Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Unlike spending $70 million of your money on a blowjob, right?
1. It wasn't about a blowjob.
2. Since when have liberals ever complained about spending taxpayers' money?
Absolutely it was. You can cross the t's and dot the i's all you want. Anybody with half a braincell knew it was all about getting Bubba.
Because no crime was committed. Obviously.And let's not forget he appointed the special prosecutor. Wonder why Baby Bush didn't do the same over the lack of WMDs.
That's true enough. And Obama certainly is taking full advantage of it.Who spends the most money? who knows? You're political system is open to graft....just the way it is....
Congratulations! You win the Pee-Wee Herman "I Know You Are But What Am I?" Award for the day!Then perhaps you need to stop engaging in it.Partisan hackery always is
I'm not.
you on the other hand.....
Would you kindly direct us to the part of the article that supports your asssrtion that "bush/cheney used cia to spy on american critics of the war ".
I'll wait.
Do you mean the opening paragraph of the article?
WASHINGTON A former senior C.I.A. official says that officials in the Bush White House sought damaging personal information on a prominent American critic of the Iraq war in order to discredit him. Glenn L. Carle, a former Central Intelligence Agency officer who was a top counterterrorism official during the administration of President George W. Bush, said the White House at least twice asked intelligence officials to gather sensitive information on Juan Cole, a University of Michigan professor who writes an influential blog that criticized the war.
Is it a crime to use the CIA for the presidents personal agenda or is it just immoral?
Either way, there is already one court ruling against the Bush administration for violating the civil rights of American citizens through spying, how many do we need before we act on the crime?
That one line says they did it to one American, Not Americans.
...These allegations, if true, raise very troubling questions, said Jeffrey H. Smith, a former C.I.A. general counsel. The statute makes it very clear: you cant spy on Americans. Mr. Smith added that a 1981 executive order that prohibits the C.I.A. from spying on Americans places tight legal restrictions not only on the agencys ability to collect information on United States citizens, but also on its retention or dissemination of that data.
Mr. Smith and several other experts on national security law said the question of whether government officials had crossed the line in the Cole matter would depend on the exact nature of any White House requests and whether any collection activities conducted by intelligence officials had been overly intrusive.
The experts said it might not be unlawful for the C.I.A. to provide the White House with open source material from public databases or published material, for example about an American citizen. But if the intent was to discredit a political critic, that would be improper, they said. ...
1. It wasn't about a blowjob.
2. Since when have liberals ever complained about spending taxpayers' money?
Absolutely it was. You can cross the t's and dot the i's all you want. Anybody with half a braincell knew it was all about getting Bubba.
Because no crime was committed. Obviously.And let's not forget he appointed the special prosecutor. Wonder why Baby Bush didn't do the same over the lack of WMDs.
Oh, wait...you just want to get Bush. I repeat, leftist butthurt isn't a crime.
That's true enough. And Obama certainly is taking full advantage of it.Who spends the most money? who knows? You're political system is open to graft....just the way it is....
Do you mean the opening paragraph of the article?
Is it a crime to use the CIA for the presidents personal agenda or is it just immoral?
Either way, there is already one court ruling against the Bush administration for violating the civil rights of American citizens through spying, how many do we need before we act on the crime?
That one line says they did it to one American, Not Americans.
and not even that, to be clear:
...These allegations, if true, raise very troubling questions, said Jeffrey H. Smith, a former C.I.A. general counsel. The statute makes it very clear: you cant spy on Americans. Mr. Smith added that a 1981 executive order that prohibits the C.I.A. from spying on Americans places tight legal restrictions not only on the agencys ability to collect information on United States citizens, but also on its retention or dissemination of that data.
Mr. Smith and several other experts on national security law said the question of whether government officials had crossed the line in the Cole matter would depend on the exact nature of any White House requests and whether any collection activities conducted by intelligence officials had been overly intrusive.
The experts said it might not be unlawful for the C.I.A. to provide the White House with open source material from public databases or published material, for example about an American citizen. But if the intent was to discredit a political critic, that would be improper, they said. ...
So IF any of it happened, then other actions would have to be addressed, IF they happened.
Get it? It's a gotcha piece.
...U.S. intelligence agencies are prohibited from collecting information on the activities of American citizens inside the United States. "Obviously, it would be illegal for CIA to collect any non-publicly available information, derogatory or otherwise, on a US citizen simply because of that person's expressed political beliefs," John Rizzo, who was the CIA's acting general counsel during the period at issue, told The Lookout, via email.
Rizzo said he had no recollection of any of his agency colleagues drawing his attention to efforts to gather information on Cole.
Rizzo also questioned why New York Times reporter James Risen had failed to seek comment from him for the story. Instead, Risen quoted Jeffrey Smith, a former top lawyer for the CIA who left the agency during the Clinton administration, on the legality of domestic spying. "Jeff Smith is a great lawyer and good friend, but I am the guy on whose watch this supposedly happened," wrote Rizzo. "Odd."
Risen, a Pulitzer-winning reporter, was recently subpoenaed by the Justice Department after refusing to name his sources for a 2006 book on the CIA. He did not immediately respond to a request for comment from The Lookout.
...
So why do you give Obama a pass for extending the Patriot Act?Now had either (Bush / Cheney) received a blow job or twittered their genitalia, wingnuts would be wagging about it still. As for depriving American citizens of their civil rights and Constitutional freedoms that's a Repugnant prerogative apparently. As a matter of fact their attitude on the subject is simply if one is not guilty of anything why should it bother them that they are being investigated or secretly spied upon by the government?
Well, there you go.While Mr. Carle, 54, has written a book to be published next month about his role in the interrogation of a terrorism suspect...
And it's odd, don't you think, that no one else has confirmed?
So, basically, this is a scam to get people to buy a book. Marketing... a fool and his money are soon parted.
Absolutely it was. You can cross the t's and dot the i's all you want. Anybody with half a braincell knew it was all about getting Bubba.
Because no crime was committed. Obviously.
Oh, wait...you just want to get Bush. I repeat, leftist butthurt isn't a crime.
That's true enough. And Obama certainly is taking full advantage of it.Who spends the most money? who knows? You're political system is open to graft....just the way it is....
The original reason for the special prosecutor showed there was no crime committed either. If Bush was so sure of the paper trail with regard to WMDs, then he wouldn't mind appointing a special prosecutor would he?
Indeed it is. And if my disagreement with him was serious enough, I wouldn't vote for him again.And if he doesn't? "Oh, well, we tried -- and we'll still vote for him!"
Well, except for the previous Administration.
Like I said: If he doesn't change, you'll still roll over for him.
So you've agreed 100% with everything a President YOU supported did? That's ludicrous...
Not so the Obama faithful.
Well, that's certainly an interesting way of establishing guilt. How well do you think that'll hold up in court?Absolutely it was. You can cross the t's and dot the i's all you want. Anybody with half a braincell knew it was all about getting Bubba.
Because no crime was committed. Obviously.
Oh, wait...you just want to get Bush. I repeat, leftist butthurt isn't a crime.
That's true enough. And Obama certainly is taking full advantage of it.Who spends the most money? who knows? You're political system is open to graft....just the way it is....
The original reason for the special prosecutor showed there was no crime committed either. If Bush was so sure of the paper trail with regard to WMDs, then he wouldn't mind appointing a special prosecutor would he?
You are responsible for your actions. Not the TEA Party members. Quit blaming them for your slavish devotion to The One.So why do you give Obama a pass for extending the Patriot Act?Now had either (Bush / Cheney) received a blow job or twittered their genitalia, wingnuts would be wagging about it still. As for depriving American citizens of their civil rights and Constitutional freedoms that's a Repugnant prerogative apparently. As a matter of fact their attitude on the subject is simply if one is not guilty of anything why should it bother them that they are being investigated or secretly spied upon by the government?....Over the Teabaggers' protestations.....right?
Well, there you go.
And it's odd, don't you think, that no one else has confirmed?
So, basically, this is a scam to get people to buy a book. Marketing... a fool and his money are soon parted......And, who's got more experience, at that, than Teabaggers?
(Well....the 10% that are literate, anyhow.)
*
Isn't it awful how Bush went back in time and lied to all those poor Democrats?
Because no crime was committed. Obviously.
Oh, wait...you just want to get Bush. I repeat, leftist butthurt isn't a crime.
That's true enough. And Obama certainly is taking full advantage of it.
The original reason for the special prosecutor showed there was no crime committed either. If Bush was so sure of the paper trail with regard to WMDs, then he wouldn't mind appointing a special prosecutor would he?
Only if he would have had the special prosecutor start with these people, then investigate the CIA and the intelligence agencies of the rest of the free world, including the United Nations. It seems all of these agencies agreed that Saddam had WMD's.
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
Unconstitutional.Right. The "Obama failthful" should abandon support for a President that has gotten things done like pass Health Care Reform...
Wow! He did one thing right!...repeal DADT...
You mean, "saved the UAW". GM is NEVER going to pay us back....and saved the Auto Industry...
Democrats Rake In Record Donations From Corporations - ABC News...and vote for one of the corporate shills on the right?
They might. Obama sure hasn't...except for extending it.They'resure to do something about the Patriot Act right?
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/16/us/politics/16cole.html?_r=2&hp
more proof of the evilness of those two. a special place in hell awaits the both of them
Would you kindly direct us to the part of the article that supports your asssrtion that "bush/cheney used cia to spy on american critics of the war ".
I'll wait.
Wow Soggy, are you blind? You have complete discredited yourself with that question. It is stated in the first sentence, literally.
Isn't it awful how Bush went back in time and lied to all those poor Democrats?The original reason for the special prosecutor showed there was no crime committed either. If Bush was so sure of the paper trail with regard to WMDs, then he wouldn't mind appointing a special prosecutor would he?
Only if he would have had the special prosecutor start with these people, then investigate the CIA and the intelligence agencies of the rest of the free world, including the United Nations. It seems all of these agencies agreed that Saddam had WMD's.
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
Federal Judge Finds N.S.A. Wiretaps Were Illegal
WASHINGTON A federal judge ruled Wednesday that the National Security Agencys program of surveillance without warrants was illegal, rejecting the Obama administrations effort to keep shrouded in secrecy one of the most disputed counterterrorism policies of former President George W. Bush.
The ruling delivered a blow to the Bush administrations claims that its surveillance program, which Mr. Bush secretly authorized shortly after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, was lawful.
"... rejecting the Obama administration’s effort to keep shrouded in secrecy one of the most disputed counterterrorism policies..."For the record, most probably don't even know about this.
Federal Judge Finds N.S.A. Wiretaps Were Illegal - NYTimes.com
Federal Judge Finds N.S.A. Wiretaps Were Illegal
WASHINGTON — A federal judge ruled Wednesday that the National Security Agency’s program of surveillance without warrants was illegal, rejecting the Obama administration’s effort to keep shrouded in secrecy one of the most disputed counterterrorism policies of former President George W. Bush.
The ruling delivered a blow to the Bush administration’s claims that its surveillance program, which Mr. Bush secretly authorized shortly after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, was lawful.
There's a court ruling against the Bush administration for an unlawful surveillance program that targeted Americans on American soil.
There is no way to spin this away neo-cons, sorry, it is a fact on record and it sets precedent for future Presidents. The fact that no one was held to account for this criminal behavior also sets a precedent but it set a very dangerous one.
