To me, Al Gore comes across as a very sore loser who is full of spiteful vengence. He seems consumed/possessed with trying to "get" the man that won the 2000 presidential election. Al Gore will say anything that politically attacks President Bush without regard for the impact it has on the nation. At every opportunity he continues to aggitate the very desease that consumes himself - Bush Derangement Syndrom. He has become a very sad little man.

Just the fact that he said the NSA program effected "huge" numbers of Americans shows how ridiculous this is.

Just remember, Al Gore lost in his home state of Tennessee, and never demanded a recount there. I guess they knew things about him that we are finding out now.

I thought it was an excellent speech. That many of you are lining up to hand your rights over to this administration doesn't mean the rest of us are.

Criticizing the president's programs is not harmful to the nation. The president and the nation are not one and the same.

Repeat as necessary.

"That many of you are lining up to hand your rights over to this administration doesn't mean the rest of us are."

Arthur, have you been personally effected, or otherwise "spied" upon by the NSA program? Do you personally know anyone who has? I haven't been, and am not paranoid enough to join deranged callings for impeachment.

When Gore speaks as acidicly as he did, he only serves to remind the populace that he is an extremely sore loser bent on denegrating this administration any way he can.

Old Soldier-

The eavesdropping is secret old boy. So I can't say if me or thee have been listened to.

But based on the performance of our gov't agencies over the years spying on US citizens during the Vietnam era and such I'd have to say, given the increased abilities of the NSA, it's certainly possible we both have been.

Mr. Gore has reason to be pissed. But the misdeeds of this administration (which are legion) were his subject not an election stolen from him.

That's another speech I wish he'd make.

Arthur, according to the administration, the "eavesdropping" has occurred on international calls, that are lawfully monitored by the NSA, and that monitoring of calls wholly within the US borders are done using FISA warrants.

The unrelenting and unsubstantiated rhetoric from the left is that unchecked monitoring is being done of wholly internal calls (citizen to citizen within our borders). The supposed substantiator of rampart NSA eavesdropping was exposed as an unstable and disgruntled hack with an ax to grind.

I have yet to see the evidence that substantiates the allegations. In the meantime, al-Qaeda wants to kill you, me and our fellow citizens. How do you propose we stop that action from occurring?

As for Al Gore, when it comes to illegal use of government agencies, he and his former boss the ones skilled at such antics. I have no use for his insightful agitating. Disregarding our war status and continuously fomenting divisiveness does not show me a man who is the least bit concerned with our citizens’ security. Al Gore could dry up and blow away, and the nation would be better off for it.

Poor Al Gore. He's channeling the spirit of Clement Vallandigham.

Dang.

Forgive me I keep forgetting we're at 'war'.

What with the absolute lack of sacrifice by any of us here at the homefront it's hard to remember.

As for what to do with al-Queda we should (and presumably we are) continue to cooperate with our friends like the Spanish (rolling up terrorist networks left and right) to identify and neutralize our opponents in a legal and lawful manner. Arrest them, trace the links and throw the guilty bad guys in the slammer. Defend our assets here at home.

But resist the idea of another invasion of a large Middle Eastern nation please. Detracts from what we need to do and provides additional recruits for our opponents.

Remember, Arthur-- anyone who disagrees or (horrors!) opposes Mister Bush is a)crazy; b)delusional; c)filled with partisan malice.

Well, look who showed back up.

Of course, no one suggested that everyone (or even a substantial minority) who disagrees with Bush has a mental defect (crasy or delusional), but it was Democrats who came up with the diagnosis of "Post Election Selection Trauma" to self-diagnose the flawed coping skills of some of their own, so take that for what it is worth.

As for partisan malice, Fat Bastard, you've shown quite a bit of it on this blog, denoucing very nearly everyone who disagrees with you as a racist, then turning tail and running when I challenged you to apply the same standards to a very specific set of Democratic racists.

Back on topic Gore both lied in this speech as a factual matter (see the third link in the original article for a point-by-point refutation), and he engaged in unsupported hyperbole.

I'm sorry if Mr. Gore has gone further than he should have in front of a rabid (and unfilled) crowd, but as an adult, he has to take some reponsibility for his own actions.

I'll be very amused, Athurstone and Fat Bastard, to see just how scarce you make yourselves when the NSA program is proven constitutional and the Executive Branches Article II powers are confirmed, and I'll probably be even more amused by your cries of a conspiracy and coverup.

That's why I so enjoy being a conservative. You liberals are always amusing, even if you can't be taken seriously.

Actually, Mr CY, if you get into Mr Peabody's Wayback Machine, a previous administration was also wiretapping without a court order.

Happened all through the 8 years of that particular administration.

Taped the phone conversations of Strom Thurmond.

Taped the phone conversations of John Boehner.

Used something called Project Echelon.

And while The First Black President sold 50 years of nuclear secrets to Communist China, Al Gore was providing the same deal to the Russians.

Amazingly the old Gray Witch was silent on those matters.

Not everyone who opposes Bush is crazy, delusional and filled with partisan malice; but if you see someone who is indeed crazy, delusional and filled with partisan rancor, they probably oppose Bush.

Hey Arthur and Fat,

Any news on the Fitz front? I mean such a big scandal and we've spent almost $1M...

And talk about delusional - Teddy "Splash" Kennedy said today that he would quit the "OWL" club as soon as possible - he said that even though he paid them $100 per year he did not really belong to the club...

Let's see how you guys try to spin that one.

And note my post above where I noted that Gore said that "huge" numbers of Americans have been spied on. Hmmmm.....secret program....I wonder how he knows? Must be divining with Splash....

"As for what to do with al-Queda we should (and presumably we are) continue to cooperate with our friends like the Spanish (rolling up terrorist networks left and right) to identify and neutralize our opponents in a legal and lawful manner. Arrest them, trace the links and throw the guilty bad guys in the slammer. Defend our assets here at home."

Didn't Clinton try the "law enforcement" angle before 9-11? Arthur, you really need to evaulate what is going on in this world today. When was the last time the police or the FBI fought a war? Do you honestly believe our police/FBI would be effective in Afghanistan or Iraq or anywhere else our hunt for al-Qaeda takes us? This is NOT a war we can afford to prosecute in a "law enforcement" manner.

Uh... no, I left for two reasons-- one is, I have a real job that takes up a significant amount of time.

The other is that I really couldn't even see the point of trying to argue with people who beleve Saddam Hussein was complicit in the September 11 attacks.

As for blanket accusations of racism-- my dear boy, I never, for instance, accused nor even considered Old Soldier to be a racist. I disagreed with the Old One in a respectful, collegial manner.

I find it difficult- no, impossible to respect neoconfederates. At least, those that run away from the history of their cotton-pickin' Reich (after all-- if the secessionists themselves say that they were leaving the United States in order to protect the institution of slavery, who are we to argue?).

I have more respect for the Stormfront types with whom at least you know where you stand.

Ahem... returning to the subject at hand--

I know how much you folks hate Al Gore (oooo, it reeks of KKKlintoon!), but just what lies did he tell?

Old Soldier-- again, with respect, I think that's the only way to do it.

Terrorists are small numbers of people; and as horrifying as their acts are, essentially they are nothing more than crimes.

The way to catch mass-murderers is always the same-- intelligence, investigation, and plain old gumshoe work.

(You might send something a little heavier than a squad car to ultimately take them down, of course; but the problem with these guys is always going to be finding them.)

FB, you cannot honestly believe that the police/FBI are capable of operating in Afghanistan and Iraq and elsewhere (internationally) as a police force and be effective in taking out training sites, logistics sites and financial support structures, not to mention actual al-Qaeda operatives. If you truly believe that, then you do not have a holistic understanding of the situation. Al-Qaeda is a paramilitary organization whose ultimate goal is to impose radical Islamic Sharia on the rest of the world. Their leaders have declared war on the US and other “western” nations. They do not possess a national identity, but they do possess a cultural and religious identity. Their lack of a national identity actually makes them more dangerous in that they travel to/from and within host nations with a degree of anonymity. In your heart you may wish this problem to be just a matter for the police to handle, but God forbid that it be handled as such.

FB - simple enough.

Gore stated that "huge" numbers of innocent americans had been spied on. What do you consider huge? And what is considered "innocent"?

As I said before, it's pretty obvious that someone in the US speaking with a known terrorist cell phone in the middle east is not just ordering a pizza.

So hence, Gore lied. Spin it different, but before you try go and look at the text of his speech.

No, Old One, of course not. But then, since the terrorists primary weapons are simple car-bombs and rifles (and boxcutters on airplanes, but that horse is out of the barn; no planeload of passengers will ever let a few people with boxcutters take that airplane without a fight), they just can't do a helluva lot to us from the mountains of Tora Bora.

The ones who hijacked the aeroplanes on that wretched day had spent a long time right here in the US.

HERE is where the targets are; here is where the killers have to be to access the targets, and here is where plain old gumshoe police work will do the job.

As for military work-- you're already well aware that I agreed with and fully support the policy of destroying the Taliban as a cohesive government and military force.

It is my considered opinion that Iraq has taken our eyes off the ball. If we wanted to support democracy and help promote "freedom," we would have been much better served by focusing on Afghanistan and getting the damn job done there.

Spector:

Huge? In my opinion, ONE is HUGE. How many times must the law be broken before its considered actual lawbreaking?

After all, the last president was impeached over telling a lie about a consensual affair while under oath; even though that lie was immaterial to the case at hand.

THEN it was called perjury.

Now, I'm not going to try to get into the legal minutiae; but according to some senators I've seen quoted, it appears that the FISA law was broken.

What does it matter the number, WHEN THE LAW HAS BEEN BROKEN?

CY wrote:

Of course, no one suggested that everyone (or even a substantial minority) who disagrees with Bush has a mental defect (crasy or delusional)...

And from CY's home page:

Because liberalism is a persistent vegetative state.

Hmmmm.

FB-

Nice post(s).

I totally agree that Iraq is a huge waste of money, people and political will keeping us from dealing with the actual threats we face.

"...they just can't do a helluva lot to us from the mountains of Tora Bora."

Oh, but they can, FB. It was from the recesses of Afghanistan that the plans were orchestrated and initiated that claimed our countrymen on 9-11. The leadership is not operating from within the US; sleeper cells of minions waiting for their orders from Tora Bora, yes, but not the leadership. If we can sever the lines of communications by taking out the leadership, the sleeper cells will eventually be discovered by our gumshoes (who have been alerted by the NSA monitoring teams). Stiking the leadership and disrupting communications is not the work of police; that is the work of the military.

This is not a mid intensity conflict with uniformly defined opposing military forces operating on a defined battlefield. It will take the collective resources of police/FBI, intel and the military. The difference, I guess, is that I see a much larger roll for the military than do you. We cannot give these radical Islamic terrorists even one night's rest without being relentlessly pursued. The leadership has to be priority one.

What a combo! Artie and Fat Bastard. It does provide us with some entertainment, though, because they are both so easy to prove both foolish and dead wrong.

These two make all sorts of statements - as does the unhinged Al Gore - and they are following the same premise: Bush broke the law. As with Ailing Al, who admitted that he did not know any of the details of the NSA surveillance program, and who, himself, did not finish law school, these two are claiming to know the law.

I challenged these two on several occasions to explain where in the U.S. Constitution or the actual provisions of the FISA statutes they can show evidence of wrongdoing. It is obvious that these two just bully and bloviate without citing specifics. Neither have even read any of the laws or Court decisions. I am pretty certain of that. If they had they could maybe be more convincing.

I could write volumes on these issues, but I'll let CY, Old Soldier and others cover that for a while. I just had surgery yesterday morning, and the pain is still a big detraction.

Bring it on, boys! I know others can deal with your lunacy without even breaking a sweat.

I think there's where we part company, Old Soldier; but I think it an amicable parting.

My wish to crush the Taliban and Al Qaeda is for plain ol', good ol' retribution. My country was never one for starting wars ('til recently, of course, but I digress) but it was hell on wheels for ending them. (Mr. Taliban, your folks murdered a bunch of ours. GIVE THEM UP, OR WE WILL STOMP THE LIVING SHIT OUT OF YOU.)

Again, having SF and the Delta boys hike all over the mountains and find that bearded son-of-a-bitch is in my opinion A VERY GOOD THING.

(just as an aside, there's a very primitive part of me that wants Bin Laden's head literally on a pike outside the White House, replete with crows-- too many episodes of HBO's Rome, I think...)

But I still believe domestic police work (and I mean honest police work, not illegal wiretaps, not torture, not abrogating the civil and human rights of our people) is our best bulwark against further attacks.

Retired Spy-

May not be quite as cut and dried as you would have us believe.

"Public hearings on this issue are essential to addressing the serious concerns raised by alarming revelations of NSA electronic eavesdropping." -- Grover Norquist, president, Americans for Tax Reform

sigh it's the retired spy who believes Saddam Hussein collaborated in the September 11 attacks.

You don't believe the administration broke the law; others believe they did. Meanwhile you carry on, bloviating (such an interesting word; so applicable to mindless right-wing blowhards) about how unhinged Gore (and I and Art) must be.

Per usual, attack those who raise questions; don't address the issue.

Carry on, Spy.

You two are really pathetic - Arthur an Fat Bastard. You never have anything to back up your statements, and then you quote someone like Grover Norquist as a source?

RS has challenged you two to provide some facts from FISA and other statutes and court decisions to support your statements, and you quote Grover Norquist?

RS is right. You two are far too easy.

FB,

You say that a law was broken. Which one? Want to point to a specific one instead of speaking it because someone who supports your side has programmed you to say that? Even FISA allows the president to do warrantless electronic intelligence gathering for up to a year if it is determined that someone is an "agent of a foreign power". Now before you speak, check out Title 50, Chapter 36, Subchapter 1, Section 1801 of FISA. This is the key section on definitions. Pay special attention to (a)(4) where the law defines a "foreign power" as a "group engaged in international terrorism".

Go from there to part (b) of that section. There are two sub-sections to part (b). The first deals with "any person other than a United States person", and clealy deals with non-US Persons. But the second subsection is "any person who". Now read (b)(2)(c)which clearly defines an "agent of a foreign power" as being "any person who - knowingly engages in sabotage or international terrorism, or activitise that in preparation thereof, for or on behalf of a foreign power." So by the FISA law itself, a person who talks with a known terrorist can be classified as an "agent of a foreign power". And also clearly, since this section is clearly distinct and separate from the section dealing with "non-US Persons", this definition could include US citizens.

Next you should read Title 50, Chapter 36, Subchapter I, Section 1802. Here is what you will find:

(a)
(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that—
(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at—
(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or
(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title;
(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; and
(C) the proposed minimization procedures with respect to such surveillance meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 1801 (h) of this title; and

if the Attorney General reports such minimization procedures and any changes thereto to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence at least thirty days prior to their effective date, unless the Attorney General determines immediate action is required and notifies the committees immediately of such minimization procedures and the reason for their becoming effective immediately.

Now the only question that has to be answered under FISA is if a US Person is protected once they have been identified as an "agent of a foreign power"? That is not as easy to answer seeing as the law seems to contradict itself. But clearly the definitions section shows that US Persons could be considered "agents". If not, why the distinction between (b)(1) and (b)(2)?

All that aside, the president is not even asserting that he made the decision to go with the NSA program based on FISA, but instead on AUMF with his presidential war powers to gather intellingence.

Gauntlet thrown down...time to put up or shut up....

Uh, Moshe-- cool name, by the way-- I can link you to the US Code for FISA; you may read to your hearts content.

Mostly dull lawyer-speak; but here you go.

But I'm not here pretending to be a lawyer; and I'm not going to get embroiled in the lawyerly details.

You support the Regime, therefore you believe no crime has been committed.

Others, as CY mentions on another thread, believe that a crime has been committed and have filed suit accordingly (of course, since CY considers the plaintiffs to be "terrorist coddlers," "liberal," and "Hamas associated," their arguments are wrong and pointless).

The Stone's comment regarding Grover Norquist simply indicates that even staunch right-wing Republicans are questioning the Administration's behavior in this matter.

Not some "liberal," that you guys could dismiss with an airy wave of the imperial hand, but one of the Republican Party's most influential money men.

Not a hand any elephant would want to bite, I would assume?

Specter (it would be so much more interesting if you spelled Britstyle: SPECTRE is so much more appropriate to your mindset), with regard to how Fitz is doing: one megabuck spent so far, with the Vice-President's Chief of Staff currently under multiple indictments. Judge Starr: 45 megabucks spent to demonstrate that Bill Clinton is partial to fat girls.

With such cognitive dissonance...

Gauntlet thrown down... (zziiiiip!) and promptly pissed on.

I'm not a lawyer and I'm not going to pretend to be one.

But I go back to the fact that serious lawyers, journalists and elected officials disagree with you.

And quite a few agree with me. But note that I at least provide evidence.....

Ummm....the law suits were not filed saying anyone broke the law. They state that first amendment rights to free speech may have been abrogated. Big distinction. I can't picture the ACLU being able to arrest people......

BTW - name these serious lawyers. and journalists aren't lawyers either so what makes them qualified/ Because they have to generate controversy to sell papers? Gotta feel bad for them cuz they are on the path of the dinosaur....look at the declining readership and stock value at LAT, NYT, WaPo.

Specter-

Thanks for all the verbiage.

Very interesting.

Still it's even more interesting that Republican stalwarts aren't buying. I mean as a knee-jerk liberal I can be expected to do no less (ha ha). But Paul Weyrich?

Why do you suppose that is? They certainly aren't brainwashed liberals.

Could it be the administration isn't acting in quite the manner they claim to be? I mean perhaps the degree of eavesdropping is very different in type and quantity from that which they claim.

Could it be the legal advice they are receiving is incorrect?

Could it be they are common criminals after all?

We'll see won't we?

Arthur,

Yes...we will. But I don't suspect any time soon that any court will take up this.

I'll also point out that Cass Sunstein, a liberal, constitutional scholar, lawyer, and judge, has weighed in on this and said that from his perspective no laws were broken.

The other thing to remember is that if Congress passes a law that infringes on the president's constitutional powers, then by definition the law is unconstitutional.

So far, only circuit level courts have made any rulings. Also FISC, the FISA court, in the UNITED STATES FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE
SURVEILLANCE COURT OF REVIEW, in Sealed Case no. 02-001 said (emphasis mine):

The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. It was incumbent upon the court, therefore, to determine the boundaries of that constitutional authority in the case before it. 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.

So here we see the actual FISA court saying that they think the president has the constitutional authority to conduct warrantless searches. Every case I have seen referred to so far says the same thing.

Y'know, if you could just send Ol' Al back down here to Florida, we could 'Baker Act' him into a nice hospital. He'd get the care he so obviously needs.

'Cause, after all, we care. :D

Thank you for your exquisite analysis, Mr. Blofeld. You're ever so correct that a lawsuit doesn't constitute a criminal investigation. Nonetheless, someone feels the Administration is committing criminal (or at least, extra-constitutional) acts and seeks to get a court to tell the Administration to stop it.

So, to recap-- though your (admittedly excellent) legal analysis demonstrates clearly that the law was not broken, others disagree.

Thank you again for the scholarly discourse.

FB,

The problem I was trying to address was your flat out statement that (in your words - caps included)"THE LAW HAS BEEN BROKEN". Obviously at some point the courts may take this up (but they may not). It's the fact that your side keeps saying that without doubt a law has been broken. In reality, there is huge doubt that a law has been broken - other than Al Gore, Pelosi, Rocky, Splash Kennedy, NYT (et.al.) saying so.

Every time I ask, I get no answer as to which law and why, beyond some vague reference to FISA, which everyone has read about, but few people know about.

FB,

One other thing. You said:

Not some "liberal," that you guys could dismiss with an airy wave of the imperial hand, but one of the Republican Party's most influential money men.

Can you explain why you would point people to an article published on April 26, 2001, with regards to a matter happening in 2005? I'm not sure I understand....

The link was to an article that identifies the illustrious Mr. Norquist and his bona fides with the Republican Party.

Jeez.

Oh, by the way, Mr. Blofeld- let us split the difference: IF the LAW HAS BEEN BROKEN, what does it matter how often?

Once was enough to impeach KKKlintoon...

And am I assuming correctly, FB, that, simply because Mr. Norquist is a Republican who happens to agree with the crap you are spewing is a basis for declaring him an ally and an expert on Constitutional Law and decisions arrived at in the courts?

No one ever claimed that all Republicans are great intellectuals on everything. I have not read any of his learned evaluations and interpretations of the Law on the matter of warrantless searches or surveillance of foreign communications or anything else. Can you cite something pertinent to this discussion?

Being knowledgeable on money and finance and taxes does not equate to expertise on the Law any more that an architect has expertise in cosmetics.

As always, your flabby logic shows just how transparent and inconsequential most of your arguments really are.

And what, exactly, is this Mr. Blofeld reference to the person using the screen name of Specter? Are you just being disrespectful because he has shown you up for the fraud you are?

Not the point FB,

The fact is that you insist that a law has been broken. So far nobody has proven that. Not once in this matter. But you keep saying it is so, "because you say it is so." That's not splitting hairs. You accuse someone with no proof, no expertise, based on what you have been programmed to say. You provide virtually nothing to back up your claims of illegality, and then when someone actually points to the law you contend was broken you pull a David Letterman (as in I'm not smart enough to debate with you..) by saying, "I'm not a lawyer." Can you read? Read the law for yourself and see what you come up with.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. A Retired Spy should recognize a James Bond reference.

The point I made was that not only democrats and not only "liberals" question the legality of the administrations behaviour.

Get a grip, willya?

Look, Mr. Blofeld-- I will not move to saying "the law HAS NOT been broken." I DID move to "IF the law HAS BEEN broken." I don't know. Based on the relative credibility of the people and organisations making the allegations, I believe the law was broken. I am not qualified to offer a legal opinion. I will not attempt to do so.

So bugger off.

Didn't much care for the Bond flicks. Read one of Fleming's books, saw the first movie and was bored. Too sexist and unrealistic. You may have had all sorts of fantasies with you and Johnson, FB, but my assignments were in the real world.

You needed to find a more credible reference for your thesis than Norquist. Chuck Hagel would have been more convincing than Norquist.

As for legal opinion, you can, as Specter noted, read, can't you? Too much work for you?

I don't get that, Spy. I mention a prominent Republican to indicate that not all those who question the Administration's behavior are left-wing moonbats (such as my own humble self.)

You respond that he's not good enough; I'd be better off choosing someone else.

Why?

Are you saying that Grover Norquist isn't an example of a prominent Republican?

Or that maybe he's not Republican enough?

Certainly you're not saying that he's not lawyer enough for his opinion to matter, are you?

Bond is fun. Not a treatise on MOUT or CQB or even simple tradecraft; but damn good fun anyway (only James Bond could drive a tank through a wall with the driver's hatch open and not get a speck of dust on his immaculately tailored Savile Row suit!)

Dude, you need to get out more.

FB-

Gets confusing to the true believers when it turns out lefties aren't the only ones having difficulties with the Bushites.

Write what you will, Oh, reading impaired one ...

The national polls still favor the decision Bush made. That would be folks from both parties and the independents.

O Spy, who should remain in retirement:

The national polls are also in favor or a woman's right to choose.

You do realize that you're committing the logical fallacy of "appeal to popularity," don't you?

Where was it you got your PhD again?

I simply stated a fact about poll numbers, and, contrary to what you may 'believe' all Republicans support, I am not at odds with the women who favor their right to choose.

But the rulings of the SCOTUS are not based on popularity. They are based on the Constitution.

Therein lies the ruling in the final analysis.

The illogical argument you have chosen to cite is really as follows:

1. Most people approve of X (have favorable emotions towards X).
2. Therefore X is true.

This was not posed as an axiom by me or by anyone else. No one claimed that popularity equates to truth; it merely shows the leanings of the majority of people. Democracy is not, in and of itself perfect, nor does the outcome equate to absolute truth.

It serves only to illustrate that you and Artie are sucking hind tit.

Oh, Spy, that's just so droll!

YOU said, "the national polls still favor the decision Bush made." in an ever so erudite rebuttal of my last post.

Weak, dude, profoundly weak.

It still points out very clearly, FB, that views and positions embraced by you and Artie remain in the minority in popularity AND in the learned views of experts in Constitutional Law, including federal courts and federal judges. Even the FISA Court supported Bush's actions with regard to the authority to conduct warrantless surveillance on foreign international communications related to al Qaeda operations.

Looks pretty clear to me - and surely not as weak and flabby as your brief lesson in the principles of basic logic.

Now you appeal to authority.

Keep at it, you could run through all of 'em.

And to what do you appeal, FF?

I believe you and Artie have outlived your usefulness and your welcome. I don't minf debating with people whp hpld some opposing views, but you and Artie have made an artform out of being total @$$hats.

There is no hope for you at all. Nor is there hope for your feeble cause du jour.

Surely YOU would not appeal to authority. You have no respect for expertise and learned scholars or persons in positions of authority.

It's time for you and Artie to stroke each other elsewhere - somewhere devoid of rational thoughts processes and reason.

We're talking about logic here, Spy; a class you seem to have missed on your way to your glorious PhD.

To recap:

Leftists, traitors, and damn liberals question the Administration's behavior with regard to the FISA domestic spying issues.

SOME PROMINENT REPUBLICANS, INCLUDING GROVER NORQUIST, also question the Administration's behavior in this matter.

Ergo, NOT ONLY 'LEFTISTS, TRAITORS AND DAMN LIBERALS QUESTION THE ADMINISTRATIONS BEHAVIOR IN HIS MATTER.

Now you could assert that Grover's not Republican enough; not prominent enough; or not lawyer enough for his example to be counted in this analysis.

You have not.

Instead you say that the polls support Mr. Bush's actions; a clear appeal to popularity.

Then you say that various expert entities and unnamed Constitutional scholars agree with you, a clear appeal to authority.

Neither of which addresses my central proposition, which is that EVEN PROMINENT REPUBLICANS QUESTION THE ADMINISTRATION'S BEHAVIOR.

Errhmmm... now where did you get that PhD again?

Was there some meaningful point that you were trying to make in the midst of all that empty rhetoric?

Did I write something about leftists and traitors and damn liberals as being the ONLY ones disagreeing with the President? Nope That was from you, FB.

As I noted in another thread, it's time for you to retreat to your rabbit hole, FB?

It really gets your goat that someone actually took the time to research documented evidence to arrive at conclusions - in much the same way as I conducted extensive research to get my PhD.

It is obvious that you are too lazy to do either, isn't it?

Oh, Spy.

I made a simple, frankly factual comment regarding the nature of people who question the Administration's behaviour.

You haven't refuted that assertion; you cannot refute that assertion. You offer nothing but hebetudinous, shambling evasions.

You got your PhD through Affirmative Action, didn't you?

At least I HAVE one! Are you bad-mouthing Affirmative Action? No. I earned all my education through scholarship and hard work and scolastic achievement. In fact, the NSA paid for a large part of it.

You do not appear to have either the talent, intellect or energy to put forth serious work to do anything.

Anyone can cut and paste stuff. And you have even learned how to use a thesaurus! Too bad you have not learned to put words together as well as those who use the words more fluidly.

Shorter Spy:

"Nyaah nyaah nyaaah!"

Carry on.

Now you revert to childish, infantile displays of discourse?

"I know what I am, but what are you?"

I'll tell you what I am ... I am totally bored with your convoluted logic, stubbornness, intellectual impotence and insistence on dodging the facts as they pertain to any discussions at hand.

You and Artie and the KOS Kiddies can continue your circle jerk masturbation marathon until CY gets really tired of you.

I choose to ignore your ignorance and accusations and generalizations based on nothing but left wing psychotic paranoia.