Al Gore Speech

[Navy Pride]

Congress needs to heed Gore's words about growing a spine and becoming legislators again. It can start with Congressional Democrats coming out and refuting the administration's lies on this every day.

Someone needs to call out Gonzales every time he opens his mouth and lies about wiretaps on the circuit.

Gore's speech yesterday had some very salient points in it -- and many that would resonate with John Q. Public who might not see how this is such a gross disrespecting of the Constitution. How this tears at the very fabric of our nation.

It is against these tyrannies that we revolted from King George 230 years ago. Don't you get that?

Here were Clinton's comments about domestic spying:


http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Politics/story?id=1500147

If the AG is lying about Clinton why wouldn't some prominent femocrat call him out on it hips? Have you ever considered he might not be lying?:roll:

 

[Navy Pride]

Bla bla bla, Clinton did the same damn thing! Operation Echelon look it up.

The fact of the matter is that Gore isn't interested in anything except for his own power and the power of the Democratic party. See ya in '06.

As for this being the same type of tyranny that we revolted against well guess what buddy the inherent war powers of the President were granted in the Constitution for a reason because the founding fathers knew full well that what was good for peace time could screw us in times of war.

If you think Bush a tyrant then you will have to call Lincoln, and every president since and including FDR tyrants as well.

Bush is not a tyrant because we are at war Clinton was a tyrant because he violated the 4th amendment and the Constiution during peace time, do you see the difference?

Gore just like every other democratic leader throws crap up against the wall and hopes it will stick..........I am glad this nutcase is speaking out again....It can only help conservatives............

 

[Pacridge]

Very constructive argument. How does this add to the thread except making you look like an idiot?

You're walking on thin ice. Telling some one they look like an idiot may in fact not be against the forums rules. But calling someone an idiot is, so how about sticking to making constructive arguments yourself.

 

[jfuh]

If the AG is lying about Clinton why wouldn't some prominent femocrat call him out on it hips? Have you ever considered he might not be lying?:roll:

Always irrelevant nonsense from you isn't it gaypride?

 

[Navy Pride]

SO then this makes it Ok for Bush to wiretap? One case you have an unknown the other you have a confession. Like I said, just because Clinton lied doesn't to any extent make right of what Bush does.

Clinton and every president has done the same thing...Only the other presidents did it in time of war to keep this country safe.......Clinton did it in peace time and then lied about it.........

 

[Pacridge]

Always irrelevant nonsense from you isn't it gaypride?

OK, now you've officially crossed the line. Do not, I repeat, DO NOT make up new nicknames for other members. I believe you're blatantly attempting to flame Navy Pride by this reference and as such I'm warning you, officially.

Please do not do this again.

 

[Navy Pride]

Source? Who are these leaders?

I don't have a source but it has been on the news.......Senator Rockerfeller even wrote a memo about it to the president..........

 

[Navy Pride]

OK, now you\'ve officially crossed the line. Do not, I repeat, DO NOT make up new nicknames for other members. I believe you\'re blatantly attempting to flame Navy Pride by this reference and as such I\'m warning you, officially.

Please do not do this again.


Always irrelevant nonsense from you isn't it gaypride?

The response was to hips, but I am curious, How old are you?

 

[Stu Ghatze]

what a hypocritical deushe god I hate that man first he implys that the world is safer now then it was during the Cold War what a load of bullshit atleast the Soviets could be reasoned with and knew as well as us that nuclear war was in no ones interests. The enemy we now face has no such scruples against killing large civilian populations as was made abundantly clear on 9-11. Does he really think that international terrorism is less of a threat than the Soviet Union? Did the Soviet Union ever attack us on our soil? Not since the second world war has there been such a threat to international and national security as there is today. And I just love how he ended the speech by implying that the American citizenry is to stupid to be trusted with the future of their own country. Why is that Algore, because they voted against you and your fifth column party? Apparently Gore thinks that Democracy is only good when they vote the way he wants them to. The fact of the matter is that this President was elected by a majority of the popular vote and the electoral college votes something that your administration never achieved the Republicans in the Congress were elected and the Constitution states that the President has the right to apoint Supreme Court nominees and the Senate has the right to either confirm or deny these appointees by a majority vote and if you don't like the Constitution Mr. Gore then I suggest you move to Red China I here tell that they love Kyoto over there because it screws America while doing nothing to their own industry. The arrogance of that man to think that he is some how intellectually superior to the average American, it's the typical, do as I say because I said it, liberal mantality. Well fuc/k you Mr. Gore see ya in ''06 and again in ''08.

Dear TOT, ...I honestly loved your reply, & it was right on the money except 1-thing.

And...that 1-thing is that I hope you don't really think that he is thinking about another run for the dem pres. nomination, ..if so...he won't get it, as Hillary will chew him up, & spit him out.

After listening to all the things Gore has said after his failed pres. bid, ..I thank God this guy did NOT get to the whitehouse.

 

[KCConservative]

After listening to all the things Gore has said after his failed pres. bid, ..I thank God this guy did NOT get to the whitehouse.

How can you say those horrible things? Afterall, he invented the internet.

 

[jfuh]

Clinton and every president has done the same thing...Only the other presidents did it in time of war to keep this country safe.......Clinton did it in peace time and then lied about it.........

Every president has done the same, yet then other's only did it in times of war. I never realized we've always been at war. I also recall a former president who was forced to resign because of wire-taps.
As per your statment as well, who within this country are we at war with?

 

[jfuh]

The response was to hips, but I am curious, How old are you?

This is relevant how?

 

[aps]

*Sigh* I just don't get it why the response to whether Bush violated the law is, "Clinton did it too." Saying that someone else did it isn't very persuasive if you ask me. I would be surprised if any of you could provde that Clinton did it. And don't bother trying--I don't care. However, if it is proven that he did break the law, then he should be held accountable, as SouthernDemocrat has said.

Based upon the letter written by experts in Constitutional law,I am not buying for a second that Bush had the authority to wiretap without a warrant. This opinion of mine is further substantiated by interviews with experts in National Security issues, an attorney who helped create the FISA court, and others. Here is part of the transcript from Chris Matthews on Monday, where he spoke to the attorney who helped create the FISA court.

MATTHEWS: Why do you think the president choose not to go to the court that was established with your help?

KENNETH BASS, FMR. FISA COURT COUNSEL: Chris, it‘s very hard from what‘s been said publicly for me to figure out why they didn‘t try to go to the court. Because when we were there, when we first set up the court, we had a policy of going to the court even if the statute didn‘t authorize us to go to court.

MATTHEWS: Why?

BASS: Well, because we believed in sharing the power.

MATTHEWS: The responsibility too.

BASS: And the responsibility.

MATTHEWS: So you only could intercept information from somebody‘s email or back then it wasn‘t emails, it was just phone calls. You wanted to have the authority behind you to do that.

BASS: And we wanted to have the blessing of the courts. I mean, the whole issue is what you‘re doing reasonable. And if you can subject what you‘re doing to the judgment of somebody else, an independent judge, who also looks at it, say it‘s reasonable, you‘re just in much better shape, legally, politically, from a moral standpoint, every other way.

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about two conditions. One is the post 9/11. In the first 48 hours, 96 hours, two weeks after we were hit so hard, was it reasonable to assume that the president had a right to go to extreme measures just because we were under assault?

We didn‘t know whether there was going to be another shoe to drop, another attack somewhere in Chicago or Detroit or somewhere else, and therefore he needed to move quickly in finding out everything we could electronically. They would not go to the courts because it would have slowed them down.

BASS: He didn‘t have to go to the courts. There was a 72-hour emergency provision. And then for 72 hours they could have done surveillances and then go to the court if what they had was something that showed agency of a foreign power.

There are always provisions built into the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to try and deal with the horribles, the hypotheticals. There‘s a war provision in there, for example, that the president could also have invoked in those early hours.

The problem is it has gone on for four years, and it‘s gone on for four years without Congress knowing about it and without knowing the details and without being in a position to assess its reasonableness.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10882510/

 

[Navy Pride]

Every president has done the same, yet then other's only did it in times of war. I never realized we've always been at war. I also recall a former president who was forced to resign because of wire-taps.
As per your statment as well, who within this country are we at war with?

We are in the most dangerous war in American history.......The war against terrorism........

I think you know what I meant but I will clear it up for you....Every president in a time of war did it......

 

[Navy Pride]

This is relevant how?

Its relevant because of some of your repsonses....But never mind.....I think I already know....

 

[Navy Pride]

*Sigh* I just don't get it why the response to whether Bush violated the law is, "Clinton did it too." Saying that someone else did it isn't very persuasive if you ask me. I would be surprised if any of you could provde that Clinton did it. And don't bother trying--I don't care. However, if it is proven that he did break the law, then he should be held accountable, as SouthernDemocrat has said.

Based upon the letter written by experts in Constitutional law,I am not buying for a second that Bush had the authority to wiretap without a warrant. This opinion of mine is further substantiated by interviews with experts in National Security issues, an attorney who helped create the FISA court, and others. Here is part of the transcript from Chris Matthews on Monday, where he spoke to the attorney who helped create the FISA court.

I guess the point I was trying to make aps is every president has wiretapped.

I just don't know anyone can object to us wiretapping known terrorists without a court order..............If we had done that prior to 9/11/01 we might could have avoided the attack........

 

[aps]

I guess the point I was trying to make aps is every president has wiretapped.

I just don't know anyone can object to us wiretapping known terrorists without a court order..............If we had done that prior to 9/11/01 we might could have avoided the attack........

Dick? Dick Cheney--is that you on this message board?

Navy Pride, they can wiretap all they want--with a court order. FISA allows them to wiretap without a warrant for 72 hours. Now, I assume that those who file for the warrants are not the same as those who conduct the actual surveillance. So I find no credibility when they say, "We don't have time to file for all these warrants." Dumb dumb dumb

There was a tape on September 10, 2001, which discussed that tomorrow was the big day YET that tape was not transcribed by the NSA until, what do you know, September 12, 2001.

Conversations intercepted the day before Sept. 11 caught al-Qaeda operatives boasting in Arabic, "The match begins tomorrow" and "Tomorrow is Zero Hour." But U.S. intelligence didn't translate them until Sept. 12, congressional and administration sources disclosed Wednesday. The failure of the National Security Agency to translate the conversations until the day after the terrorist attacks became the focus of an eight-hour closed hearing on Capitol Hill.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2002/06/20/zero-day-usat.htm

Cheney is a butthead. Does he think we won't research his bull$hit?

 

[Binary_Digit]

We are in the most dangerous war in American history.......The war against terrorism........

ROFL wow, what an exaggeration! I think you forgot about the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, and WW2.

As for Echelon, CIA director George Tenet testified before Congress in April 2000 that no warrantless surveillance was done:

There have been recent allegations that the Intelligence Community through NSA has improperly directed our SIGINT capabilities against the private conversations of US persons. That is not the case.
There is a rigorous regime of checks and balances which we—the CIA, the NSA and the FBI—scrupulously adhere to whenever the conversations of US persons are involved—directly or indirectly.
We do not collect against US persons unless they are agents of a foreign power, as that term is defined in law. We do not target their conversations for collection in the United States unless a FISA [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] warrant has been obtained from the FISA court by the Justice Department. And we do not target their conversations for collection overseas unless Executive Order 12333 has been followed and the Attorney General has personally approved collection.

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2000_hr/tenet.html

 

[Binary_Digit]

If we had done that prior to 9/11/01 we might could have avoided the attack........

If we had strip-searched passengers with latex gloves prior to 9/11/01 we might could have avoided the attack. Would you like to bend over first, or would you like to draw a line somewhere?

 

[Navy Pride]

ROFL wow, what an exaggeration! I think you forgot about the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, and WW2.

As for Echelon, CIA director George Tenet testified before Congress in April 2000 that no warrantless surveillance was done:




http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2000_hr/tenet.html

None of those wars can compare to a terrorist attack here that if a dirty bomb was placed in a strategic place in NYC could kill millions of people and make NYC uninhabitable for 100 years...........How quickly my left wing friends forget 9/11/01...........sad.......

 

[Navy Pride]

If we had strip-searched passengers with latex gloves prior to 9/11/01 we might could have avoided the attack. Would you like to bend over first, or would you like to draw a line somewhere?

You lost me on that one my friend.......

Not a very valid comparison..

 

[oldreliable67]

Lets not be completely selective; lets look at the rest of Bass's interview on Hardball...

MATTHEWS: Do you think that this is an egregious matter here, or just a technical on, the fact that the president hasn‘t gone to the FISA courts, to the surveillance courts, to get approval..

BASS: I don‘t know enough to tell you the answer yet. All the critical factors are still classified. The whole role of the NSA was carefully structured in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. We set some provisions in there for the NSA to do what it‘s been doing for decades without going top the FISA court. [emphasis added]

We‘re not sure at all that what we intended is what‘s going on here.

There‘s just way too much ambiguity.

and...

MATTHEWS: You‘re the first person to say it, because some people say the reason that this administration didn‘t go to the FISA courts to get approval to intercept key phrases that might have to do with the targeting of U.S. iconic facilities, buildings, is because you can‘t get approval for such a broad scope.

BASS: You can‘t get the approval, but Chris I can assure you, because I worked on the issue when FISA was enacted, that we consciously knew about data mining at that time and we knew that searching for phrases was not to be covered by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and it‘s covered through a process of minimizing use of the information.

The difference is you‘re not targeting individuals.

Bass comments reflect that what as become generally referred to as 'wiretapping' may well take several different forms, none of which we really know the specifics and/or details about as yet and some of which the FISA court had "set some provisions for...without going top the FISA court".

aps, you seem to want to have it both ways. You're very critical of the NSA their role in what has become generally characterized as 'wiretapping', but then you turn around and criticize them for a late translation of a presumed wiretap. I guess they just can't win with you, regardless of what they do.

 

[aps]

aps, you seem to want to have it both ways. You're very critical of the NSA their role in what has become generally characterized as 'wiretapping', but then you turn around and criticize them for a late translation of a presumed wiretap. I guess they just can't win with you, regardless of what they do.

I'm merely pointing out that Cheney is full of BS when he says that had we used that capability, it could have prevented 9-11. NSA surveilling the terrorists sure didn't work, now did it?

 

[TimmyBoy]

You have got to be kidding. During the Cold War the fate of all of civilization was in balance. The flu kills more worldwide in any given year than the Terrorists have killed in the last 50 years.

Terrorism is a threat, but on balance, comparing it to the Cold War is like comparing a dime to a dollar.

I think terrorism is a more serious threat than the Soviet Union was. The Soviets could be deturred, the terrorists cannot. They have the potential to set in motion the extinction of mankind. It is a very real threat, however, I feel that Bush's methods are not the proper way to deal with terrorists. We must not forget the wisdom of one of our founding fathers, Benjamin Franklin, who stated that those who would trade away their liberties for security deserve neither.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

I think terrorism is a more serious threat than the Soviet Union was. The Soviets could be deturred, the terrorists cannot. They have the potential to set in motion the extinction of mankind. It is a very real threat, however, I feel that Bush's methods are not the proper way to deal with terrorists. We must not forget the wisdom of one of our founding fathers, Benjamin Franklin, who stated that those who would trade away their liberties for security deserve neither.

Franklin also said that an ounce of prevention was worth more than a pound of cure.

That womanizing adultorous crazy old bastard said a lot of things like that. :mrgreen: