Bush Violated National Security Act, According to Congressional Research Service (1 Viewer)

[danarhea]

The non-partisan Congressional Research Service has determined that President Bush has violated the National Security Act, which was passed in 1947. This law makes it a crime to withhold from Congress information on some intelligence operations, such as domestic spying. Bush's limits on what information he gave Congress about domestic spying violated the law.

Article is here.

 

[cnredd]

Once again, the misleading of the forum is a bunch of bullshit that runs downhill...

Thread title?...

Bush Violated National Security Act, According to Congressional Research Service

Title of article linked?...

Congressional Agency Questions Legality of Wiretaps

Anyone notice the difference?...I don't know about you kids, but I find a difference between "violated" and "questions"...Maybe it's just me...

Let's keep going...

According to the actual article, which was obviously linked without full reading...First sentence...

The Bush administration appears to have violated the National Security Act by limiting its briefings about a warrantless domestic eavesdropping program to congressional leaders, according to a memo from Congress's research arm released yesterday.

Anyone see a difference between "violated" and "appears to have violated"?
If they were the same, I'd bet there'd be a helleva lot less trials in this country..."Appears like he did it...he MUST be guilty"...:roll:

Let's continue...from the article...

The Congressional Research Service opinion said that the amended 1947 law requires President Bush to keep all members of the House and Senate intelligence committees "fully and currently informed" of such intelligence activities as the domestic surveillance effort.

OK...sounds written in stone...unless, of course, there are EXCEPTIONS...further down the article...

The only exception in the law applies to covert actions, Cumming found, and those programs must be reported to the "Gang of Eight," which includes House and Senate leaders in addition to heads of the intelligence panels. The administration can also withhold some operational details in rare circumstances, but that does not apply to the existence of entire programs, he wrote.

Howz about that?...exception to their own rule...Let's see if the Admin can jump through that glaring hole now...

Unless the White House contends the program is a covert action, the memo said, "limiting congressional notification of the NSA program to the Gang of Eight . . . would appear to be inconsistent with the law."

Ouch...White House claims "covert action"...1947 law becomes irrelevant...

Now...

Are there any other hoops the Admin must jump through that we aren't told about here?...

I don't know...The author of this thread doesn't provide that information...

See folks, I don't even KNOW if this thread has any relevance...Everything in the article may or may not be true...I just don't know...

But what I DO KNOW is that the title thread is intentionally misleading and is NOT what the actual articles reports...

here are the three sentences on the original post...

The non-partisan Congressional Research Service has determined that President Bush has violated the National Security Act, which was passed in 1947...(Not according to the article...the article very clearly states "appears to have violated")...

This law makes it a crime to withhold from Congress information on some intelligence operations, such as domestic spying. ..(True statement...But does not mention whether or not what the Administration is doing falls under the realm of "some")...

Bush's limits on what information he gave Congress about domestic spying violated the law...(Unless there is admission of conjecture and/or personal opinion, because the article does NOT agree with this statement)...

Debunked again...Now you know why I don't do this with every thread the author starts...There are only so many hours in the day...

But hopefully, the members here will see this and understand what to look for the next time the author decides to mislead again...

Don't worry...It won't be long...

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by cnredd:
Once again, the misleading of the forum is a bunch of bullshit that runs downhill...

Thread title?...

Bush Violated National Security Act, According to Congressional Research Service

Title of article linked?...

Congressional Agency Questions Legality of Wiretaps

Anyone notice the difference?...I don't know about you kids, but I find a difference between "violated" and "questions"...Maybe it's just me...

Let's keep going...

According to the actual article, which was obviously linked without full reading...First sentence...

The Bush administration appears to have violated the National Security Act by limiting its briefings about a warrantless domestic eavesdropping program to congressional leaders, according to a memo from Congress's research arm released yesterday.

Anyone see a difference between "violated" and "appears to have violated"?
If they were the same, I'd bet there'd be a helleva lot less trials in this country..."Appears like he did it...he MUST be guilty"...

Let's continue...from the article...

The Congressional Research Service opinion said that the amended 1947 law requires President Bush to keep all members of the House and Senate intelligence committees "fully and currently informed" of such intelligence activities as the domestic surveillance effort.

OK...sounds written in stone...unless, of course, there are EXCEPTIONS...further down the article...

The only exception in the law applies to covert actions, Cumming found, and those programs must be reported to the "Gang of Eight," which includes House and Senate leaders in addition to heads of the intelligence panels. The administration can also withhold some operational details in rare circumstances, but that does not apply to the existence of entire programs, he wrote.

Howz about that?...exception to their own rule...Let's see if the Admin can jump through that glaring hole now...

Unless the White House contends the program is a covert action, the memo said, "limiting congressional notification of the NSA program to the Gang of Eight . . . would appear to be inconsistent with the law."

Ouch...White House claims "covert action"...1947 law becomes irrelevant...

Now...

Are there any other hoops the Admin must jump through that we aren't told about here?...

I don't know...The author of this thread doesn't provide that information...

See folks, I don't even KNOW if this thread has any relevance...Everything in the article may or may not be true...I just don't know...

But what I DO KNOW is that the title thread is intentionally misleading and is NOT what the actual articles reports...

here are the three sentences on the original post...

The non-partisan Congressional Research Service has determined that President Bush has violated the National Security Act, which was passed in 1947...(Not according to the article...the article very clearly states "appears to have violated")...

This law makes it a crime to withhold from Congress information on some intelligence operations, such as domestic spying. ..(True statement...But does not mention whether or not what the Administration is doing falls under the realm of "some")...

Bush's limits on what information he gave Congress about domestic spying violated the law...(Unless there is admission of conjecture and/or personal opinion, because the article does NOT agree with this statement)...

Debunked again...Now you know why I don't do this with every thread the author starts...There are only so many hours in the day...

But hopefully, the members here will see this and understand what to look for the next time the author decides to mislead again...

Don't worry...It won't be long...

You sly dog, nothing gets past you. I would have to agree with you here though. You got a point. Now let me ask you a question. If this thing runs its coarse and he is found guilty, what are you going to say then?

 

[aps]

Well, the good news is that the evidence keeps mounting on the issue that Bush appears to have violated the law. My personal opinion is that he has violated the law. I hope that the hearings they hold in the Senate shed light on this issue. I also hope that the cases filed in federal district court in New York and Michigan make it to the Supreme Court so that they can address this issue.

Here is a letter that I have posted multiple times, but must do it again because its content is too important for anyone to ignore.

http://balkin.blogspot.com/DOJ.Response.AUMF.final.pdf

Unlike the CRS, these experts addressed legal doctrine (for example, when two statutes conflict, which one is given deference), Supreme Court rulings, and the legislative history in making their determination that it seems very likely that Bush violated the law. They put to shame the BS memo issued by the Dept. of Justice regarding Bush's authority for this program. Frankly, I'm disappointed to see the legal writing provided by the Bush administration.

 

[Binary_Digit]

Yes, the thread title is inaccurate, misleading, and inappropriate IMO. Stick to the facts, there's already enough stupid BS flying around.

 

[KCConservative]

Thread title?...

Bush Violated National Security Act, According to Congressional Research Service

Title of article linked?...

Congressional Agency Questions Legality of Wiretaps

Anyone notice the difference?...I don't know about you kids, but I find a difference between "violated" and "questions"...Maybe it's just me...

This is nothing new and I point it out every day. Biased thread title from a biased thread maker.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by KCConservative:
This is nothing new and I point it out every day. Biased thread title from a biased thread maker.

That may be true. However, it doesn't take away from the fact that there is a very real possibility that Bush may soon be charged and found guilty a crime.

 

[danarhea]

Once again, the misleading of the forum is a bunch of bullshit that runs downhill...

Thread title?...

Bush Violated National Security Act, According to Congressional Research Service

Title of article linked?...

Congressional Agency Questions Legality of Wiretaps

Anyone notice the difference?...I don't know about you kids, but I find a difference between "violated" and "questions"...Maybe it's just me...

Let's keep going...

According to the actual article, which was obviously linked without full reading...First sentence...

The Bush administration appears to have violated the National Security Act by limiting its briefings about a warrantless domestic eavesdropping program to congressional leaders, according to a memo from Congress's research arm released yesterday.

Anyone see a difference between "violated" and "appears to have violated"?
If they were the same, I'd bet there'd be a helleva lot less trials in this country..."Appears like he did it...he MUST be guilty"...:roll:

Let's continue...from the article...

The Congressional Research Service opinion said that the amended 1947 law requires President Bush to keep all members of the House and Senate intelligence committees "fully and currently informed" of such intelligence activities as the domestic surveillance effort.

OK...sounds written in stone...unless, of course, there are EXCEPTIONS...further down the article...

The only exception in the law applies to covert actions, Cumming found, and those programs must be reported to the "Gang of Eight," which includes House and Senate leaders in addition to heads of the intelligence panels. The administration can also withhold some operational details in rare circumstances, but that does not apply to the existence of entire programs, he wrote.

Howz about that?...exception to their own rule...Let's see if the Admin can jump through that glaring hole now...

Unless the White House contends the program is a covert action, the memo said, "limiting congressional notification of the NSA program to the Gang of Eight . . . would appear to be inconsistent with the law."

Ouch...White House claims "covert action"...1947 law becomes irrelevant...

Now...

Are there any other hoops the Admin must jump through that we aren't told about here?...

I don't know...The author of this thread doesn't provide that information...

See folks, I don't even KNOW if this thread has any relevance...Everything in the article may or may not be true...I just don't know...

But what I DO KNOW is that the title thread is intentionally misleading and is NOT what the actual articles reports...

here are the three sentences on the original post...

The non-partisan Congressional Research Service has determined that President Bush has violated the National Security Act, which was passed in 1947...(Not according to the article...the article very clearly states "appears to have violated")...

This law makes it a crime to withhold from Congress information on some intelligence operations, such as domestic spying. ..(True statement...But does not mention whether or not what the Administration is doing falls under the realm of "some")...

Bush's limits on what information he gave Congress about domestic spying violated the law...(Unless there is admission of conjecture and/or personal opinion, because the article does NOT agree with this statement)...

Debunked again...Now you know why I don't do this with every thread the author starts...There are only so many hours in the day...

But hopefully, the members here will see this and understand what to look for the next time the author decides to mislead again...

Don't worry...It won't be long...

Once again, we have another example of your hair splitting, word parsing, and misrepresentations of the truth, of which you are famous for on this board.

1) You point out the title's article "Congressional Agency Questions Legality of Wiretaps", and tell everyone what the meaning of the title is, according to the author and the Congressional Research Service. The title could be construed to mean anything, and construe you do. However, the meaning is quite plain in the first sentence:

The Bush administration appears to have violated the National Security Act by limiting its briefings about a warrantless domestic eavesdropping program to congressional leaders, according to a memo from Congress's research arm released yesterday.

Here is the second paragraph, which shows the intended meaning even clearer:

The memo from national security specialist Alfred Cumming is the second report this month from CRS to question the legality of aspects of Bush's domestic spying program. A Jan. 6 report concluded that the administration's justifications for the program conflicted with current law.

Of course, you conveniently left that second paragraph out of what you had selectively quoted. That was quite dishonest of you, but quite expected of you too. Do you understand what "conflicted with current law" means? I think you do, but decided to split hairs and mislead around other fine points in the article instead.

2) Now on to this further hair splitting and word parsing. You give many reasons why what Bush is doing COULD be legal , and the magic word here is COULD. However, unlike you and your ilk, the Congressional Research Service is non partisan, and as the non partisan entity it is, it took up all the reasons the White House gave, and said this about those justifications (repeat second paragraph, which you dishonestly left out):

A Jan. 6 report concluded that the administration's justifications for the program conflicted with current law.

Jeez. You know the meaning of the word "is" is argument better than Clinton himself.

The only thing you are debunking here is your own credibility. Now to throw your own words back in your face:

But hopefully, the members here will see this and understand what to look for the next time cnredd decides to mislead by splitting hairs, parsing words, and make misleading statements again...

Don't worry...It won't be long...

 

[KCConservative]

That may be true. However, it doesn't take away from the fact that there is a very real possibility that Bush may soon be charged and found guilty a crime.

Yes, I seem to remember a thread on Impeaching Bush. I think it died about 50 or 60 pages back. Revive it and keep us posted, billo.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by KCConservative:
Yes, I seem to remember a thread on Impeaching Bush. I think it died about 50 or 60 pages back. Revive it and keep us posted, billo.

Have you heard of Resolution 635?

 

[oldreliable67]

HR 635 sponsored by John Conyers, is now in the House Rules Committee. The Rules Committee is made up of 8 Repubs and 4 Dems. Conyers, of course, knew from the first that this resolution was highly likely to die a slow death in the Rules Committee or some other committee. As of today, this bill hasn't made it onto the Committee calendar. Consequently, Conyers sponsorship of this resolution looks more like publicity seeking and posturing than anything else.

 

[cnredd]

Once again, we have another example of your hair splitting, word parsing, and misrepresentations of the truth, of which you are famous for on this board.

1) You point out the title's article "Congressional Agency Questions Legality of Wiretaps", and tell everyone what the meaning of the title is, according to the author and the Congressional Research Service. The title could be construed to mean anything, and construe you do. However, the meaning is quite plain in the first sentence:

This one's pretty funny...

According to you *snort*...the title could be construed to mean anything...I don't think I've seen a dumber statement on this thread....:roll:

Here's how I "construed" it...Questions=Questions..."the phrase "appears to have violated" means there are "questions"...

Here's how YOU construed it by replacing the word in YOUR title of YOUR thread...Questions=Violated...No more questioning...You state it as fact...

You got such a hard-on for GWB that you don't even see how retarded that looks...

Here is the second paragraph, which shows the intended meaning even clearer:

The memo from national security specialist Alfred Cumming is the second report this month from CRS to question the legality of aspects of Bush's domestic spying program. A Jan. 6 report concluded that the administration's justifications for the program conflicted with current law.

Of course, you conveniently left that second paragraph out of what you had selectively quoted. That was quite dishonest of you, but quite expected of you too. Do you understand what "conflicted with current law" means? I think you do, but decided to split hairs and mislead around other fine points in the article instead.

Did you even read what you post or is this "pin the tail on GWB"?

Read the paragraph again...and again...and again, if necessary...

The Jan. 6 report concluded that the administration's JUSTIFICATIONS for the program conflicted with current law...

The report says the conflict is with the way they JUSTIFIED wiretapping...not the wiretapping itself...If you read your own articles every once in awhile, you'll see they're still QUESTIONING that...

All they're saying is that they don't agree with the Administration's reasoning...That leads me to believe if there are other reasons that haven't been relayed to the Congressional Research Service that they WILL agree with, the whole story becomes a non-issue...

Here's a question....What is the justification that the report is using?....Something GWB said at a press conference?....A statement by Atty. Gen Gonzales?...Did an aide or White House Staff member say something?

WE DON'T KNOW...Your handy-dandy article doesn't tell us...

2) Now on to this further hair splitting and word parsing. You give many reasons why what Bush is doing COULD be legal , and the magic word here is COULD. However, unlike you and your ilk, the Congressional Research Service is non partisan, and as the non partisan entity it is, it took up all the reasons the White House gave, and said this about those justifications (repeat second paragraph, which you dishonestly left out):

Now you're sounding like Navy Pride...Anything meant to be objective in the face of bashing MUST mean I'm defending...False statement...

1) The reasons, once again, are not shown...

2) I have no idea who or what Congressional Research Service is, and your opinion of them is irrelevant...As usual, the forum members here only go by what YOU present...Attempting to clear things up after the fact is disingenious at best, cowardice at worst...

The article doesn't mention who they are...until NOW, YOU don't mention who they are...For all the forum members may know, they could be some fringe lunitic club...YOU don't present anyone with info...Just an article and a three sentence GWB bash...just as usual...

Jeez. You know the meaning of the word "is" is argument better than Clinton himself.

Whatever that meant...

The only thing you are debunking here is your own credibility. Now to throw your own words back in your face:

Whatever that meant...

But hopefully, the members here will see this and understand what to look for the next time cnredd decides to mislead by splitting hairs, parsing words, and make misleading statements again...

Don't worry...It won't be long...

New danarhea article..."Bush is Hitler!"

cnredd..."No they're not"...

danarhea..."oh, you're just splitting hairs"...

I guess that's your new catch phrase now when you got nothin' else...

danarhea - "The Colts beat the Steelers' last week"

cnredd - "No...The Colts are done for the year and the Steelers play this week"...

danarhea - "oh, you're just splitting hairs"...

:roll:

 

[danarhea]

This one's pretty funny...

According to you *snort*...the title could be construed to mean anything...I don't think I've seen a dumber statement on this thread....:roll:

Here's how I "construed" it...Questions=Questions..."the phrase "appears to have violated" means there are "questions"...

Here's how YOU construed it by replacing the word in YOUR title of YOUR thread...Questions=Violated...No more questioning...You state it as fact...

You got such a hard-on for GWB that you don't even see how retarded that looks...

[/size]
Did you even read what you post or is this "pin the tail on GWB"?

Read the paragraph again...and again...and again, if necessary...

The Jan. 6 report concluded that the administration's JUSTIFICATIONS for the program conflicted with current law...

The report says the conflict is with the way they JUSTIFIED wiretapping...not the wiretapping itself...If you read your own articles every once in awhile, you'll see they're still QUESTIONING that...

All they're saying is that they don't agree with the Administration's reasoning...That leads me to believe if there are other reasons that haven't been relayed to the Congressional Research Service that they WILL agree with, the whole story becomes a non-issue...

Here's a question....What is the justification that the report is using?....Something GWB said at a press conference?....A statement by Atty. Gen Gonzales?...Did an aide or White House Staff member say something?

WE DON'T KNOW...Your handy-dandy article doesn't tell us...

Now you're sounding like Navy Pride...Anything meant to be objective in the face of bashing MUST mean I'm defending...False statement...

1) The reasons, once again, are not shown...

2) I have no idea who or what Congressional Research Service is, and your opinion of them is irrelevant...As usual, the forum members here only go by what YOU present...Attempting to clear things up after the fact is disingenious at best, cowardice at worst...

The article doesn't mention who they are...until NOW, YOU don't mention who they are...For all the forum members may know, they could be some fringe lunitic club...YOU don't present anyone with info...Just an article and a three sentence GWB bash...just as usual...

Whatever that meant...

Whatever that meant...



New danarhea article..."Bush is Hitler!"

cnredd..."No they're not"...

danarhea..."oh, you're just splitting hairs"...

I guess that's your new catch phrase now when you got nothin' else...

danarhea - "The Colts beat the Steelers' last week"

cnredd - "No...The Colts are done for the year and the Steelers play this week"...

danarhea - "oh, you're just splitting hairs"...

:roll:

Lets see what you are really saying......

I have no idea who or what Congressional Research Service is, and your opinion of them is irrelevant...As usual, the forum members here only go by what YOU present...Attempting to clear things up after the fact is disingenious at best, cowardice at worst...

You best brush up on government then. Here is their website:

http://www.loc.gov/crsinfo/whatscrs.html

What are they? From their website:

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The Congressional Research Service is the public policy research arm of the United States Congress. As a legislative branch agency within the Library of Congress, CRS works exclusively and directly for Members of Congress, their Committees and staff on a confidential, nonpartisan basis.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]History and Mission[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Congress created CRS in order to have its own source of nonpartisan, objective analysis and research on all legislative issues. Indeed, the sole mission of CRS is to serve the United States Congress. CRS has been carrying out this mission since 1914, when it was first established as the Legislative Reference Service. Renamed the Congressional Research Service by the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970, CRS is committed to providing the Congress, throughout the legislative process, comprehensive and reliable analysis, research and information services that are timely, objective, nonpartisan, and confidential, thereby contributing to an informed national legislature.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Kind of shoots down your "danarhea makes it all up" theory, doesnt it? You can read their January 6 report and find the basis for this statement in the article I linked to, which I did not make up:[/FONT]

A Jan. 6 report concluded that the administration's justifications for the program conflicted with current law.

Remember that quote? Its the one you conveniently left out, while telling everyone that I am posting according to "what danarhea thinks". Sorry, but I dont plagarize. I posted a direct link to my source. If you still think the quote is wrong, then please take that up with the Congressional Research Service, you know, that agency that you call irrelevant and admit that you have no clue as to its purpose.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Now you can tell everyone why you think danarhea made it all up. I doubt they will believe you, but go ahead. Like I already said, the only thing you are debunking is your own credibility.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Too bad that the only way you know how to debate is to attack the messenger. Thats OK with me, because it makes beating you in debates child's play.[/FONT]

 

[teacher]

I don't think I've seen a dumber statement on this thread....:roll:

Excluding, I assume, 9/10ths of my posts.

/Mod mode

For purposes of brevity and so as to negate future conflict, whenever I, cnredd, XO of the monkey army :monkeyarm, make such grandiose comments, it is to be implied that I am not taking into account teacher's, of the colossal brain, rants, forever and ever, Amen. Like I have to say that. That guy...

/Mod mode

(If you all don't get it by now...teacher is not, though he implies such, and you better well should infer such, is not a moderator. He also has this most annoying tactic of putting words in other peoples mouths that they in real life did not say, by his most adroit use of the quote buttons. Speaking of which, he did first, and Trajan (6) and galenrox both copied with out due footnotes. Bastards.)

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by oldreliable67:
HR 635 sponsored by John Conyers, is now in the House Rules Committee. The Rules Committee is made up of 8 Repubs and 4 Dems. Conyers, of course, knew from the first that this resolution was highly likely to die a slow death in the Rules Committee or some other committee. As of today, this bill hasn't made it onto the Committee calendar. Consequently, Conyers sponsorship of this resolution looks more like publicity seeking and posturing than anything else.

Thank you for the update.

 

[George_Washington]

(If you all don't get it by now...teacher is not, though he implies such, and you better well should infer such, is not a moderator. He also has this most annoying tactic of putting words in other peoples mouths that they in real life did not say, by his most adroit use of the quote buttons. Speaking of which, he did first, and Trajan (6) and galenrox both copied with out due footnotes. Bastards.)

lmao

Thinking of you as a mod, Teacher, I don't know whether I should laugh or be afraid. But you're a funny guy though, I'll give you that. :mrgreen:

 

[teacher]

lmao

Thinking of you as a mod, Teacher, I don't know whether I should laugh or be afraid. But you're a funny guy though, I'll give you that. :mrgreen:

teacher, lower case, always, even when starting a sentence. So you are like what, the only guy that does not know that by now? So you live in a cave. Not my problem. Tell your wife Wilma I want a sandwich when I'm done. Double meat, hold the lettuce. What? You want some?

If you all have been wondering why I haven't gone off on ol' George (see? I took the time to hold down the shift button while hitting "G"), after all this time about this most sensitive topic, it's because I respect (like many of you, wait, a word I've not yet seen on this site, peons, don't) the founding fathers.

Laugh or be afraid? The mere thought of me as a mod, scares me. If I were a mod, I could go and edit posts so it looks like you wrote it. It has happened. To me. And just me, as far as I can tell. Even though the mod and I both gave you all hints about that post, no one has caught on. I wonder how many of you would view that, as I do, as a challenge, that I am faced with a unfair advantage, and relish the challenge, uphill battle, bring it, or would you just go whining to vague?

 

[cnredd]

Lets see what you are really saying......

I have no idea who or what Congressional Research Service is, and your opinion of them is irrelevant...As usual, the forum members here only go by what YOU present...Attempting to clear things up after the fact is disingenious at best, cowardice at worst...

You colored in the wrong statement...it should be this one...

Attempting to clear things up after the fact is disingenious at best, cowardice at worst

Let's see if you're still going to try to go that route...

You best brush up on government then. Here is their website:

http://www.loc.gov/crsinfo/whatscrs.html

Yup...

Explaining any of this or its relevance now instead of in the original post just points out my above colored comment...Thanks for proving it...:2wave:

Kind of shoots down your "danarhea makes it all up" theory, doesnt it? You can read their January 6 report and find the basis for this statement in the article I linked to, which I did not make up:

Yes I could...But it's funny though...That's NOT the forum member's job...It the job of the thread starter to guide the members...Where is the Jan. 6 report?...Where's the link for it?...It sure as hell isn't in anything you provided...

Any here's a better question....

Why are you so concerned with the one sentence in the article when you could've just brought up another article where that one sentence is the thrust of the argument?

EVERYTHING in the article points to "questions" except one sentence, which is taken from a report the article doesn't delve into...

Then why on earth would you use that as a thread starter?...Why not just show the Jan. 6 report instead of saying, "It's in the report...Now go find it!"?...

As for the contention of you making things up, I've probably said that on another thread, but definitely not here...On this thread, here's what've I've said...

See folks, I don't even KNOW if this thread has any relevance...Everything in the article may or may not be true...I just don't know...

But what I DO KNOW is that the title thread is intentionally misleading and is NOT what the actual articles reports...

here are the three sentences on the original post...

The non-partisan Congressional Research Service has determined that President Bush has violated the National Security Act, which was passed in 1947...(Not according to the article...the article very clearly states "appears to have violated")...

This law makes it a crime to withhold from Congress information on some intelligence operations, such as domestic spying. ..(True statement...But does not mention whether or not what the Administration is doing falls under the realm of "some")...

Bush's limits on what information he gave Congress about domestic spying violated the law...(Unless there is admission of conjecture and/or personal opinion, because the article does NOT agree with this statement)...

Every line in this still stands...:shrug:

Besides, maybe when I said that at the time it was true...It may be different now...Instead of making things up, you spin your own side to it and distort the actual meaning...At least in this thread...

A Jan. 6 report concluded that the administration's justifications for the program conflicted with current law.

Remember that quote? Its the one you conveniently left out, while telling everyone that I am posting according to "what danarhea thinks". Sorry, but I dont plagarize. I posted a direct link to my source. If you still think the quote is wrong, then please take that up with the Congressional Research Service, you know, that agency that you call irrelevant and admit that you have no clue as to its purpose.

I don't "convientiently" leave out anything...in fact, I'm ahead of you on this because at least I show PART of the article for public consumption...You don't show any...If I "convieniently" left out something, you've "convieniently" left out everything...

Here's how you start most of your threads...

"GWB sucks...Here's an article that says so"

go read this

In this case an administrations justifications are conflicted acoording to the CRS...It does NOT say that what they are justifying is conflicted...In fact, according to your own source, there are questions on it...

Have you ever had a conversation where someone asked you a question, you answered, and the guy said "That doesn't sound right"...

So you rephrase what you've said...maybe throw in another thought or two, and then the guy says, "Oh...Now that you put it that way."...

That's what this situation is that you refer to in a report which you do not link to and haven't given any info on...

THE CRS is saying to the GWB Administration, "What's your reasoning for the wiretaps?"...The Admin throws some stuff at them(Whatever that stuff is...you don't give a link or any pertinent info)...and the CRS's response is the same as the guy in the scenario above..."That doesn't sound right"...

No violations there...Just their opinion that they don't agree with their justifications...That's all..

WARNING!...WARNING!...LIE FORTHCOMING!...

BTW - Here is what you've just written in this post...

If you still think the quote is wrong, then please take that up with the Congressional Research Service, you know, that agency that you call irrelevant and admit that you have no clue as to its purpose.

I did NOT call them irrelevant...I called your opinion of them irrelevant...NOT them...Wanna see the actual quote again?

2) I have no idea who or what Congressional Research Service is, and your opinion of them is irrelevant...As usual, the forum members here only go by what YOU present...Attempting to clear things up after the fact is disingenious at best, cowardice at worst...

Congratulations...You're now a liar!...:2wave:

What's your excuse?...Are you "just splitting hairs"?!?!?!?

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Now you can tell everyone why you think danarhea made it all up. I doubt they will believe you, but go ahead. Like I already said, the only thing you are debunking is your own credibility.
[/FONT]

Second time you mentioned this...As stated, probably on another thread in past history...nothing related to it on this one...

Although now you've been caught in a lie, maybe me saying you "make things up" holds more stock now...

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Too bad that the only way you know how to debate is to attack the messenger. Thats OK with me, because it makes beating you in debates child's play.[/FONT]

The only rebuttal worth using is someone's else, who put things in much more blunt terminology that I have...

Yes, the thread title is inaccurate, misleading, and inappropriate IMO. Stick to the facts, there's already enough stupid BS flying around.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=204237&postcount=5

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by cnredd:
Congratulations...You're now a liar!...

Let's take down a notch, guys. Were getting a little to heated!

Bawahahahahahah.........

 

[aps]

danarhea, I would take cnredd's attention to you as a compliment. You have enough of an effect on him for him to go on and on and on and on about how you're a liar.

 

[cnredd]

danarhea, I would take cnredd's attention to you as a compliment. You have enough of an effect on him for him to go on and on and on and on about how you're a liar.

"On and on"?...

I've said it once...with evidence...:shrug:

 

[teacher]

The non-partisan Congressional Research Service has determined that President Bush has violated the National Security Act, which was passed in 1947. This law makes it a crime to withhold from Congress information on some intelligence operations, such as domestic spying. Bush's limits on what information he gave Congress about domestic spying violated the law.

Article is here.

How ya doing danarhea? I'm teacher, of the colossal brain. There's a guy I bribe to let me out of the basement from time to time. He drinks a lot. So here I be.

To start, whenever Billo sides with cnredd, which in this case he did against you, it just don't look good. Wether or not your little quoted Congress, I wish I were partisan, watch dog, think tank, whatever says, well, put it like this, are you really putting your ass on the line by what these guys say? I understand you are giddy as a school girl and all, but, little early, don't you think? Seems like you are one of those premature proclamaters that gloms onto anything that is remotely anti Bush. We have a system in these here United States. It will take it's course. Give it time. It will come out. We've a way swell nation. The best ever on this planet. Checks and balances, bla bla bla...

Now the smack.

Oh look ma, I saw an article that says so, let me post it on the site. Because I found something that agrees with me it must be true. You are a linker, ain't you danarhea? Find something out there that agrees with you and you will post and link it, which, obviously, must be true. The simple fact is that I can go and link a gazillion other sites that says the exact opposite has no merit. You found one. Tell you what genius. Go read the the law for yourself. It is readily available. Don't spout someone else's words. We all can do that. Not what this site is about, IMO. Read the letter of the law sport. Read the minutes of Congress. Figure it out for your damn self. Or is this site to you about winning a debate? The power of your link is? They can enact what?
How about a dose of teacher reality? You bring nothing. You post a link that matters not and then claim it means something. Put shi*t into your own words dude. I can go find a site that says the moon is made of friggin cheese. Don't mean it's true. You want a friggin example? How to analyze shi*t for yourself? Without mother internet to do it for you? Check this. Mine. From the rip. From word go. It's fresh, today. Find fault. THIS IS HOW IT'S DONE SPORT!
http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=204610&postcount=35
Not long after the release of Osama's statement. See what I mean. That's all me. I don't need anyone to tell me what to think. I'm smacking your post. Smack mine. Quote Al Gore. Quote Dean. I quote me.

I don't link. I don't ask for such. Never have, never will. Posting links is a sign of a limited or non existent grasp of the facts. If you can't put it into your own words, then you,

http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=63718&postcount=508

Quote and link all you want. Quote Jack Shi*t, he's your only friend.

I just can't friggin stand you linkers. I got things to do. But I'll put them aside for a short while to beat you down. 3000 posts and this is the first time I publically say this. I know a little about military intelligence and the NSA. I'm honorably discharged. I violate no agreements by saying this. Cat's out of the bag now. Who want's to be schooled in what? NSA stands for No Such Agency d-boy. THEY KNOW EVERYTHING. They know about you, me, and your friggin Uncle. They don't care. Unless your Uncle is going to detonate a nuke in NYC. Paranoid bunch of pukes. The good guys are in charge. What the fuc*k do you know about it?

Put that in your friggin pipe Conflict. Your full of it.

I friggin hate linkers.

 

[alphieb]

Damn, did you wake up on the wrong side of the bed, teacher?

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by alphieb:
Damn, did you wake up on the wrong side of the bed, teacher?

I think he hangs like a bat!

 

[alphieb]

I think he hangs like a bat!

Put that in your friggin pipe Conflict. Your full of it.

I wonder what's in his pipe?