Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - 11:27 PM CST

It's funny - as much as Republicans hate Bill Clinton they sure are quick to point out alleged similarities between him and the Shrubenfuehrer. The "party of personal responsibilty" always tries to shift the blame for their mistakes, which Bush, in his God-like infallibilty, has never made anyways. So there!

Perhaps it's envy. During the height of the Lewinsky scandal in 1998, Clinton's approval ratings typically stayed in the 60s, even spiking to 73% when the House impeached him in December of that year ("A few more setbacks like that and he'll go into the stratosphere," noted CNN correspondent and Republican shill Bill Schneider on 12/30/98). For all the great, wonderful things Chimpy has done to, er...sorry, "for" the American people he's still struggling with approvals ratings in the 30s.

I suspect that this figure is getting close to his total contingent of "baby eating" true believers; that is, the number of folks who could watch Dick "Go fuck yourself" Cheney feed Junior a live baby on television and instantly convince themselves that it was Bill Clinton's fault for deceiving the public in the first place about the many virtues of eating babies.

These people have no love or respect for our Constitution or laws. They put Party before Country. That any American would gladly surrender their Fourth Amendment rights ("The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.") to the cause of Republican fascism is just appalling.

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 6:16 AM CST

Notes OpinionJournal.com today:

"The allegation of Presidential law-breaking rests solely on the fact that Mr. Bush authorized wiretaps without first getting the approval of the court established under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978."

But the Journal notes that in a 2002 case dubbed: "In Re: Sealed Case," the FISA appeals court decision cited a previous FISA case [U.S. v. Truong], where a federal court "held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information."

The court's decision went on to say: "We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power."

What's more, notes the Journal: "The two district court judges who have presided over the FISA court since 9/11 also knew about" the Bush surveillance program.

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 6:26 AM CST

From Drudge:

CLINTON ADMINISTRATION SECRET SEARCH ON AMERICANS -- WITHOUT COURT ORDER

CARTER EXECUTIVE ORDER: 'ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE' WITHOUT COURT ORDER

Bill Clinton Signed Executive Order that allowed Attorney General to do searches without court approval

Clinton, February 9, 1995: "The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order"

WASH POST, July 15, 1994: Extend not only to searches of the homes of U.S. citizens but also -- in the delicate words of a Justice Department official -- to "places where you wouldn't find or would be unlikely to find information involving a U.S. citizen... would allow the government to use classified electronic surveillance techniques, such as infrared sensors to observe people inside their homes, without a court order."

Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick, the Clinton administration believes the president "has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes."

Secret searches and wiretaps of Aldrich Ames's office and home in June and October 1993, both without a federal warrant.

Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: "Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order."

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 7:35 AM CST

You're using Drudge to make an argument? You might as well source the National Enquirer. The Drudge story has already been debunked as a lie:

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/20/drudge-fact-check/

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 9:12 AM CST

He sourced a Washington Post article. So was the Post article was wrong?

It really doesn't matter who you source Druge, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, FOX, New York Times. They all have their own agenda and spin the news to further it.

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 10:22 AM CST

Probably. The Washington Post has been sympathetic to the Bush White House for a long time and has published Bush-friendly articles that it absolutely knew to be false. One occured just after Katrina and quoted a lie by a "senior Bush official" that the Post knew to be a lie, but they ran the quote anyway. The Post ran a correction only after they were busted by alert readers.

http://www.snopes.com/katrina/politics/blanco.asp

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 10:39 AM CST

Probably? Dan Rather lost his job over forged documents. They all do it. The media is bias one way or the other. You would be hard pressed to go to one source to find out the whole truth. Nobody is fair and balanced.

Remember what George Castanza said? "It's not a lie if you believe it."

I believe that most to all people in the media live by this belief.

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 11:18 AM CST

So despite the mounting evidence that these warrantless wiretaps are actually legal, you still want to string Bush up. That's just sad. How many terrorist attacks have there been since 9/11/01? ZERO. Why? Because Bush administration policies work. And the Democrats hate that.

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 12:24 PM CST

What’s funny is that there was no outrage from the media when the Clinton administration was doing the same thing. You talk about abuse of power. Where is the outrage at Clinton for using the IRS to go after people and organizations that opposed him? Clinton enemies Gennifer Flowers and Liz Ward Gracen, sexual assault accusers Paula Jones and Juanita Broaddrick, and fired White House Travel Office Director Billy Dale all were audited. As well as The National Rifle Association, The Heritage Foundation, The National Review, The American Spectator, Freedom Alliance, National Center for Public Policy Research, American Policy Center, American Cause, Citizens Against Government Waste, Citizens for Honest Government, Progress and Freedom Foundation, Concerned Women for America and the San Diego Chapter of Christian Coalition. The only good thing to come out of this is that Bill O'Reilly been audited repeatedly by the IRS. I really don’t like him.

It would be envy if Bush was running for Homecoming King and not running the country. To your average everyday republican approval numbers don’t mean too much. It would only matter if you were a republican running for office. They say that at his morning briefing Clinton would ask what his numbers were before anything else. He based ever decision on how it would affect his approval numbers. You can’t run a country based on popularity polls. You know Carter built homes for the poor after he was president well Bill Clinton has to build a legacy because as president he did nothing. Currently President Bush’s approve is at 47%. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Bush_Job_Approval.htm
You know you’re a liberal when. In the course of a well written letter you make outrages statements, call people names and uses profanity. Which basically throws away any creditability you may have.

If the Republicans put party before the Constitution than the Democrats and Liberals put their party before the country. They pick and chose what part of the Constitution they want to follow and then throw the rest out. First Amendment is freedom of religion not freedom from. Also, see the Second Amendment. If you are worried about the Fourth Amendment then I would focus on Eminent Domain because that is more of a threat.

If you talk about fascism no need to go any father than Democrats. The whole goal of Democrats is to have government control every part of your life. To redistribute wealth and control information via the main stream media which only reports one side of the story.

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 12:38 PM CST

You're too funny, Z-Man!

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 1:42 PM CST

You're not related to Scott Farkas?

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 1:44 PM CST

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0512210142dec21,0,3553632.story?coll=chi-newsopinioncommentary-hed

I wish I agreed that Bush would even consider building a security fence on the Mexican border. Sadly, though, he's horrible lax on border security. However, I will note that the Berlin Wall was set in place to keep that country's citizens from escaping, at the threat of death--a threat publically realized on numerous occasions--while a border fence here would be designed to non-lethally keep another country's citizens from invading our land. In other words, the intent would be pretty much exactly the opposite.

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 2:01 PM CST

There's no evidence the taps are legal and overwhelming evidence that they aren't. Look, all Bush has to do is A) explain exactly what law allows him to tap without a warrant and B) explain why he didn't get a FISA warrant. If he can explain that to the American people, fine.

That "zero" argument makes no sense. You could just as easily argue, "why did the terrorists wait until Bush took office to bomb the WTC when they could have done it whenver they wanted? Answer: because they were afraid of Clinton and not afraid of Bush."

Number of alien invasions during the Clinton presidency: ZERO. Wow, Clinton administration policies concerning evil spacemen must work.

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 2:03 PM CST

Well, the Rather case was more about lazy journalism than any agenda. I don't think anyone really believes that CBS News forged the documents or knew they were. Ironically, to this day, nobody knows for sure that they were forged. They could very well be real. It was CBS' job to ensure they were real, and they didn't do that.

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 2:10 PM CST

Well, at least you're giving me torture, concentration camps and ID papers! And we agree that Bush's border policies are inept. Did I ever convince you that Bush lied about WMDs over at your site?

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 2:23 PM CST

Ken, that Schmidt piece has also now been debunked as a lie.

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/21/appeals-court-myth/

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 2:23 PM CST

More terrorist attacks occurred on Clinton’s watch, both inside and outside of U.S. borders, than during any other presidential administration in U.S. history:

-- The 1993 World Trade Center bombing that killed 6 and injured 1,000

-- The 1993 Mogadishu firefight that killed 18 U.S. soldiers

-- The 1995 Oklahoma City terrorist attack on the federal building by American extremists that killed 168, wounding several hundred others

-- The 1995 Saudi Arabia car bomb that killed 5 U.S. military personnel

-- The 1996 Khobal Towers bombing that killed 19 U.S. soldiers, wounding 515

-- The 1998 bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa that killed 231 citizens, 12 Americans and injured 5,000

-- The 2000 USS Cole attack in Yemen that killed 17 U.S. sailors, wounding 39

Clinton was offered bin Laden three times and he didn't take him.

The only reason the terrorists feared Clinton was that he was going to try and take their 72 virgins.

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 2:29 PM CST

Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd ed. defines concentration camp as: a camp where non-combatants of a district are accommodated, such as those instituted by Lord Kitchener during the South African war of 1899-1902; one for the internment of political prisoners, foreign nationals, etc., esp. as organized by the Nazi regime in Germany before and during the war of 1939-45

Non-combatants are held at the secret prisons.

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 2:51 PM CST

You're counting outside U.S. borders? I know more than 2000 U.S. soldiers are dead in Iraq on Bush's watch. That trumps Clinton by a large margin.

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 2:52 PM CST

You're jes' pickin' pepper outta fly crap now.

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 3:24 PM CST

Your point was that they feared Clinton. Mine was they did not fear him.

You want war dead numbers? Over 58,000 American soldiers dead because of Kennedy and Johnson and what was accomplished over there? Did they bring democracy to oppressed people?

Well there are over three thousand Americans dead because terrorist slipped into the country under Clinton’s watch and exploited laws passed under his watch to get ID’s and then go through airport security with weapons allowed under his watch and hijack those plans.

Of course the FBI knew about men learning how to fly planes. Not how to take off or land just fly them. The CIA knew of plans of terrorist to use airlines as bombs but they couldn’t tell the FBI because of laws put in place while on Clinton’s watch. In fact, Clinton was briefed in 1998 about this by the CIA.

So on 9/11 Clinton watched, like the rest of us, as the planes hit the buildings and now we are all watching as President Bush leads this country in the war against terrorism.

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 3:32 PM CST

I might agree if not for the fact that there is more worldwide terrorist activity now than there was before Bush took office.

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 3:50 PM CST

Knock Wood nothing has happened in our backyard.

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 4:05 PM CST

Gosh I hate it when the President tries to protect the citizens of the US from international terrorism.

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 4:09 PM CST

Maybe, but a concentration camp is much worse. Down at Gitmo the detainees put on over 10 lbs in the first few months. The pictures of the Jews walking out of the concentration camps told a different story.

We may have flushed the Quran but me haven't gassed anyone and thrown them in a furnace.

There is a world of difference on how they are being treated.

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 4:10 PM CST

I'm actually not giving you those, but didn't want to spend all day at this. The Berlin Wall comment was just the funniest little piece, in terms of being outsized. And if we get a national ID, it'll be because of Hillary and her ilk pushing a federal nationalized medical system. The good news is that both of us don't want to see that happen, so there's some common ground.

As for your reply to the note on my blog, sorry, I honestly hadn't seen it before. I have to admit, I'm a little lazy about checking back on stuff after a couple of days.

But did it convince me? No. Per you: "One reason is that Bush continued to claim there were WMDs, even after it became obvious to everyone else in the free world that they didn't exist."

The phrase "...after it became obvious to everyone" is, to my mind, a rather vague scaffold on which to hand a charge of lying. And should have Bush fired more people in the intelligence community after 9/11? Absolutely. One of Bush's problems is that he's loyal to a fault. The obstructionist CIA is well overdue for a housecleaning, as their continued leaks to undermine the Bush administration prove. However, if Bush had started firing (mostly) Clinton-era appointees, the howling would have been ferocious. I will admit that Bush is entirely too timid in his hopes to get along with the other side of the bench.

I also admit that Bush overemphasized one reason for going to war, the WMDs, over the several other equally valid (if less legalistic) ones. However, he *did* repeatedly state all those other reasons, including the big one of establishing democracy in the Middle East, in numerous major speeches, including the State of the Union, which dwarfs in all others the amount of public attention it recieves.

The WMD rationale was mostly pushed in the admittedly vain and silly attempt to try to get the UN, a grostequely illegitmate body, to actually live up to their obligations. Of course, it failed anyway, but since the stock of the UN is lower than ever, I guess that did have an actual good effect.

You'll forgive me, I'm sure, for noting that much of this (and I mean to go beyond your blog here) seems like a replay of the '80s, when people pushing ridiculous causes (the nuclear freeze, etc.), fanatically attacked Ronald Reagan in all the ways Bush is being attacked now, only to gnash their teeths when the Soviet Union collasped and Reagan was vindicated. I don't think a lot of them ever forgave him for proving right.

Bush, too, I think will ultimately and concretely leave the world a better place, and I think that process has already begun to take place. And although you and I have obvious political differences, I do believe that you will, when the time comes, grant that a successful democratic government in the Middle East (should one arise, as I believe it will) was a wonderful achievement on Bush's part, even if you continue to hold all your other views about him.

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 4:24 PM CST

Marty, Marty. Again, with the "lies." Is anyone you ever disagree with not lying, but merely mistaken, or just of a different opinion? That's kind of what I'm getting at. It's hard to have a conversation with someone who insists on tossing that sort of rhetoric about. God knows I loathed a lot of things about Clinton, who I do think ultimately was responsible on several fronts for 9/11, among other things (Ruby Ridge and Waco come to mind), and even so I'd never attack him in these sorts of terms. Sometimes, sadly, simply being feckless and self-absorbed rather than evil is bad enough.

As for the piece I cited, it's a legal opinion by a former (Clinton) U.S. Assistant attorney general, so I'm not entirely sure an opinion can be a "lie" in any case.

Like I said originally (over on my blog), people with common interests in movies and such are few in number, and I wouldn't want to sour the water here. I guess the question to my mind is, are you actually trying to sell a viewpoint here, or are you instead just venting--which is entirely legitimate, and a pretty good use for a blog. If the former, though, I'd again advise that maybe toning things down a tad would help out greatly.

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 4:33 PM CST

Not so. The papers backed their agenda so they didn't take the time to check them.

If the people at the top of CBS believed they were real they wouldn't have fired anyone.

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 4:37 PM CST

There's no evidence whatsoever of this. For all we know, he was bugging DNC headquarters. That's why I say the President must be forthcoming with answers to our questions.

No one has yet answered this one, not even any of you: why didn't Bush get a FISA warrant?

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 4:38 PM CST

Did you see those Abu Gharib photos? Some difference, but not as much as you say. And allegedly (Seymour Hersh is one who says so) there are photos even worse that the U.S. government hasn't yet shown to the public.

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 4:46 PM CST

"Bush, too, I think will ultimately and concretely leave the world a better place, and I think that process has already begun to take place. And although you and I have obvious political differences, I do believe that you will, when the time comes, grant that a successful democratic government in the Middle East (should one arise, as I believe it will) was a wonderful achievement on Bush's part, even if you continue to hold all your other views about him."

I disagree with your first sentence. A look around you shows that the environment, poverty, unemployment, racial barriers, personal freedom, health care, the federal deficit...all have worsened under the Bush administration, or at the very least have not improved.

As for the second, well, I'm sure everyone agrees that democracy is better than no democracy. I'm not sure that everyone will agree that IF--and that's a big if and one that will take decades to discover--Iraq settles into a peaceful democratic government that it will have been worth the billions of dollars and thousands of American lives it cost. And that's not even taking into consideration the money and time we're not spending capturing bin Laden or making sure North Korea, surely a more dangerous enemy than Hussein ever was or would have been, doesn't explode in our faces.

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 4:47 PM CST

"No one has yet answered this one, not even any of you: why didn't Bush get a FISA warrant?"

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200512191334.asp See especially the quotes from the bipartison 9/11 Committee report.


"For all we know, he was bugging DNC headquarters."

OK, I'm out of here. Catch you guys on the threads about Godzilla movies.

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 4:51 PM CST

If not a lie, at the very least it's a deliberate obfuscation of facts. There's no question that Schmidt purposely omitted pertinent information that would have contradicted his argument. It certainly isn't a "mistake"; how could it be?

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 5:00 PM CST

You’re not saying that what happened at Abu Gharib is any where close to how the Jews were treated by the Nazi’s. It's not the same game, the same ballpark, the same league it ain't the same sport.

Most of the things that they did in Abu Gharib people over here pay for that kind of treatment.

I find it hard to believe that by the way the government can keep a secret that all the pictures haven’t been leaked.

The most disturbing thing I saw in those pictures was Lynndie England.

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 5:07 PM CST

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 6:16 AM CST

Name: Z-Man

Notes OpinionJournal.com today:

"The allegation of Presidential law-breaking rests solely on the fact that Mr. Bush authorized wiretaps without first getting the approval of the court established under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978."

But the Journal notes that in a 2002 case dubbed: "In Re: Sealed Case," the FISA appeals court decision cited a previous FISA case [U.S. v. Truong], where a federal court "held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information."

The court's decision went on to say: "We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power."

What's more, notes the Journal: "The two district court judges who have presided over the FISA court since 9/11 also knew about" the Bush surveillance program.

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 5:46 PM CST

"The most disturbing thing I saw in those pictures was Lynndie England."

Heh. OK, that's kinda funny.

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 6:00 PM CST

Oh yeah, it would be beyond the realm of possibility for a Republican president to illegally eavesdrop on Democratics *koffWatergatekoff* That could neeeeever happen.

Was Bush? Probably not. But we don't know that he wasn't. He isn't saying.