Hillary on the NIE

John B, Des Moines, IA — Thu, 31 May 2007 18:20:50 GMT

Might we ask those questions of the entire Congress?

Hillary on the NIE

Paul Miller, Woodbridge, VA — Thu, 31 May 2007 18:36:32 GMT

John B, we should ask those questions of the entire Congress. And we'd probably get similarly insufficient answers from most of them. But most aren't running for president. Mark Murray is right. Clinton said this was the hardest decision she'd ever made... so during her deliberations on this question why didn't she sign out the document and read it? The answer I'm guessing we all suspect, assuming we could ever know the truth, is that her decision - while perhaps truly difficult - had nothing to do with the facts on the Iraqi ground and everything to do with her ability to be elected in future campaigns here. Next question - if that's so, does it make her any worse than the others? Maybe not. But then she has high negatives going into this campaign, and at least some of that relates to a perception that she can't be trusted. Its always a bad move to play into your own negative perceptions.

Hillary on the NIE

clikdawg, Centerville, U.S.A. — Thu, 31 May 2007 18:52:16 GMT

More RepubliSpeak: Tacking the words "I believe" onto any statement, no matter how dubious, is supposed to end the discussion, since we were all raised to believe(!) that you can't question a person's personal beliefs. So Bush "believes" the surge will work; Clinton "believes" she had all the information she needed -- end of story! Except that when personal beliefs affect public policy, those personal beliefs are most definitely open to the most intense questioning we can dish out. Lots of guys believe very strongly that they weren't thrown out at second base on an ill-advised steal attempt, and will maintain until their dying day that they beat the throw. But their opinion is of no importance whatever, since it will quite obviously be somewhat biased. That's why umpires were invented. Sending men and women to their deaths without reading every letter on every relevant scrap of paper is both breathtakingly lazy and criminally irresponsible, traits which we have learned to take for granted with Bush but which are, to this umpire, instant disqualifiers for the once-revered office of President of the United States.

Hillary on the NIE

Al, KS — Thu, 31 May 2007 18:56:58 GMT

I hope that we will have the option to vote for a candidate that did not vote to authorize the war...or at the very least now admits that it was a mistake to vote for it. Hillary, F. Thompson, Edwards, McCain all showed terrible judgement in approving the war resolution and I will find it hard to support them. And this "was briefed" excuse just dosen't fly....Bush and Chenney were briefed as well and look where that got us. These people were elected to know what was going on...not just be briefed. What a crock.

Hillary on the NIE

Scott in South Texas — Thu, 31 May 2007 19:21:04 GMT

Like you, Paul, I am already sick to death of this campaign. I am also frustrated with the ever-increasing reality that all of our want-to-be-elected, or want-to-be-re-elected, senators, representatives, you name it, structure their votes around personal or partisan benefit rather than what's good for their constiituents or the nation as a whole. Whereas it used to be "this bill will be good for the nation", it is now "this bill will be good for the party". Of course, this applies to all of them in both parties, but it wears me out that 100 soldiers and marines are dying every month, while those people in Washington appear to be only interested in political maneuvering. Seems like as soon as they're sworn in they start working on their next election.

Hillary on the NIE

Connie, Tn. — Thu, 31 May 2007 20:39:58 GMT

This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. Nobody read the Patriot Act before it was voted on either.

Hillary on the NIE

Scott in South Texas — Thu, 31 May 2007 21:45:47 GMT

You are right of course, Connie. bush and them got it figured out when it comes to naming legislation. Everyone might have read it first if it had been named the Gut The Constitution And Make The President A Dictator Act.

Hillary on the NIE

Denny, Chugiak, Alaska — Fri, 01 Jun 2007 05:06:05 GMT

Sure, she was "briefed" on it. Did she follow up with questions? Ask for clarifying details? Wonder what it all meant? Paul Miller, Woodbridge, VA, has it right: her vote to commit the U.S. to war had everything to do with being elected and re-elected, and absolutely nothing to do with what was right for this country. A cold, calculating, thirsting for power politician: nothing else. Presidential material? Hardly.

Hillary on the NIE

jerry/corpus christi texas — Fri, 01 Jun 2007 05:22:55 GMT

well Scott, wrong again as usual! Liberals want the president to keep the country safe from having another 9-11, but not at the expense of their freedoms. Of course, I cannot think of one freedom that has been takne away from me in the last 6 years. I don't see checkpoints every five miles and I don't hear a click on the telephone, and I don't see a bunch of people watching my house to see what I am typing in this blog. So I know that all the liberals complaining about the patroit act is pretty much a bunch of nothing. I can see that the constitution has not been tore up. Scott, please give me one example where the bill of rights have been changed here lately please. I cannot see where it has been changed in the last 200 or so years. Frankly, I am as free as ever and I thank god we have a president like President Bush and not limp wristed fellow like Jimmy carter or Bill Clinton. Can anyone educate me on what liberties I may have lost?

Hillary on the NIE

Florida Fox — Fri, 01 Jun 2007 13:11:17 GMT

Well Jerry, supposedly we lost habeas corpus because we are detaining killers in Guantanamo so they can't get back in the killing mode. They were caught out of their home country not killing for a country but a twisted religion so we can't use Geneva. Most of their countries of orgin don't want them back and they are probably eating better than they have in their whole life. Go figure!! I will never understand how anyone can feel badly for them and they deserve to rot where they are.

Hillary on the NIE

Paul Miller, Woodbridge, VA — Fri, 01 Jun 2007 13:18:19 GMT

Jerry - a lot of it is a slippery slope argument. If the country doesn't staunchly defend all these rights, as listed in the Bill of Rights, then it could be on a path toward not defending any of them. Once we start rationalizing lost liberties, it gets easy to rationalize away any of them. What liberties have we lost? If you aren't suspected of terrorism (or drugs), not many. But you won't know if you are the target of a warrantless phone tap. We do have people incarcerated who have no opportunity to face their accusers in a court of law. We can't drive to Canada and back without a passport. We're also headed toward a national ID card, losing the liberty to keep some degree of anonymity. (Remember the point of the Constitution was to explain what the government could do, and references the fact that the document doesn't capture every individual right... it only attempted to capture an exhaustive list of governmental authorities.) And as far as states' rights go, the 10th amendment has been ignored for years, in effect causing us to lose some degree of the home rule that earlier generations of Americans had.

Hillary on the NIE

Independent, Texas — Fri, 01 Jun 2007 13:33:52 GMT

Florida Fox: My staunchly anti-torture and pro-habeus corpus position has nothing to do with "supporting" those held in Gitmo. It has everything to do with who we are and what our country stands for. Disregarding your gratutious remarks such re "eating better" and addressing the point directly - how we treat our supposed enemies (remember - these people have only been accused, not convicted) is a leading indicator of how we will treat our citizens when they demonstrate dissent.

Hillary on the NIE

Scott in South Texas — Fri, 01 Jun 2007 13:50:13 GMT

Well, jerry, to add to what Florida Fox and Paul have tried to explain to you (most likely in vain), the Constitution is comprised of much more than the Bill of Rights. bush and them are dismantling the separation of powers and system of checks and balances, as well as ignoring treaties which are declared the law of the land by the Constitution. Basically, bush is governing by decree. While I'm not surprised that you jumped on something I offered, I am surprised that you ventured outside of your usual areas of interest such as belittling women, homosexuals, haircuts, people from other states or countries, and ethnic culinary tastes. I guess Rush and Sean don't talk much about the Constitution, that would require reason and rational thinking.

Hillary on the NIE

Independent, Texas — Fri, 01 Jun 2007 14:33:01 GMT

Jerry/corpus: Jerry - very well stated questions. See if this provides the answers.I'll address each point separately. "Liberals want the president to keep the country safe from having another 9-11, but not at the expense of their freedoms." The last election proved that "liberals" are not the only people concerned about whether or not this administration is, in fact, keeping the country safe from another 9/11. Since the most expensive and draining of our security forces is occuring in Iraq which had nothing to do with 9/11, I think we have a point. Second: The expense of our freedoms is the only expense I'm not willing to bear. The two are not mutually exclusive in any event and, if they truly were, the government should have formally declared war and put us under wartime restrictions. They didn't which means that they didn't think it was necessary either. "Of course, I cannot think of one freedom that has been takne away from me in the last 6 years. I don't see checkpoints every five miles and I don't hear a click on the telephone, and I don't see a bunch of people watching my house to see what I am typing in this blog. So I know that all the liberals complaining about the patroit act is pretty much a bunch of nothing. I can see that the constitution has not been tore up. Scott, please give me one example where the bill of rights have been changed here lately please. I cannot see where it has been changed in the last 200 or so years. Frankly, I am as free as ever and I thank god we have a president like President Bush and not limp wristed fellow like Jimmy carter or Bill Clinton. Can anyone educate me on what liberties I may have lost?" Re checkpoints: tried to fly lately? Have you tried to update your passport? Have you been pulled off a flight because of innocuous statements? Keep in mind that the people at gitmo have not yet been tried. What if you were there? Would you, in that case, feel that your rights have been abused? I am not saying that such security measures are not necessary due to the situation in the world but the patriot act which removes oversight wasn't necessary to have these measure. It, in fact, leaves law-abiding citizens such as yourself at the mercy of those who can restrain you just because they can. You can't hear your phone click because that technology is obsolete. You wouldn't be able to tell. The records of the calls you make are available w/o public warrents to any federal investigative agency. The media, until the last election, was VERY quiet on the abuses of power by this administration and is, IMHO, still very much too careful (or lazy) to investigate. The decisions about what cases the Justice Department will investigate appears to be driven exclusively by political criteria. The decision to send our forces into harm's way is driven by political criteria in the face of intelligence data and the administration has lied and continues to lie about that which violates the oath of office each of them took. etc. etc. etc. You have had your rights abused you just have not (yet) had to overtly suffer for them. If this situation is not rectified, you will see that suffering. In point re the Bill of Rights: Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. (re press, I've already commented. Re: religion - when hiring to staff government offices is predicated on religious background we are periously close to violating this. freedom of speech - see notes about phone monitoring; see reports of video tapes of demonstrations for the sole purpose of tracking participants, etc.) re peaceable assemblies - see reports of denials of permits in late 2005 to those who wanted to protest the Iraq war. re petition of goverment - see latest Supreme Court decision re discriminatory pay. Amendment II A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. (See reports of governors complaining about the use of National Guard forces in Irag - not really the same thing but close. Re the right to bear arms? I was (before Bush) an ardent gun control advocate. However in light of the "dictator directive" I want to go get me an UZI! Amendment III No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. (Well - I guess this one hasn't yet been contravened.) Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. (See notes about non-public warrants) Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. (Can you say "Gitmo"?) Amendment VI In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. (Can you say Gitmo?) Amendment VII In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. (Can you say "secret tribunals"? Can you say, since there was a "compromise" last year, "restricted judgement access"? Amendment VIII Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. (Haven't seen this one affected as stated. In fact, it seems the opposite is occuring. WH officials release the name of a CIA covert agent and are not punished at all.) Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. (In other words, just because a specific right isn't specified, doesn't mean that the government can just take it away. Case in point: Doesn't say in the Bill of Rights that we shall have the right to marry whom we want but we can. The government doesn't recognize any other than hetero unions. (Before you go postal on me, I don't either but that isn't specified in the constitution.) Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. (This means - if the Constitution doesn't specifically say that a power belongs to the feds, it doesn't. In other words, keep out of my local concerns. If I don't want a highway built through my property, dammit, then that Interstate should come through here when all my local goverment agrees.) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hillary on the NIE

Independent, Texas — Fri, 01 Jun 2007 14:55:13 GMT

Jerry - further clarification: re my "gitmo" statements. They apply because we have not "declared war". Therefore, our justice system applies to all persons accused of anything and the "actual service of war" wouldn't apply if not for the Patriot Act and other "directives" written by this administration.

Hillary on the NIE

jerry/corpus christi texas — Fri, 01 Jun 2007 16:04:27 GMT

Boy Independent, took a lot of strength in those fingers to write that. However, a few flaws in your statement. Since these folks at gitmo are not american citizens, they should have no abilty to access our courts. Since they do not belong to an offical army, they should not be held to the geneva convention. I thought it was a mistake to put them there myself, should have left them in Iraq or Afghanistan and let the people there work them over, bet their way of getting information out of these folks is a lot better then ours. I think that we have already been thru this phone monitoring thing. So far, this is no proof that a american not connected to terrorism has had his or her phones monitored and I'm sure someone would be strung up if that happened, the courts have made that clear. And as far as your arguements about passports and ID's and airport checks, wouldn't you agree that those folks on the three planes on 9-11, knowing that their gooses were cooked, probably thought to themselves"why didn't anybody set up a search line and check some people out?". If a national ID card is needed, so be it. I'll trade that feature of the constitution for peace of mind when I or my family flies. The terrorists took advantage of our freedoms and killed our people, If waiting in line for a few minutes to have my bags checked or questioned by a federal agent will keep some bad people from flying with me, I don't mind at all. Remember, the ACLU just loves going to the supreme court over each and every issue that deals with the public's safety, so I let the supreme court be the final word. And Scott, belittling people isn't my thing. Just like everyone on here, everyone has an opinion. Mine is just a little more on the mark and that is only because I am a republican. I just read thses things and think to myself "what kind of *&^%$%^* is this person spewing????" and I offer my own thoughts, no matter how tough they are. People who accuse the gas companies of making too much money or people who think others make too much money are ripe for the picking, as well as 9-11 people who smoked too much pot. And I'm sure as the political debate grows, so will my opinions of people will grow too.

Hillary on the NIE

Paul Miller, Woodbridge, VA — Fri, 01 Jun 2007 16:46:12 GMT

Jerry, how much are you willing to give up for safety? You say you'll gladly wait in line a little longer at airports... where's your limit? Like the song implies, if you want to live in the land of the free, you have to make your home among the brave. What was that line from Ben Franklin again? Oh yeah - "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Of course Franklin didn't foresee a future when we'd become such incessant meddlers in the affairs of the Middle East.

Hillary on the NIE

CJ — Fri, 01 Jun 2007 17:05:06 GMT

What else should be expected from someone who places political affiliation over common sense, don't waste your time with Jerry.

Hillary on the NIE

Independent, Texas — Fri, 01 Jun 2007 19:20:12 GMT

Jerry - good response. Let me clarify something that I may have not stated clearly enough. Those persons held at Gitmo are being held by the USA. Since we have not "declared war", any person held by the USA in any capacity is subject to due process. This is not limited to citizens. However, I do believe in the early days there were USA citizens there but will have to check my references to ensure my memory is accurate. Next - I specifically said that air travel safety precautions were necessary but that under the Patriot Act (which wasn't required to put these precautions in place), there is no oversight. Hence the risk of abuse of those powers in the current security process. Yes - there is "proof" of phone records being abused - used as indicators of guilt (later proven incorrect) rather than as possible guilt of a charge being filed which is what a public authorized warrant ensures. These records are being processded by data base mining tools for pointer purposes rather than for evidence gathering. If not limited to racial profiling, they, at least, spread a very wide net for the tools. I'll go get the details if you like, I don't have them at the tips of my "strong fingers" (smile). I know that my post was very long but you didn't address any of the Bill of Rights detail which I thought was the primary question you had asked in your original post. Thanks for responding.

Hillary on the NIE

Independent, Texas — Fri, 01 Jun 2007 20:03:05 GMT

CJ - Jerry in Corpus frequently does throw out garbage to get people riled up. You can always tell when he is, er, feeling his wheaties. I ignore him when I think that is his purpose. However, on this topic he has been consistent. If I can ever get him to leave off the gratuitous slaps, maybe others will address what appears (at least to him) to be a clear issue with the reasons to support this President in the so-called GWOT. I disagree with everything Jerry says. Violently. However, he is not alone. As long as we don't address these concerns we don't have a chance to getting people to see things differently. Jerry may never change but there are those who may think they agree with him who might change based on reasonsed responses to him. I really think he is sincere in this one area and not just yanking our chains. We've been at this for a long time, Jerry and me. What is a real hoot, is that I find myself in almost complete agreement with him(although without the derogatory side words)on the issue of the new Immigration "compromise". There is almost always room for discussion even when you have to wade through muck to get to it.

Hillary on the NIE

Charlie, Tampa, Fl — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 00:24:28 GMT

Does anyone know the names of the 7-8 Senators who
read the full NIE REPORT