Busted...Again...

Originally posted by acludem
No, Jim, I misunderstood the process. I though I had read an article which stated the entire commission was appointed by Bush.


In other words, you made it up. Either that or you read it on one of your drooling liberal sites and took it for gospel as usual.

I admitted I was wrong, and I think that the Justice Department knew what Ms. Gorelick had written.

Did the justice department nominate her? Is this something you can prove, or are you guessing again?
 
Originally posted by jimnyc
I suggest you read up above, it was NOT appointed by GWB. The only member appointed by Bush was Kean.

OH...MY...GAWD! PLease forgive oh GREAT and MIGHTY one. This mere mortal erred. You, in your OMNISCIENCE have set me upon the PATH of RIGHTEOUSNESS (not). So I erred, big effing deal.

And sorry, you're wrong about the origin of the 'wall' as well. It started with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in 1978. And who was president in 1978? That's right, Jimmy Carter.

Umm...Yeah...If that's the case, Reagan and Poppy didn't do anything to change it. Dubbyuh's administration signed of on Ms. Gorelick's memo. They didn't see fit to change it. Both parties are guilty. Both are nothing more than opposite sides of the same debased coin.
 
I think I should make this a sticky at the top of this section to show everyone how most liberals will lie and dodge questions. Bully and acludem, what a pair of propagandist liars.
 
Originally posted by Bullypulpit
NPR "Morning Edition" 4/19/04,

"FBI Investigates Gorelick Death Threats"

Link to this proof? I believe you're probably referring to a memo that Larry Thompson wrote in 2001. You do realize that the deputy attorney general is not "the Bush administration signing off on the memo", don't you?

Is this the best you have to offer? You are lame.
 
Originally posted by Bullypulpit
Piss off. Monkeyboy.

What's wrong, Bully? Upset that you have been exposed as a lying propagandist? :laugh:

When I 'piss off' I'll be sure to call you for your piss cleaning services.
 
Originally posted by jimnyc
What's wrong, Bully? Upset that you have been exposed as a lying propagandist? :laugh:

When I 'piss off' I'll be sure to call you for your piss cleaning services.

Does that mean we're engaged? :laugh:
 
Originally posted by Bullypulpit
During his testimony before the 9/11 Commission, Herr Ashcroft slyly insinuated that a "Member of the Commission" wrote a memo establishing a "Wall" between law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Of course, conservative media whores, Rush Limbaugh springs to mind, jumped on this issue, calling for Jamie Gorelick to resign her position.

What Herr Ashcroft and the media whores conveniently ommitted is that the "Wall" was established during the administrations of Reagan and Bush the Elder. And, Dubbyuh's administration signed off on Ms. Gorelick's memo leaving the "Wall" in place.

This fits a pattern of obfuscation and ommission by this administration. It is said that a people get the government they deserve...But did we really deserve the bunch of yahoos currently running this country?

Bully is not the history revisionist ;)
 
Originally posted by jimnyc
And sorry, you're wrong about the origin of the 'wall' as well. It started with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in 1978. And who was president in 1978? That's right, Jimmy Carter.

<blockquote>The Court of Review argued that the requirement to have some separation between criminal and intelligence investigations grew out of a 1980 case, United States v. Truong Dinh, not a 1995 memo. The Court pointed to the Reagan or Bush I administrations for when the Truong requirement took hold in the Department of Justice, "As we have noted, some time in the 1980s - the exact moment is shrouded in historical mist - the Department applied the Truong analysis to an interpretation of the FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) statute."

The Truong requirement for some separation between criminal and intelligence investigations does not mean complete isolation and the memo in question enhanced information sharing in a specific investigation. It arose out the need to preserve the integrity of the long and fruitful investigation into the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. The memo developed guidelines for the handling of evidence to ensure that information collected during the course of the investigation would be available to prosecutors at trial and intelligence agents working to prevent future attacks.

Hiding behind this "wall," Ashcroft sought to deflect the attention of the commission from his dismal stewardship of domestic counterterrorism policy. In the spring and summer 2001, he downgraded counterterrorism as a priority, clashed with FBI Director Louis Freeh and Acting Director Thomas Pickard on counterterrorism policy, and cut counterterrorism funding, even denying a personal appeal from Pickard. </blockquote>

<quote><b>And sorry, you're wrong about the origin of the 'wall'</b></quote>

Go <a href=http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=46532>here</a> for the citation
 
I believe the 9/11 commissioners, Jamie Gorelick specifically, would know better about the history of these problems than "americanprogress.org".

" She said the "wall" is really a set of procedures that carried out the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act."
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040419/ap_on_go_co/sept_11_commission_8

http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/news/nation/8463624.htm?1c

and more:

"The wall, which has since been demolished by a special appeals court ruling, was part of a body of law that was little known to the public. It involved secret testimony and decisions by a special federal court that ruled on the requests of government investigators to install wiretaps or other listening devices on people suspected of being involved in espionage. The 1978 law that created the court, known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, set a lower threshold for counterintelligence agents to obtain permission for secret surveillance of espionage suspects than was required for investigators in criminal cases."
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/14/p...n=52040742b3f1f391&ei=5006&partner=ALTAVISTA1

Nice try, Bully, but you're still wrong!
 

Forum List

Back
Top