bush/cheney used cia to spy on american critics of the war

[Nic_Driver]

The point you and others keep missing is THERE IS A CONVICTION ON RECORD AGAINST BUSH!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No way to spin it away, there it is on record.

In other words:

Yep, you are a criminal apologists, that's correct Dave.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Also,if Bush was convicted of any Crime he would have been arrested first. The Judges decided this type of surveillance was not up to Constitutional muster. It was not a criminal conviction in any way. This happens all the time. Policies and Laws are challenged in Court routinely. It's happening right now with this current President too. If the Courts decide something isn't Constitutional that doesn't mean there has been any sort of criminal conviction. This OP is clearly uninformed and very partisan. Basically,this OP is just living some sort of warped "I HATE DA BOOOOOOOSH!!" fantasy. The President was not arrested or convicted of any crime. This Post is therefore BULLSHIT! Have a nice day.

 

[daveman]

The point you and others keep missing is THERE IS A CONVICTION ON RECORD AGAINST BUSH!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No way to spin it away, there it is on record.

In other words:

Yep, you are a criminal apologists, that's correct Dave.

 

[Nic_Driver]

It's President Obama's program. He voted for it when he was a senator, and he uses it today. And he's acknowledged he's gone over the line with it.

But it's all BOOOOOOSH!!!'s fault.

So nothing Dave, you couldn't find anything?

Bush's legacy will include this conviction.

It really is too bad you're ok with a POTUS that violates the law and the Constitution but on the other hand, what possible complaint could you have against Obama if your this forgiving to a criminal?

Apparently, you're okay with a POTUS that violates the law and the Constitution, too. Because, you know, pretending that Obama isn't doing the exact same thing, when the article YOU linked shows he is, is pretty stupid.

Still waiting on that link to Obama's conviction Dave...anytime...

 

[LibocalypseNow]

So nothing Dave, you couldn't find anything?

Bush's legacy will include this conviction.

It really is too bad you're ok with a POTUS that violates the law and the Constitution but on the other hand, what possible complaint could you have against Obama if your this forgiving to a criminal?

Apparently, you're okay with a POTUS that violates the law and the Constitution, too. Because, you know, pretending that Obama isn't doing the exact same thing, when the article YOU linked shows he is, is pretty stupid.

Still waiting on that link to Obama's conviction Dave...anytime...

I'm still waiting for your link showing Bush was "convicted" of anything. Do you even know what the word "conviction" means. If a Court finds a Policy or Law Unconstitutional,that doesn't mean anyone is convicted of anything. Policies & Laws are challenged in Court on a daily basis. This is happening right now with this current President too. If any of his Policies or Laws are found to be Unconstitutional,are you saying he will be arrested and convicted of a Crime? No offense,but you just seem very uninformed & partisan. Go back and research this stuff a bit more. You have not provided any links or proof Bush was convicted of anything. I'll await your proof though. Thanks.

 

[daveman]

So nothing Dave, you couldn't find anything?

Bush's legacy will include this conviction.

It really is too bad you're ok with a POTUS that violates the law and the Constitution but on the other hand, what possible complaint could you have against Obama if your this forgiving to a criminal?

Apparently, you're okay with a POTUS that violates the law and the Constitution, too. Because, you know, pretending that Obama isn't doing the exact same thing, when the article YOU linked shows he is, is pretty stupid.

Still waiting on that link to Obama's conviction Dave...anytime...

Still waiting on you to prove that Bush was convicted. I don't recall a grand jury, an indictment, none of the things that precede a criminal conviction.

You know the stuff that happens in your head isn't real, right?

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Still waiting for the OP's Links showing Bush/Cheney were "convicted" of anything. I'll wait a little longer.

 

[Nic_Driver]

Ahhh, the old 'semantics’' argument.

Let see, how was it worded again? Oh yeah, "Judge Vaughn R. Walker ruled that the government had violated a 1978 federal statute"...

What do they call that again...you know...when you "violate a federal statute"?

Is that what they call a "crime"?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Also,if Bush was convicted of any Crime he would have been arrested first.

GWB will never be arrested because it creates a precedent whereby future presidents might be tried and convicted of war crimes and human rights violations, as well as domestic law violations. Some also argue that an Executive fearful of possible prosecution would be too hesitant when immediate action is needed safeguarding American lives in a legal gray area.

I reject the above premise because no president is above the law and it’s a good thing to have the Executive hesitant and gun-shy, just as the Framers intended.

GWB does need to exercise some caution when traveling abroad, however.

 

[Polk]

I've seen what you use instead of reality. It's pretty funny, actually.

Instead of reality? I can actually support my arguments with facts. You run around screaming about how the libruls are out to get you.

Really? I'm not the one just used a quote from Henry II to prove Bush had journalists wiretapped.

Actually, that comment was about the claims that no one can prove Bush ordered it. Also, it was never stated as proof of anything.

 

[Too Tall]

For the record, most probably don't even know about this.

Federal Judge Finds N.S.A. Wiretaps Were Illegal - NYTimes.com







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.

"... rejecting the Obama administration’s effort to keep shrouded in secrecy one of the most disputed counterterrorism policies..."

Once Obama was elected, the program was his. Obama fought to keep it. He wasted to keep spying on Americans.

Yet you give him a free pass. Gasp.

The conviction is against the Bush administration, not the Obama administration, and you actually apologize for the criminals...gasp...anti-American much?



And I didn't give Obama a pass, I listed his choice not to pursue criminal charges against the Bush administration as one of the things that disappointed me about Obama in a different thread.

When Bush was "convicted" (he wasn't) what was his sentence?

 

[Too Tall]

Ahhh, the old 'semantics’' argument.

Let see, how was it worded again? Oh yeah, "Judge Vaughn R. Walker ruled that the government had violated a 1978 federal statute"...

What do they call that again...you know...when you "violate a federal statute"?

Is that what they call a "crime"?

Definitions of conviction (n)
con·vic·tion [ kən víksh'n ]

guilty verdict: an act of finding somebody guilty of a crime, or an instance of being found guilty.

The somebody in this instance was "the government.' The Congress wrote and passed the Patriot Act and Bush signed it. Apparently the Congress was 'convicted' as well.

That is, in the words of a great American, you are an idiot!

 

[daveman]

Ahhh, the old 'semantics’' argument.

Let see, how was it worded again? Oh yeah, "Judge Vaughn R. Walker ruled that the government had violated a 1978 federal statute"...

What do they call that again...you know...when you "violate a federal statute"?

Is that what they call a "crime"?

Why can't you idiot leftists ever stick to the dictionary meanings of words?

It's intellectual dishonesty to distort meanings the way you do.

 

[daveman]

Instead of reality? I can actually support my arguments with facts. You run around screaming about how the libruls are out to get you.

Really? I'm not the one just used a quote from Henry II to prove Bush had journalists wiretapped.

Actually, that comment was about the claims that no one can prove Bush ordered it. Also, it was never stated as proof of anything.

Really.

I guess you can provide some links for your claim that I "run around screaming about how the libruls are out to get" me?

 

[newpolitics]

If the Hopey Changey One hated this so much,why did he defend it in Court? I guess the Hopey Changey cattle just conveniently ignore things. For them I guess it will always be..."DAT BOOOOOOOOOOSH!!!!"

Oh shut up lib... you say the same stupid thing all the time you self-righteous dickhead

 

[daveman]

If the Hopey Changey One hated this so much,why did he defend it in Court? I guess the Hopey Changey cattle just conveniently ignore things. For them I guess it will always be..."DAT BOOOOOOOOOOSH!!!!"

Oh shut up lib... you say the same stupid thing all the time you self-righteous dickhead

Do you have an answer for it?

 

[newpolitics]

If the Hopey Changey One hated this so much,why did he defend it in Court? I guess the Hopey Changey cattle just conveniently ignore things. For them I guess it will always be..."DAT BOOOOOOOOOOSH!!!!"

Oh shut up lib... you say the same stupid thing all the time you self-righteous dickhead

Do you have an answer for it?

I don't even understand what he tried to type. It is not coherent English. All I know, is lib tried to ruin one of my threads by butting in on every post I made and going "DA BOOOOOOOOOOSSSSSSHHHHH!" because he didn't agree with me and tried to make fun of me. He is not ever getting my respect on these boards unless he stops being an idiot. All he ever says is 'DAT BOOOOOOOOOOOSH!!" ... ******, just like Bush and Cheney

 

[daveman]

Oh shut up lib... you say the same stupid thing all the time you self-righteous dickhead

Do you have an answer for it?

I don't even understand what he tried to type. It is not coherent English. All I know, is lib tried to ruin one of my threads by butting in on every post I made and going "DA BOOOOOOOOOOSSSSSSHHHHH!" because he didn't agree with me and tried to make fun of me. He is not ever getting my respect on these boards unless he stops being an idiot. All he ever says is 'DAT BOOOOOOOOOOOSH!!" ... ******, just like Bush and Cheney

Since you'd rather deflect and pretend your failure of comprehension is some else's fault, allow me to assist:

"If Obama opposed the program so much, why did he defend it in court?"

 

[traveler52]

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.

Did you even bother to read the opening paragraph of the article before jumping in? If not, then by means please do so.

"A former C.I.A. Official (Glen L. Carle) says that Officials in the Bush White House sought damaging personal information on a Prominent American Critic (University of Michigan Professor Juan Cole) of the Iraq War in order to discredit him." Professor Cole's offense is that he posted to a rather important Blog Spot regarding the Illegal and Un-Constitutional U.S. Invasion of Iraq.

It is a direct and willful violation of Federal Law for the Central Intelligence Agency to engage in intelligence gathering or to engage in the surveilance of United States Citizens on U.S soil. If you did not know this, fine. On the other hand if you have any questions regarding this gross violation of Federal Law please reference the National Security Act.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

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.

Did you even bother to read the opening paragraph of the article before jumping in? If not, then by means please do so.

"A former C.I.A. Official (Glen L. Carle) says that Officials in the Bush White House sought damaging personal information on a Prominent American Critic (University of Michigan Professor Juan Cole) of the Iraq War in order to discredit him." Professor Cole's offense is that he posted to a rather important Blog Spot regarding the Illegal and Un-Constitutional U.S. Invasion of Iraq.

It is a direct and willful violation of Federal Law for the Central Intelligence Agency to engage in intelligence gathering or to engage in the surveilance of United States Citizens on U.S soil. If you did not know this, fine. On the other hand if you have any questions regarding this gross violation of Federal Law please reference the National Security Act.

Of course, that's why I asked the question. I'm still trying, after days mind you, to get a explanation as to how one concludes that Bush and Cheney = Officials at the Bush White House, or, better yet, that this ever really occurred.