cooked the entire thing up themselves because they have used it thoroughly to accomplish their goals to install a dictatorship and it was a catalyst for the goals of the PNAC document. On page 51 of the PNAC document (Cheney is a signatory) it speaks of needing a "new Pearl Harbor" to rally the people behind them.
9-11 = new Pearl Harbor
I will be surprised if there is an election next year, at the rate things are going. With a dictatorship in place with Bush as dictator, there is no need for a presidential election when the dictator is not leaving (in 2009) or thereafter.
Some people will pooh-pooh this and say it can't happen. The days of "politics as usual" ended in 2000. I put NOTHING past these people. They will do whatever they need to do to hold on to the reigns of power and there is no one to stop them.
Some people may say that "We, the People" can stop them. Well, "We, the People" will have to put down Harry Potter before that's about to happen.
Good grief! Given the man's record of being wrong, doing wrong, thinking wrong, saying wrong and just plain never being right, why in the hell is anybody listening to his arguments much less agreeing to give him more power. Has congress gone idiot with the rest of America- or are they too just filling their coffers while they can?
Hello, America- you got a brain don't you?
In the summer before the September 11 attacks, the Bush administration was warned. A memo was put on their desks, talking about the threat, what form it appeared to take, etc. Within the FBI, there were agents who warned of foreigners going to flight school in the US and were told, basically, to shut it. Going to flight school, I should mention, and expressing complete indifference to the whole LANDING PROCESS, wherein came the concern. Point is, the information was there, but ignored. The notion that our intelligence gathering failed us is completely false. The administration failed us by refusing to act based on the intelligence given them.
In Iraq, they chose to act on intelligence NOT given them. Made up intelligence. When advisors sent up memoes that did not match the administration's imaginary view of the world, those reports were marked "wrong" and returned to be "reconsidered".
The Bush administration is prying into our lives without judicial oversight. They are doing this in the name of national security, but it is to secure a nation to which none of us belong. It is a nation ruled by the shady world around Dick Cheney. It is the fascist coup George Bush's grandfather failed to bring off in 1933. They are using the intelligence gathering to throw MORE people off the voter rolls for the next presidential election so that Republicans might keep the White House (and the American people) in perpetuity. Again, they had the required intelligence to prevent 9/11. The intelligence services have become LESS competent under Bush. Homeland Security can't even fill its jobs. This is a scam. A government ending, reconstructing scam that will leave us with a nightmare that has lingered since 1933.
www.unknown-arts.org/politics
DavidJames: Encryption protects the CONTENT of the communication, but not the ORIGIN and DESTINATION. It seems to me that much of the spying activity revolves around reconstruction of communcations "networks", the ultimate in guilt by association.
The last statement in the article should make this fairly obvious...
"We are reluctant to amend [the law] without assurances that the administration will actually follow the law," they wrote."
Phone calls and e-mails are being tapped and traced even as we speak. This ploy is simply to obfuscate the legal terms for the very outside chance that some whistle blower brings the KGB's activities to light.
Frank1569 actually has a great idea. IF we all worked the "keywords" into our conversations, they'd have a helluva time sorting through the mountains of tape and printed e-mails. Of course those participants would probably be the people to fill the Haliburton KRB concentration camps first. But...We could all discuss the facts as they are relevant in the terms we are discussing here, but we all know this administration will kidnap any dissenters and torture, rape or kill without regard for law or reason or the context in which these words are used. Maybe it's an honest lack of ability to comprehend?
So...the safest thing to do would be just withhold our money and labor from the 1% who own our government and our economy, or be happy with our cattle status and let the madness continue.
Anyone wanna bet that NO neocon is killed in the soon to materialize "tearist" attack?
Drop dead George!
If you need yet one more example of how useless it is to vote Democrat, here it is. Bush says he wants something, the Democrats jump to give it to him. Plus they'll end up giving that lying SOB Gonzalez the authority to oversee the program.
And its not new. Remember the Patriot Act passed with only one dissenting vote from the Dems. Lots more examples if you look.
QUIT VOTING DEMOCRAT. We've got to vote for someone else if we want opposition and change. Isn't it painfully obvious by now that everyone who voted Dem in 2006 wasted their vote?
dictatorship
One entry found for dictatorship.
Main Entry: dic·ta·tor·ship
Pronunciation: dik-'tA-t&r-"ship, 'dik-"
Function: noun
1 : the office of dictator
2 : autocratic rule, control, or leadership
3 a : a form of government in which absolute power is concentrated in a dictator or a small clique b : a government organization or group in which absolute power is so concentrated c : a despotic state
Bush Urges Congress to Pass Wiretap Bill
Lawmakers Hustle to Act Before Recess
***************
Okay, Nancy and Harry, let's all together say, "wiretapping is off the table"--it's August vacation time (that's something Bush should understand!)
2nd sentence from the article, "The Bush administration, warning that terrorists may soon attack again ..."
Can't you just picture it now? Bush, standing in front of a picture of some place (because heaven help us if he actually WENT there) devastated by nuclear waste from old reactors that his government didn't give enough money for repair and maintenance which, interestingly enough, became the target of another Cheney controlled terrorist act.
Bush-the-martyr has a look of deepest concern and regret, though there's a creepy smirk pulling at the corners of the pouting mouth and an impish, or is it devilish, look in his eye as he says in a voice dripping with kindness, compassion, and deep condescension:
"Oh my subjects - I mean, "My fellow Americans", I TOLD you this would happen and you didn't listen. THIS is what happens when you don't listen to me. I CARE about you so much! THEY don't - these bad bad people, but I do. And because of the love that I have for you, I'm going to continue to live in that big white house, take your money and your property and give it to people who can manage it better than you; I'm going to continue to send your children, fathers, mothers, husbands, and wives off to be killed; I'm going to continue to make sure that the young among you have no chance for a decent education and that none of you can get the medical care or medication that you need; I'm going to continue to monitor everything you say and do because we must track down these bad bad people. And, until we can all feel safe again, I'm suspending elections."
"THESE are the sacrifices you must make, my subjects, because I'm making the biggest sacrifice of all. Not until every person in this country feels safe again, will I stop living in that big white house. THIS is my solemn pledge to you, the people that I love so well. I will work every day for the rest of my life to ensure that you feel safe."
Rounds of applause from the TV-controlled, mindless, thoughtless, fear-filled drones that now inhabit this country.
Modern encryption systems are essentially immune to spying. This makes the administrations request for warrrantless wiretaps and email taps especially puzzling. Who are they spying on?
Anyone who who wants their email to be secure can use the S-Mime encryption, which is built into most modern email applications. Free 1024 or 2048 bit personal email certificates are available from Thawte.
http://www.thawte.com/secure-email/personal-email-certificates/index.html?click=DoYouNeedTo-SecureMail
If you want to make a secure phone call, the Skype to Skype free IP phone is available worldwide. Both of these encrypted communication systems have very secure encryption algorithms, essentially immune to spying. They are what I use to minimize the risk of industrial spying. S-Mime email is used all the time in industry to securely send information on the internet.
Anyone who does not want to be spied on just uses secure communication tools. If these secure communication tools are publicly available to anyone, who is the Bush administration spying on?
Does anybody but me suspect that this whole push to get immediate passage of a bill expanding NSA's domestic warrantless wiretapping authority is a set up to blame the Democratic Congress for the terrorist attack Mr. Chertoff feels in his gut is just about to happen?
Bill from Saginaw
QUOTE:
frank1569 August 3rd, 2007 3:52 pm
Flip him the bird when the camera's are off.
END QUOTE
Why when the cameras are off? That is what a dead-assed Dem would do. A dead-assed Dem would show no spine of "opposition." Wait until the cameras are off? Hell, I say flip him the bird (and then some) when the cameras are ON. But of course they won't do that because the Dems are Bush's strongest allies along with the Repugs.
And I wish people would stop calling this illegitimate White House resident "president" [sic]. Bush is in the office illegitimately so and all you're doing is giving this piece of trash respect by saying that...is that your intention, to give this international war criminal and despicable what-passes-for a "human being" respect?
But based on experience I know most people including most so-called "progressives" are not about to stop calling this son of a Bush "president." I'm sure he appreciates your making him at least APPEAR legitimate.
Ugh.
Everytime I read about Bush wanting warrantless wiretaps, surveillance of everyone's e-mail without warrants, etc... I am reminded that he is the one invoking executive privilege to prevent any information getting out about the White House. Kinda hypocritical. He wants all information about us and in return we get nothing at all from Bush, Cheney, Rove and Gonzales.
Wouldn't it be nice to have warrantless wiretaps and e-mail taps on Dick Cheney and Carl Rove?!
I believe they work for Bush/Cheney, for the lobbyists and for their own greedy selves. I think a few good ones work for 'we the people' but unfortunately you don't even need your toes to count'em all up. I think Bush looks forward to the recess so Gonzales can resign and he can appoint a new AG who will reign without Senate approval as another "recess appointment".
Term limits for all Congressional reps and Senate. No exceptions, ever. That would prevent the ignorant and uninformed sheeples from putting those crooks back in office for decades.
IMPEACH CHENEY/BUSH NOW!!
Bush wants.....Bush wants.....Bush wants.....Bush wants.....Bush wants.....Bush wants.....Bush wants....
I'll veto.....I'll veto.....I'll veto.....I'll veto.....I'll veto.....I'll veto.....I'll veto.....
....if I don't get what I want!
"Our message to Congress is 'Do not rush into this, or you may later find that you regret it the way many members regret the Patriot Act,' " said Tim Sparapani of the ACLU, referring to the bill Congress hurriedly passed the month after 9/11 and made permanent in March 2006."
Key words here: "which they made permanent in March 2006"
4+ years wasn't enough time to investigate and acknowledge the potential damage the Patriot Act could inflict upon the citizens of this nation?
Does Congress work for "The People" or the president?
"The agency wants to be able to eavesdrop on overseas-based calls and e-mails passing through those switches without court oversight." Now check THIS out: Article 2 - Laws enacted by the government of the Reich may deviate from the constitution as long as they do not affect the institutions of the Reichstag and the Reichsrat.
"The president said lawmakers cannot leave for their August recess this weekend as planned unless they "pass a bill that will give our intelligence community the tools they need to protect the United States."
Who the f**k does he thing he is already!!? Dems, here is your only answer: KISS OUR COLLECTIVES ASSES YOU LYING, MURDERING PIECE OF INSANE SH*T!
Leave. Make Lying Loonitary Warmonger call you back. Then do not pass nothing. Ruin his summer. Make him rant and rave and turn red in public. Flip him the bird when the camera's are off. BUT STAND UP TO THIS PISSANT BULLY ONCE AND FOR ALL. (In spite of his sputtering, the President can call Congress back into session, but not until you recess.)
Of course, y'all won't. Because, for reasons yet unknown, you so-called opposition partiers continue to talk loud and allow the Cheneybush fascism to amplify unchecked. Haven't you realized he's spying on YOU! Not "alleged terrorists." How can you tell? Because in order to get this KGBill rushed through before all the children die in the shopping malls, all "they" would have to do is provide one, single instance that the illegal spying worked. One f**king example, and we'd all shut up.
Give in this time, and it's over. No Dem gets my, or my posse's, vote, and we will begin to actively campaign against every one of you who reveal themselves as a loyalbushie in Blue.
Time for some disobedient monkeywrenching. Every phone call you make this weekend, be sure to say things like, "I'm a liberal. Of course I love terrorists and hate America." "Bomb, jihad, bomb bomb." "If it were my choice, I'd vote for the Taliban." Etc. Let them try to keep track of millions of "suspected" terrorist progressive American haters. Remember - it's a Cheneybush operation, which means it's run by unqualified morons and is at best half-assed.
Yes the term "wire-tapping" has been used over and over by the WhiteHouse because to the average American it connotes phone intercepting activities. The internet and email are actually being monitored more closely but the WhiteHouse knows this would outrage citizens even more. The depths of deception are limitless it appears.
That's right, indijo- and to those who have been saying or writing anything seditious- they have a room reserved just for you, at the new Hotel del Dolor, courtesy of Bush & Co. Enjoy your pain...
Has anyone considered the fact that "wire-tapping" is a term that doesn't just cover the telephone communications system, but also includes the internet?
Think about it. When the government taps the phone-system, they are also TAPPING EVERYONE'S ONLINE ACTIVITIES.
I suspect that this point is lost with many Americans simply because the point is ignored by reports that emphasis the "telephone" system.
Yup the wiretapping is not to get the terrorists the wire tapping is to go after us! An awakened citizenry is the real threat to the administration!
Spike--
The reason it matters is because what if somebody like myself, who realizes it is not only my constitutional duty, but just plain common sense, to stand in open rebellion against our facade of a government in order to overthrow it, or at least throw the fascists out, then I need to be able to contact other rebels and revolutionaries without being wiretapped. However, if you're somebody like Bush, this is just one step closer to wiretapping American-to-American calls to make sure we rebels don't have effective communication.
"We are reluctant to amend [the law] without assurances that the administration will actually follow the law," they wrote.
I'm curious--how are they (Congress) going to know if the administration will follow the law, especially with it's stellar track record for towing the legal line in everything that they do? They sure can't subpoena the White House, can they?
And what's to keep Bush from pulling out his 'signing statement' pen and decorate this latest Congressional enabling with facist doodles in the margins, just for fun?
Bush has spoken. Jump Pelosi!
"He knows that we are waging this war for a better peace, that we are fighting for the happiness of people who have so often been oppressed by their governments."
"No power in the world will make us deny our duty, or forget even for a moment our historical task of maintaining the freedom of our people."
--- Joseph Goebbels, chief Nazi propagandist
Everybody should be very concerned, and ready for anything.
This insistence that we are up against imminent attack is another ruse, simply to get everyone all nervous- then they'll (Bush, et al) go and hijack more of our rights, while we're all so afraid- hey, BEEN THERE, DONE THAT, right?
Bush & Co. are up to something BIG- can't you just feel it?
Once the sh!t hits the fan (again), we can probably expect martial law and an extended Bush presidency- they can do that!
Does anybody really think they'll give up their power?
Why did they just give a Haliburton subsidiary billions of dollars to build concentration camps in the US? Enough space for 400K people. Because, they think: lock up the 400K, and the tens of millions of OUTRAGED CITIZENS will hunker down and just KEEP ON TAKING IT. It's a mind game.
They completely underestimate the level of angst they cause.
They don't have the money it would take for them to implement a psychological trap big enough to wash away all the justified rage shared by the citizenry. So stupid of them.
"Naturally, the common people don't want war, but after all, it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy along whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a parliament or a communist dictatorship....Voice or no voice, people can always be brought to do the bidding of the leaders...This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being ATTACKED and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country."
HERMAN GOERING: Hitlers Reich-Marshall at the NUREMBERG TRIALS after WWII
I wonder if the French still have the guillotine they used to get rid of their royalty?
But essentially, you have democrats whining and complaining that Bush isn't following the 1978 act, which states that the president is supposed to oversee himself.
So the democrats, for the most part, don't even give a damn really, when you think about it. Thinking pragmatically, the corperate/fascist government is always going to be spying on it's citizens to keep them in line and keep them controlled. At least to make us live under more of an illusion of democracy, The 1978 act needs to be revised to include two provisions:
1- CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT of any wiretapping program.
2- Judicial review of wiretapping cases.
Such will delude Americans even more into thinking we live in a democracy.
I think what stresses me out the most about this admin is the fact that they're not even trying to cover up the corperatism and fascism... They're doing it right in front of our faces, and most of us sit back and watch as it's all there happening in front of us. We're passive, lazy, apathetic, timid, paranoid, frightened, and demoralized. We don't live in a democracy, we live under an illusion of democracy, a false reality we have to dellude ourselves into believing so we feel we have control of our lives, when in fact, we have very little.
Did you guys/gals read the article and know what the issue is about?
This admin in criminal.
per the 1978 act, Bush originally didn't want approval from a court WITHIN the executive branch. That means he doesn't even want to consult his buddy buddy advisors for consent. ANd now he wants to place Alberto Gonzalez to be the person on court approving wiretapping warrants. Is anyone elses head spinning yet!!??
Essentially, the 1978 act means that the executive branch and the president oversees itself? what the heck is even the point? That kind of a system worked well... under Nixon.
How Clear Can It Get?
First, there was Nixon, whose unpopularity did nothing to dig him out of power, until Congress forced his hand. The smoking gun was a set of tapes that the Supreme Court decried were beyond the scope of Executive Privilege. Congress was about to impeach him anyway, so like a good chess player, Nixon resigned.
This time, the President is less popular than Nixon, his veep less popular than Agnew, and the smoking guns are killing Iraqi civilians to US Service Personnel perhaps a hundred to one. Add to this a Perjury conviction for Dick Cheney's former lapdog, and blatant evidence of Perjury and Obstruction of Justice on the part of the Attorney General, not to mention War Crimes against the Geneva Convention and numerous anti-Constitutional acts.
The chief differences between Nixon and Bush are Nixon's intellect and Bush's arrested state of development. Whereas the former could see the handwriting on the wall, the latter will take the nation and indeed the entire world down with him between now and January 2009 if We the People don't exercise our First Amendment rights to free speech and petition.
For the sake of our own self-interest, as well as the best interests of Planet Earth, let us exercise these First Amendment rights to call upon the wall of secrecy within a modern-day Jericho to fall. The movement is nonviolent both in nature and in outcome, but is the revolution our forefathers and foremothers dreamed of. Moreover, the fate of the entire planet depends upon it.
America, we are the chosen ones. We have been chosen by the God we believe in to exercise our God-given and Constitutionally-encoded abilities to speak up and be heard. The only thing we have to lose is life on Earth.
www.raycarlson.com
Will the Democrats sell out our Civil Liberties again? Call them now and say NO!
How Nixonian of him.
Why would Congress even consider such a gross and crude gang-rape of our heritage? Unless, perhaps, there has been a back-door deal between White House and Congress, as in "Let me be President-for-life, and I will let you be Congress-for-life." These people are NOT representing us, and they are NOT upholding our Constitution. And they are STILL voting themselves raises! For sure, these aren't merit raises.
Why does Bush need any bills passed by congress? All he has to do is write another presidential directive.
Who needs Republicans when we have Democrats that do Bush's biddings. One step closer to military dictatorship, just as it happened under Hitler.
No comment.
QUOTE:
COMarc August 3rd, 2007 6:18 pm
If you need yet one more example of how useless it is to vote Democrat, here it is. Bush says he wants something, the Democrats jump to give it to him. Plus they'll end up giving that lying SOB Gonzalez the authority to oversee the program.
And its not new. Remember the Patriot Act passed with only one dissenting vote from the Dems. Lots more examples if you look.
QUIT VOTING DEMOCRAT. We've got to vote for someone else if we want opposition and change. Isn't it painfully obvious by now that everyone who voted Dem in 2006 wasted their vote?
END QUOTE
You go! Tell it like it is. Right on!
I told the gullible Dem koolaid drinkers before the stolen 2006 "election" that nothing was going to change. I asked them: why would the useless, Bush-Enabling Dems do an about-face all of a sudden just because they should be come the majority? You've seen them "YES" Bush ever since 2000.
The koolaid drinkers' response to me:
Erma, you are a troll. Erma, what is YOUR solution (even though I had already told them...long national strikes, MILLIONS & MILLIONS taking to the streets all over the nation in every town and city, especially the District of Columbia).
Nope, the Dem koolaid drinkers didn't want to hear the truth. They preferred to live in their denial and many still do. They say such bull as, "Erma, you have to give the Dems tiiiiiiiiiiiiime. They've only been in the majority since January." Time huh? Then when I ask the question: HOW MUCH TIME? They don't respond. I get silence.
In any other job one can get a hell of a lot done in (going on) 8 months, **IF ONE WANTS TO**. They are the operate words. Otherwise, the employee is fired. Shown the door. Period.
It was absolutely a wasted vote to vote for these scum of the earth, Bush-Enabling Dems. I didn't vote for any of them. I'm in San Francisco and did NOT vote for Pelosi. Wasn't about to. I voted for Krissy Keefer. I voted for second party candidates only (some people call it "third party"). I'm long done with the pro-war, pro-corporate, pro-PNAC imperalistic, pro-Bush one-party system with two right wings.
What boots it if these traitors do get to overhear conversations between "terrorists"?
The sellouts in Washington will not react to any overt act against the rest of us until the act is done and the smoke clears. Then they will act to further reduce the freedoms of the People.