Independent Texas It is depressing and I think that the thinking people in this country are depressed too.
Many people are mad as hell as well.
I attended my husbands class reunion in Vermont this summer and it was great. People from all over the country, republicans and democrates who grew up in Vermont were on the same page. We had some small groups talking about POLITICS, my group of r's and d's were as mad as hell too.
A first for me as the no no of politics at a social gathering was broken. It was so liberating and I gained insight,people are feeling as we do here on our blog.
just saying

More nonsense. It had not occurred to most posters that many American presidents that are now held in reverence or respect have been more than willing to ride roughshod over the Constitution when it suited either personal preferences,or those dictated by the nature of the times. National emergencies were often but not always,utilized as a means to bypass constitutional authority.Reams of examples.

Lincoln: suspension of Habeas Corpus. '' Used as a protection by more rogues than honest men''.Remarks,Apr.26,1861

Jailing legislators and city leaders of border states without trial.

Military occupation and quartering in private residence in states not deemed to be in rebellion.

Subjecting American citizens to military tribunals.

Wilson: Deportation without-trial of suspected ''anarchists''and ''seditionists''to Russia. Violations of Habeas Corpus.


FDR:USSC ''Courtpacking'', illegal wiretapping, illegal executions of POWs without trial,internment of foreign-born citizens and nationals,violations of Habeas Corpus.

Truman: Violations of Habeas Corpus,forced ''loyalty oaths''of federal employees,illegal wiretapping.

Eisenhower: Secret CIA-backed coups including Nicaragua and Iran performed without congressional advise and consent.Insertion of US military ground troops into Indochina without congresional advise and consent[termed as ''advisors'' to get around the Documents requirements].

JFK: Illegal wiretapping of American citizens. Secret CIA-backed coup attempt in Cuba without congressional advise and consent.

Reagan: Illegal arms sales to Iran. Secret CIA-backed coup attempt in Nicaragua without congressional advise and consent. Illegal attempt to transfer presidential power[Sec.of State Al Haig].

Clinton: Illegal entering into treaty without congressional advise and consent. Spying upon American citizens. Possible use of US military against American citizens [to be resolved pending FOIA release of classified documents]. Illegal acquisition of monies from a foreign power for the purposes of determining a national election. Use of federal properties for the purposes of campaign fundraising.

In all of these examples,breaches of the Document were even more dire at the time than they later seemed. Some are still being utilized.[Clintons CARNIVORE cyberspying system,for instance,is still functioning].Yet in each of these cases,where the nation was deemed to be ''destroyed'' or ''lost'',it continues to function in its always-since-its-founding,imperfect way. Bush will merely join every single American president in trying to circumvent the Document by justifying it in the name of ''national security''.It will be found that some areas will find comportment[ such as this FISA deal with DOES have full congressional advise and consent as the Document requires].And others which do not.[HAMDAN for instance]. People are being unrealistic,however,in believing that once the presidency is achieved by one of their own,that the Constitution will be left inviolate. That we will 'return' to a place where we never were anyway.  

Jerry Kelly, Florida (Sent Monday, August 06, 2007 3:08 PM)

Thank you so much for your help in dealing with our national problems.

Ken Mesle & Independent -- I'll see you in September on the mall.

Thank you for your kind words Jerry Kelly -- NOT! Will you be able to look back on your life and say that the world is better place because you lived?  Would you be proud to show your children what you have written? Keep chuckling laughing boy from the sidelines of life.

H P Boston - thank you for the idea! I couldn't go to DC but at least I could pay for someone else to go and if enough people nationwide participated in the boycott, maybe we could make our elected representatives pay attention.

Ken Mesle & Independent & nuanced & Eileen & HP $ Desmond & Mark and all of you. My wife and I will go to Washington on Sept. 15 for a good cause and I will visit other blogs and do my part to spread the infection. Even if it is not a General strike, like Eileen says, if we just stop consuming for a day and the media is watching then the effect will be felt. Eileen, You guys will be on the road but your welcome to park the bike at the house and hop on the plane for DC with us. Just crack that cookie jar open or spend the rent money or whatever. :)
Seriously, it would be a great to meet any of you who are going to be there. We could embarrass Chuck and Mark and MSNBC and piss off Lee, Dave TN, Jerry and whoever by carrying a First Read for Impeachment banner.  HE HE HE, I feel better already.
Carry on.

"Sign sign everywhere a sign, Blocking out the scenery breaking my mind, Do this don't do that, Can't You read the signs"-"Signs"-Five Man Electrical Band

Lee Holmes (Sent Monday, August 06, 2007 3:52 PM)

I agree with almost everything you say. (In some of the instances you cite, we were in a declared state of war.)

However, do past violations make present violations acceptable?

Also, this particular president has the univeral executive thing going on. I'm sorry but I disagree with your seeming assertion that this is much ado about nothing.

I was actually proud of our nation during the Watergate mess because we saw what was wrong (because of an on-the-job-press which we no longer have) and we dealt with it.

I believe that the current administration is headed by a delusional man with absolutely no handle on reality. That alone makes me more concerned than events which have taken place in the past.

To be really straightforward, if I thought that this was politics or greed (redundant?) as usual, I wouldn't be as concerned. I don't believe it is "as usual". I believe that Mr. Bush is dangerously delusional and is being enabled by those more interested in greed than in curbing his conduct. I've posted references before that have led me to this conclusion. If you like, I'll post them again.

Thank you for your post. Very enlightening.

Back to Business. Jerry Kelly, Florida -- Embarrassed? No. Obsessed with Clinton? HA! That's you guys. We have a different point of view than you that comes from a different set of life experiences.  This is supposed to be a strength of this country but it is YOU folks who declared it a weakness to be stomped out by a permanent republican majority. Not on my watch.

"I don't get into politics."  You're an excellent example of an American. The correct one, not the touted one.

All,

Lookin' forward to a meetin' (smile).

Seriously, I'm trying my best to get there. We'll have to make certain that we know how to connect. Lots of folks from News Hole are planning to attend as well. Might just as well have a MSNBC gathering place.

Gary Schear -- I can't take credit for another person's idea. H P Boston had the idea about a nationwide boycott. As for going with you, we'll be on a plane back to Florida on the 15th. My husband has to be back on duty on the 16th. I wish I could go with you! Maybe I can do a poster for you or a banner, or something. Let me know so I can bring it with me on the trip.

The National WWII memorial might be a good rendevous spot. Less crowded than other monument spots with good line of sight across it and it is near the White House. Pick an entrance arch or a state pillar. Only problem is there is no shade except under the arches. In any case there is a terrific DC tourist map at the website you can download.

http://www.nps.gov/wwii/planyourvisit/maps.htm

Nuanced, Gary, Independent, Desmond, etc.
The WWII Memorial sounds like a great spot to meet.  I'll be there at around 10:30 am with my 78 year-old father, 26 year-old son and a buddy from work.

This is embarassing. I lived in DC for over 10 years ending in the late 80's. I have NO idea what the WWII Memorial is. Was it put up since I left or am I suffering from a really poor memory (always a possibility)?

BTW- I have set up for the use of bloggers a temp email id available for only 4 more days. I use a breakdown computer to access this id to try to prevent malicious use. Once a blogger sends me an email, I "test" back on the blog with a question to allow proof that the "real" blogger was the one to make contact with me. Once proven, I send my real email id to that person. We've have no problems with this approach so far so feel free to use it if you wish. independent@281.com

Independent, the WWII memorial is just a few years new. It abuts the SW end of the reflecting pool.

boy was I confused. I looked at the map. The WWII memorial is at the end of the reflecting pool directly opposite the Lincoln Memorial. That would be the east end?

Independent, yep that memorial be new.Go to the left of the Lincoln Memorial and walk.

Independent, Texas - I wrote down your email site and I'll be in touch. I enjoy your posts as I learn alot from you. In fact, I'm on this blog site because of you and many others (too many to name)! I wish I could meet all of you. Sorry, I have to draw the line on Jerry/Corpus Christi. Look, I see that you, Desmond, Nuanced, Gary Schear, and Ken Mesle are planning to meet. Would ya'll like a banner that reads, "MSNBC FIRST READ BLOGGERS"? It could serve as an ID site for ya'll. A banner is easy to fold up and won't take much room in a motorcycle bag.  My husband and I are supposed to meet Gary Schear in Bozeman on 12 Sept. Just let me know. POWER TO THE PEOPLE!

Independent, sorry, was talking about the Korean Memorial. nuanced, if you are before the reflecting pool and facing the Lincoln Memorial,you will see the WW11 memorial. Right guys?

Independant:I am not quite as convinced. You will bear in mind that Clintons National Security Act which unleashed CARNIVORE and ECHELON was comprised at a time when not only our nation was not at war,but was inwardly directed at American citizens deliberately as a consequence of the Oklahoma City bombing and later,the Columbine killings [when federal eavesdroppers cybermined wordage used in e-mails to detect patterns of impending violence].Nevertheless,these were directed at Americans solely,rather than outside-the-US/routed through the US/and exiting the US communications.
               It is important to acknowlage here that not in one directive by Americans intelligence branches during the 1990s was al Qaeda or HEZBOLLAH seen as a main threat within the US despite the fact that both groups bore responsibility for several attacks against US interests, and within the US, by this time.[1990s]. The presence of al Qaeda members openly working and living in New York was seen as an anomaly,erased by the later debacles of Waco and OK City,when the effort to determine terrorist influences turned towards disaffected paramilitary and right winged groups inside the US. As it became,a terrible blunder for the nations domestic intel services,who could not see that it was actually the Branch Davidians and the McVeighs who were the anomalies. Not al Qaeda and HEZBOLLAH.
               Thus it becomes that the nations newest NIE observes foreign terrorist activity within the US. And that their communication apparatuses are effective enough to warrant electronic scrutinization.
                  The Dems got on board the revised FISA statutes not out of ''fear''of the president,but because they readily see that if such communications between outside and inside sleeper groups are successful,leading to an even more deadly attack in the future,they will pay a grave political price as in such an environment,the libertarians and Left will be shoved aside in order to forment a response that would be reactive,rather than proactive,to jihadist machinations.Thus,this deal would end up going down regardless. If not now,then under a future president. It still remains that Bush took the neccesary constitutional steps to garner the ''advise and consent''of Congress on this legislation.

Lee Holmes (Sent Tuesday, August 07, 2007 3:23 PM)

Very well stated post. I want to take the opportunity to say that I always enjoy reading you. You are one of the few who reflect this side of discussions and back it up with relevant information rather than (remember this?) ad hominem attacks. (smile.)

As I said in an earlier post, I would dearly love to be proved wrong in my opinions of this matter. I have never before been afraid of my government. (I lived through the 60s along with the attendant Kent State generated fears but never shared them.) However, I do admit to a generalized aura of anxiety because, as I have also previously stated, I believe that Mr. Bush is delusional and his enablers are using that for if not nefarious purposes then surely for purposes not in our nation's best interest. After all - he LIED about Iraq. Cheney is still LIEING about Iraq. I don't trust anyone who is willing to have over 3500 people die for a lie.

Thank you for your response. I will read it again and, perhaps, respond with more detail of agreement or dissent later. Why later you ask?

There are maybe, possibly, 1 or 2 people stupider than I but I doubt it. Without wearing long pants, long sleeves, and face protection, I just rescued a cat from my three Labs. The cat is fine. I'm shredded and covered in bandages and bandaids and bleeding from almost every pore. One of the dogs has a cut nose and the other 2 are cowering in the yard. Sigh.

Desmond, I think you will be standing in the memorial.

Independent, you are a brave person. Hope you heal fast.

nuanced, you may be right!

Eileen, Navarre, FL (Sent Tuesday, August 07, 2007 2:55 PM)

Thanks Eileen, I'd like to meet you as well.

I have to tell you though that I'd LOVE to meet Jerry, Corpus. I think he is a hoot! I'd also like to meet some of the more deeply conservative but well spoken members of this blog. You don't find that often and those guys deserve some respect. Having counterpoints helps me clarify my thinking.

Still trying to get to DC on the 15th!

Lee Holmes (Sent Tuesday, August 07, 2007 3:23 PM)
As promised, here is my real response to your excellent post. (Caution - it is a long one!)

Your post is very well worded and, frankly, has made me wonder if I have been too harsh. I can refute some of the specifics, but I wonder if the overall general thrust might have a kernel of reality.

My own opinion is that past wrongs do not excuse current wrongs and I have never defended Clinton re this. However, if this explains some of the apparent spinelessness of the Dems (even if I think they are wrong), that helps me respect the results a little more.

I am also very pragmatic. I can understand the approach of winning a little now to avoid losing a lot at a later time. However, at some point, we are going to have to stop saying things along the line of "But (put name here) did it too!" and "this is the way we've always done things."

I do believe that Bush used the advise and consent process but I do not believe that he worked with the spirit of that process. I believe he bullied for what he wanted without considering if the resistance from Congress had merit. My previous response to your post explained what I think about Bush.

Your post made me think so much about this that I asked several friends to respond. Tell me what you think of these points they made?

Thanks again for a thought-provoking post.
Independent, Texas


1)"I do think Congress had no choice in this matter. We aren't privy to what the Administration is picking up and what their sources may be telling them as far as what may be in the works with the terrorists."


2)"Everything in that post may be perfectly true, however, these are also truths:
2a)al Quaeda stopped using electronic communication during the Clinton years because they just plain assumed that we were listening in. Anything important is done face to face. So who are "We" listening to?  Only the stupid terrorists would get caught using electronic communications and they would have been caught by law enforcement and/or citizens watch groups any way.
 
2b)There is no excuse for all the secrecy -- even from the FISA court.  The failure to get even a retroactive warrant just reminds me of the paranoia of the Nixon years, and he WAS a crook.  What are they hiding?  What kinds of dossiers are they preparing against their 'enemies', ie the Democrats?  The truth is rarely as bad as a conspiracy theorist's imagination.
 
2c)Whenever you throw Karl Rove into to mix, add the Attorney firing scandal, the Karl Rove plant in Arkansas, voter caging etc etc etc . . . I don't know, something just smells rotten."

3)"I can agree with this response only to a point just based upon what I've learned listening to NPR and watching some of the segments on TV. I have heard more than an few Democratic members of Congress try to justify their votes by saying they didn't want to get blamed for another attack if one happened over the next month, and they didn't pass the bill when they had the chance.

However, I believe a good chunk of this mentality comes from being bullied by a dishonest administration that will stop at NOTHING to bolster their own credibility. After 6+ years of Republican domination in Congress, Democrats need to learn to "buck it up a bit" and "spend the political capital" that the voters gave them in November 2006 and not be afraid of "looking soft on terror." The reason why Congressional approval ratings are almost as low as GW's, I think, is because Congress is not doing the people's will."

4)"If this person's opinion on why the Dems went along with this is correct, I think it is shameful.  You cannot sacrifice the values and principles upon which this country was built to hedge your political bets.  When the terrorists attack on U.S. soil again (and they will), there will be the usual finger-pointing.  That doesn't mean that circumventing the FISA courts (whether it is now legal or not to do so) would have prevented it.  It's speculation, at best."

Independant: One of the most confusing portions of the inability to look into the past is that is largely seen through rose-tinted glasses. These should be dispensed with immediately,and history, taken in its actuality with especial regard to how the president dealt with domestic and foreign crises. These ''values and principles''upon which the nation was founded are a utopian vision, which demands that these crises not be allowed to fetter the American body politic or its citizenry. In the real world, however,these threats and crises are all around us, and demand elacticity in dealing with them where the executive branch is concerned. Indeed,the promise of such ''values'',as envisioned by the Founders were broken almost immediately by the nations first president.
           The 1700s version of FISA, primitive though it was, was the demand by Adams that the nation be protected from the machinations of an overreaching executive, in this case Washington,[and in his case,the Shays Rebellion],from being allowed to act in a manner that would present the nation with a dictatorial regime.
            Washington scoffed at this,stating plainly and correctly that he was putting down a  emergency that affected the viability of the budding Republic and that once the emergency had receded, no threat to the three branches of government or democratic participation by the citizens would be extant.
           So it became. Through the length of American history, presidents have seen fit to act in a manner that brought forth not dictatorship, but security to the nations citizens at a time of war or national emergency. It would be left to the courts to determine the justice of these acts usually long after the crisis had passed. [Take the internment of Japanese-Americans in the time of FDR. It took until the 1980s to settle KOREMATSU once and for all,and it was as late as 2002 to address those European-Americans interned under FDRs emergency orders].
           In this ''good cop/bad cop''atmosphere,the Executive,with its most grave extant responsibilites would play the bad role while the courts would establish a later justice for supplicants in the good role, but only after the passage of the emergency.
                 The Founders, however,did not live to see the rise of a vast security apparatus which could be used as instrument not simply for good, but to actually damage the health of the Republic, utilized in a growing disservice in  post -WWII America by a succession of presidents concerned with conventional and asymetric terrorist or percieved anti-American activity.
             From communism and the Cold War it would move into spying upon ordinary Americans seen as a countercultural threat to the nation. No-one was safe. From MLK to John Lennon, massive dossiers were complied on tens of thousands,perhaps hundreds of thousands of Americans. J.E.Hoovers FBI ,the most powerful in the history of the nation, moved in tandem with presidential demands leading to such outrages as CONTELPRO,the CIAS PHOENIX Project in Vietnam, Watergate,and CIA-backed coups.
            Enough was enough. The nation had to be protected from the overreach of the Executive and its use of the nations intelligence services. In the spirit of this, the Democrat-led Congress convened the Church[Frank Church-D Id] Committee to hold the nations intelligence services to account. Under Carter and his CIA chief Adm.Turner,the FISA Court was established.
             Yet if Truman to Nixon went too far in one direction, as usual with the swing of the pendulum, the Democrats went too far in the other. Church,Kennedy,O'Neill and their associates effectively destroyed the modern CIA and FBI. Hundreds of veteran agents resigned in disgust. Worse, at a time when the CIA finally had an effective Near East office[Arab states],and at a time when their power was just beginning to be felt, it was gutted, leaving a near total vaccum in intelligence. Carters reward was to be totally blindsided by the Iranian revolution. The seeds for 9/11 were laid here.
               Reagan would clumsily use the CIA, as did Bush I and Clinton with the FBI.[Asst.AG Jamie Gorelicks ''Wall''was real. It ''walled off''tandem communication between the nations federal law enforcement agencies to such a wretched degree that the right hand knew not what the left was doing,leaving al Qaeda to run with the ball up the middle]. All were in fear of FISA. This had to stop.
              It would not be a ''Karl Rove''or an ''Alberto Gonzales''or a ''John Ashcroft''that would force new changes to FISA,but the nature of the new technological age itself. If ''homeland security''had to adapt,so did the by-now antiquated FISA,which did not see the technological age maturing to its present point. Now,international celluar services route calls by the billions through the United States,and yes, nascent terrorists do continue to utilize both e-mails [where the latest intelligence observes codewords used on jihadist websites which you yourself can access,although one must be an expert in the Arabic languages to discern what is being said, that can be sent to American cells],as well as cellular usage.
               We recall the rage felt by President Clinton when TIME and the New York Times spilled the beans on the interceptive capabilities by the CIA on the jihadists cell-phone messages. Although not a nominally a Clinton partisan, even I was angered at the patent stupidity and cupidity of the nations first press sources of note,which would hand the jihadis a signal communications victory,as even they know how to read. Even so,such communications continue to be observed by the nations intelligence services,including those in Europe[including England and Spain,both earlier victims], that just barely staved off one major attack before being struck by a hastily contrived plot that thankfully killed no-one but the jihadis,by the use of these phonetaps and e-mails interceptions.
              In light of these events and the NIEs warning that jihadist cells were actively ''operating within the United States'',Bush demanded something with teeth in it that would not require the span of even precious minutes to stand in the way. The FISA compromise has been solidly backed by Democrats as well as Republicans even those now distancing themselves from the war in Iraq. It is a compromise that ensures that civil liberties be protected in a manner consistant with the demands placed upon the nation by the threat of the new asymentrical warfare where perhaps even tens of thousands of Americans,even more,can most assuredly die.
          Fearmongers recall the Hoover/Nixonian period. And play upon these fears. This is nonsense which even the most cursory examination of the bill will resolve. The 1978 FISA bill dealt with international communications captured abroad. As we have seen,it never foresaw either the rise of the Internet nor cellphone usage which as we have seen,[VERIZON and ATT to use only two examples],routes billions of calls through the US from foreign sources. The FISA compromise vests itself into allowing ''takes''[or eavesdropping] upon calls without a warrant AS LONG[and I stress this],as the targets are those overseas and not American citizens living within this country calling out,or calling internally. The revisement ''captures''the call being made from Islamabad to Chicago[after being routed through a third party in London],''takes''the information,and discerns patterns that exactly match those used by the 9/11 hijackers.[i.e.calls that always follow the same route. Or if varied,vary only minutely from one city to another.[i.e.Atta moving from Hamburg to place calls from Munich].In such a way, the hijackers of 9/11 were able to communicate with effortless ease while totally confounding the nations intelligence services. Clinton saw this for the wrong reasons. After 9/11, Bush and Congress see it for the right ones. We must dispense with paranoia based upon partisan impulse if we do not wish to stand at the graves of another 3000 or more innocent Americans. As I have heretofore observed,the days of innocence and ''values''were never that innocent nor shall we ever return to them again. To defray abuse,''check and balance'',''advise and consent'' will be utilized as a means to most assist the citizens of this nation.  
                   

Lee Holmes, aren't you the poster who said there are Shiite terrorists cells ready to strike now in the U.S.? Who's spreading that fear? Ah, a supporter of the bush administration.

Desmond: In fact,it was adressed by members of the bi-partisan Iraq Study Group,the bi-partisan 9/11 Commission, and the NIE. It is no secret that Shiite HEZBOLLAH factions have been operating in the US for some time now, with large enclaves in Michigan and California. STRATFOR [counterterrorism intelligence studies],observes that how the US deals with Iran,Syria and Lebanon vis-a-vis Israel,will determine the switching-on of these domestic HEZBOLLAH cells in this country. That they bear watching reaches an obvious conclusion.

After 8 years of the biggest bafoon, the biggest liar & the biggest crook that ever held the office, I find it hard to beleive that you could call anyone a crook.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):