![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 20 of 20. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by wildcard11 on February 10, 2006, at 8:32:32
IMO should be REMOVED from office yesterday. He is proven to have broken many laws and to be a liar so could someone PLEASE help me understand why he is still in office? Clinton gets a bl*w job( i'm not condoning it), and the impeachment process starts but Bush kills thousands and lies and NOTHING??!!! What is going on?
Just my opinion~won't be back to debate ;-)
Posted by AuntieMel on February 10, 2006, at 13:41:56
In reply to George W Bush, posted by wildcard11 on February 10, 2006, at 8:32:32
>Bush kills thousands and lies and NOTHING??!!!
>Please be careful to not say anything that could make others feel put down.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Follow-ups regarding these issues should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration. They, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
AuntieMel, acting as deputy for De. Bob.
Posted by 10derHeart on February 10, 2006, at 15:30:45
In reply to George W Bush, posted by wildcard11 on February 10, 2006, at 8:32:32
Posted by zeugma on February 10, 2006, at 19:52:19
In reply to George W Bush, posted by wildcard11 on February 10, 2006, at 8:32:32
all this board is going to get from me is dull civilities, because it is so important to be civil here. But after much diligent searching, your civility-minded but naturally splenetic friend finally located ONE article that spares me the labor of making endless deletions (those deletions are themselves a mockery of civility, yet so necessary for the mental health of all concerned- it positively DESTROYS my mental health because I do not like being patronized or having reality edited for me, even by a caring tender-hearted individual, yet I like this board because I can't resist the challenge of producing civil output given the current state of U.S. politics- fool that I am) well, anyway I am not one to write my own material, only to civilize the vast output of political diatribes for your pleasure.
Here is a perfectly civil article that urges George W. to obey the law. our president does need a reminder to obey the law. It is most considerate of the ABA (American Bar Association) to remind him. It brings up the interesting question of why anyone would vote for a candidate who needs reminders to obey the law. I have been wracking my brain for some time on this issue; but, as promised, I am dull, and here follows civil reminders for George W. to obey the law.
ABA President Urges Bush to Obey Spy Laws By ANNA JOHNSON, Associated Press Writer
44 minutes ago
CHICAGO - The president of the nation's largest lawyers group said Friday that President Bush should comply with federal law when conducting electronic surveillance of Americans and refrain from scaring people into giving up their civil liberties in the fight against terrorism.
"Times of conflict have often put stress on America's liberties. It's a time when we get frightened and are tempted to take shortcuts with the Constitution," American Bar Association President Michael Greco said. "But I personally reject the false choice that is being offered Americans that they must give up their liberties to have security."Greco, who spoke at the ABA's midyear meeting in Chicago, also released a proposal recommending that the association oppose further electronic surveillance in the U.S. for foreign intelligence purposes that does not comply with the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. If the ABA's policy-making body approves it in a vote set for Monday, the proposal will become official policy of the 400,000-member group.
The proposal was recommended by an ABA task force that examined whether Bush was authorized to give the National Security Agency the power to eavesdrop on the international communications of Americans with suspected ties to terrorists without first obtaining warrants from a secretive court set up under FISA.
"We're calling on the president ... to explain to Congress what this program is about so Congress can exercise its constitutional duty of checking to make sure that the president's powers are being executed within the framework of the Constitution," Greco said.
The warrantless eavesdropping program has prompted a heated debate about presidential powers in the war on terror since it was first disclosed in December.
Bush on Friday continued his defense of the program, saying he concluded that it was needed to fill a gap in U.S security and that lawyers in the White House and at the Justice Department signed off on its legality.
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales insisted earlier this week during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing that Bush was fully empowered to eavesdrop on Americans without warrants as part of the country's war on terror. He cautioned Congress not to end or alter the program.
But committee chairman Sen. Arlen Specter (news, bio, voting record), R-Pa., suggested the program's legality be reviewed by a special federal court set up under FISA. Committee Democrats also have generally contended that Bush acted illegally in permitting the domestic surveillance.
-z, in as civil, bland, and listless mood as that last paragraph :-(
Posted by zeugma on February 10, 2006, at 20:31:49
In reply to Re: George W Bush » wildcard11, posted by zeugma on February 10, 2006, at 19:52:19
as i said, it pains me terribly to be civil, and i dislike writing anything of my own, the internet is a vast source of substitutes for thought, it's painful to think anyway, and the results of thought are so rarely civil.
but I do not believe that Bush's upgrades to NSA spycraft with its likely violations of Constitutional law have resulted in a single terrorist brought to book. It is not true that had the ability to sidestep FISA been granted the President in 2001, that any tragedy would have been averted. The 'raw intelligence' was there already. What is needed is the ability to appreciate the significance of the data. One can analogize directly to what occurred in New Orleans. The National Weather Service, one branch of government that has never been accused of violating anyone's rights, did an admirable job of keeping our elected officials updated about the progress of the storm. what was singularly lacking was the ability to use this data in a timely and constructive way. I do not believe that the individuals Bush has delegated for this task are particularly good at either using their intuitive or deductive skills.All the NSA intercepts in the world cannot substitute for these skills.
-z
Posted by 10derHeart on February 10, 2006, at 20:49:00
In reply to Re: George W Bush » wildcard11, posted by zeugma on February 10, 2006, at 19:52:19
>...a caring tender-hearted individual<
That would be Auntie Mel, and/or Dr. Bob and all of the deputies? I agree with your characterization of them.
>It brings up the interesting question of why anyone would vote for a candidate who needs reminders to obey the law<
This brings up the interesting question of why this sentence, with its interesting phraseology, was included in such an informative post?
I'm possibly ignorant, at the least, confused. I thought this issue only came to light two months ago..? Could voters in the last election have been aware of this potential problem, i.e., that GWB [allegedly] needed (or rather, would need in the future?) reminders to obey the law?
I got lost there. I guess I felt a bit provoked, too.
Respectfully questioning,
--10derHeart
Posted by zeugma on February 10, 2006, at 21:25:37
In reply to Re: George W Bush » zeugma, posted by 10derHeart on February 10, 2006, at 20:49:00
> >...a caring tender-hearted individual<
>
> That would be Auntie Mel, and/or Dr. Bob and all of the deputies? I agree with your characterization of them.
>
There was no personal aspersion meant, if that's what you're getting at. I'm glad the civility policies work for you. I don't like them (the policies, that is) but they are the way the board operates.
> >It brings up the interesting question of why anyone would vote for a candidate who needs reminders to obey the law<
>
> This brings up the interesting question of why this sentence, with its interesting phraseology, was included in such an informative post?
>
astute. my revised draft of the post would have rephrased because of the time line as you mention. see my revision below.> I'm possibly ignorant, at the least, confused. I thought this issue only came to light two months ago..? Could voters in the last election have been aware of this potential problem, i.e., that GWB [allegedly] needed (or rather, would need in the future?) reminders to obey the law?
>
good points.
what i would say in response is this:
GWB at the time was stating that no such programs as what NSA has become existed. I was not following GWB's utterances as closely at the time(2004 in the lead-up to the elections). But he was saying it, which indicates that the question must have arisen. Now it has been leaked, and he has said that its mere disclosure endangers national security. That would make his prior statements that it didn't exist mere white lies that could be justified on the grounds of national security (depending on how candid one expects a President to be, and how plausible the claim itself is). But I do not see how the mere disclosure that the White House has such a program could tip off al Qaeda in a meaningful way. I am as clueless as to what the NSA methods are as, presumably, any enemies of America. It seems to me to claim that even leaking the mere existence of a program has America's enemies laughing (as Alberto Gonzales said) is implausible. It was foolish of the CIA to make public their amusement, during the Clinton Presidency, at intercepting bin Laden's calls home to Saudi Arabia. the bush Presidency has bragged about how tight-lipped they are in comparison. Interesting, then, that I.Lewis Libby now alleges that none other than Dick Cheney ordered him to leak a CIA operative's name. I might remind you that the CIA itself ordered Fitzgerald's probe of the Plame affair.> I got lost there. I guess I felt a bit provoked, too.
>
these are provoking times. especially for Americans.Respectfully answering,
-z
>
>
>
>
Posted by zeugma on February 10, 2006, at 21:42:26
In reply to Re: George W Bush » zeugma, posted by 10derHeart on February 10, 2006, at 20:49:00
and this is not meant as anything other than respectful towards you
about why we have been so troubled lately with leaks: the CIA has been at odds with President Bush for a good while. It is the only tool, really, that an undercover organization has for striking back.
The director of the CIA, Porter Goss, has written today, in my local paper an article saying "it is unconscionable to compromise national security information." By that reasoning, would he consider Libby's testimony as indicating that Cheney's orders to leak Plame's identity were "unconscionable?"
But somehow I think Goss would not like to follow that reasoning through. It leaves open the question of why he would not like to follow the reasoning through. The article by Goss convinced me that he was a [uncivil word deleted],. yes, I am absolutely convinced of it, and you are free to convince me otherwise.
-z
Posted by zeugma on February 10, 2006, at 21:53:34
In reply to a theory » 10derHeart, posted by zeugma on February 10, 2006, at 21:42:26
goss became CIA Director in 2005. He is not one of the disillusioned CIA members I instanced in my previous post (I admit it , I sound totally paranoid.)
anyway if we are both feeling provoked, at the very least we are both kept up way past our bedtimes worrying about these things. if that's any consolation.
-z
Posted by zeugma on February 11, 2006, at 16:21:47
In reply to Re: George W Bush » zeugma, posted by 10derHeart on February 10, 2006, at 20:49:00
I'm possibly ignorant, at the least, confused. I thought this issue only came to light two months ago..? Could voters in the last election have been aware of this potential problem, i.e., that GWB [allegedly] needed (or rather, would need in the future?) reminders to obey the law? >>
As I said before, you make an excellent point that deserves an answer.
And here it is:
>>
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said Bush had misled the public during a 2004 speech in Buffalo, N.Y., in which he sought to ease fears about the Patriot Act by stressing the role that courts played in authorizing wiretaps." 'Any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires — a wiretap requires a court order,' " Feinstein quoted Bush as saying. " 'Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so.' "
"Mr. Attorney General, in light of what you and the president have said in the past month, this statement appears to be false," Feinstein said. "Do you agree?"Gonzales said the statement was taken out of context, and that Bush was addressing a particular kind of wiretap.
"I take great issue with your suggestion that somehow the president of the United States was not being totally forthcoming with the American people," he responded.
Feinstein asked Gonzales whether the administration believed that the post-Sept. 11 congressional resolution was so all-encompassing that it gave officials the authority to give "false or misleading answers" if the president thought the truth might hinder his ability to function as commander in chief.
"Absolutely not, senator," Gonzales replied. "Of course not.">> From the L.A. Times, Feb. 7, 2006.
Any time you hear the president saying X, I conclude, he means....-z
Posted by 10derHeart on February 11, 2006, at 17:03:05
In reply to reference, annotated » 10derHeart, posted by zeugma on February 11, 2006, at 16:21:47
Thanks for all of that. I do appreciate the information and the discourse in general.
I've yet to read the entire text of the 2004 Buffalo speech, which I need to do.(I have a link) It is potentially troublesome, though.
I see this could show the President was making such statements/assurances (subject to interpretation, context, etc.) for some time....as least since 2004, long after he authorized the NSA to do whatever it is they've been doing....but...
....unless I'm still missing something, it doesn't change the fact that until this issue came to light in Dec 2005, the American public didn't know there *was* any alleged deception, correct? So, when making a voting decision in Nov '04, how could they have factored this into their choice?
Sorry if I'm being dense, or have missed a puzzle piece. I do realize this is quite probably a somewhat minor issue in a much larger picture for you where GWB is concerned. But, I am trying to stick close to reacting to your original question - why *anyone* (and I am included in that group) would vote for him if he "needs reminders to obey the law."
I'm not quite clear that this issue is a good example of that, given the timeline.
Posted by sleepygirl on February 11, 2006, at 17:51:22
In reply to George W Bush, posted by wildcard11 on February 10, 2006, at 8:32:32
and the interest rates on student loans are going up in the US, along with the price of tuition
Posted by sleepygirl on February 11, 2006, at 17:55:41
In reply to George W Bush, posted by wildcard11 on February 10, 2006, at 8:32:32
uhhhh........ maybe because "denial" is not just a river in Egypt?
Posted by sleepygirl on February 11, 2006, at 18:00:42
In reply to George W Bush, posted by wildcard11 on February 10, 2006, at 8:32:32
ooh, ooh another thing
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/7371950/an_epidemic_failurethis article describes an abstinence promoting agenda that may be getting in the way of saving millions of people in Africa from AIDS
Posted by deirdrehbrt on February 11, 2006, at 18:40:05
In reply to Re: reference, annotated » zeugma, posted by 10derHeart on February 11, 2006, at 17:03:05
Ummm
***gunshy PBC'er posting***
I hope public record of an individual in service isn't considered objectionable.
Reasons that GWB might need reminders to obey the law?Let's see....
He's been in jail four times.
He has a history of:
Drunk driving.
Cocaine habit.
Selling drugs.
Tortured pledges by branding them with a heated wire hanger.
AWOL from the National guard.
Companies went bust, but he walked away with millions.
That's before he authorized illegal wiretaps, stood as commander in chief of a military (and CIA)that condones torture (implicitly or explicitly). etc.I don't know. Sounds like he could stand to be reminded. If you look at his past it can get frightening. Even more so if you look at the family history.
Not saying that he's any better or any worse than anybody else who's served, but he does have a public record of crime and shady dealings. I think the *reminder* is well deserved.
--Dee
Posted by zeugma on February 12, 2006, at 13:48:43
In reply to Re: reference, annotated » zeugma, posted by 10derHeart on February 11, 2006, at 17:03:05
unless I'm still missing something, it doesn't change the fact that until this issue came to light in Dec 2005, the American public didn't know there *was* any alleged deception, correct? So, when making a voting decision in Nov '04, how could they have factored this into their choice?>>
true enough. Like everyone else at the time, I did not know, for example, that before Gonzales' appointment as Attorney General, White House officials had made a trip to where then-Attorney General John Ashcroft lay bedridden in a hospital to persuade him to sign off on legislation that involved the NSA program. Ashcroft apparently refused on the grounds that he thought it was unconsitutional.
These events were not widely known at the time. So you are perfectly correct in saying that it is not a good example of my claim that voters should have factored it into their decisions in 2004.
However, many facts concerning use of intelligence, as they pertained to our involvement in the war on Iraq, were widely known at that time. But the point, I concede, is yours to win. It does not matter what American voters did or did not do at the polling places in 2004. My interest is in matters of consequence right now, which to be sure are results of polling behavior in 2004.
-z
Posted by zeugma on February 12, 2006, at 14:19:13
In reply to note on Goss, posted by zeugma on February 10, 2006, at 21:53:34
George Bush is launching his own probe into the leaks of December 2005:
Probe of domestic eavesdropping leak expands: report Sun Feb 12, 3:39 AM ET
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Federal agents have interviewed officials at several law enforcement and national security agencies in a criminal investigation into The New York Times' disclosure of a U.S. domestic eavesdropping program, the newspaper reported.
In a story posted to its Web site to appear in its Sunday editions, The Times said the investigation was focused on circumstances surrounding its disclosure late last year of the highly classified program.Officials and others interviewed by the Times said the investigation seemed to lay the groundwork for a grand jury inquiry and possible criminal charges, the Times said.
Many described the investigation as aggressive and fast moving, with the initial focus on identifying government officials who have had contacts with Times reporters, particularly those in the newspaper's Washington bureau.
It said an FBI team had questioned employees at the FBI, the National Security Agency, the Justice Department, the CIA and the office of the Director of National Intelligence, and that prosecutors had taken steps to activate a grand jury.
President George W. Bush has condemned the leak as a "shameful act" and CIA Director Porter Goss told a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on February 2:
"It is my aim, and it is my hope that we will witness a grand jury investigation with reporters present being asked to reveal who is leaking this information."
The Times characterized the case as one that pits the government, for which "the investigation represents an effort to punish those responsible for a serious security breach" and news outlets, for which the inquiry threatens confidentiality of sources "and the ability to report on controversial national security issues free of government interference."
The newspaper's executive editor, Bill Keller, said no one at the paper had been contacted in connection with the investigation, and defended the Times' reporting on the story.
"What our reporting has done is set off an intense national debate about the proper balance between security and liberty," Keller said in the story.
Civil liberties groups, Democratic lawmakers and even some Republicans have called for an inquiry into the eavesdropping program, saying it appears to have circumvented the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which requires court approval for eavesdropping on U.S. citizens.
Former Vice President Al Gore has called for a special prosecutor to investigate the government's use of the program, and Michigan Democratic Rep. John Conyers (news, bio, voting record) Jr. has said the eavesdropping effort might amount to an impeachable offense.
Among statutes being reviewed by Justice Department investigators are espionage laws that prohibit the disclosure, dissemination or publication of national security information, the Times said.
__________
I, personally, have libertarian sympathies, and do not like governments that tell me what newspapers can and cannot print, particularly since we are talking about the EXISTENCE of a program, a program so secret and yet so vulnerable that Osama bin Laden and friends (whom we have not caught, by the way: there is an interesting book, called "Imperial Hubris", by the former head of the division assigned to catch bin Laden, which implies that President Bush received intelligence which said that the 9/11 attacks were not planned in a terror camp in Afghanistan but in Baghdad: an interesting conclusion, which explains why we have Saddam Hussein's farce of a trial conducted amid chaos, but Osama still a free man- I think that's what bin laden is REALLY laughing about) are laughing about its disclosure at this very moment, according to testimony by Attorney general Aleberto Gonzales. Now Sen. Arlen Specter (R, Penn., head of the Senate Judiciary Committee) said that Gonzales' explanations "[word deleted] logic and plain English." I agree completely.
Now all this has got me thinking. Porter Goss published his essay denouncing the leakers in the very paper President Bush charges is responsible for the leak! That is certainly interesting.
I speculated that Mr. Goss was referring to disaffected CIA members as the leakers, since they would have access to highly classified information related to national security.
or was he referring to Vice President Dick Cheney's alleged involvement in the outing of a CIA operative, allegedly as an atenpt to discredit CIA intelligence which found no evidence of complicity between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda in the events of Sept. 11, 2001, and that cast grave doubt on the claim that Iraq was "the main front in the war on terror," a claim repeated as recently as last week by Karl Rove?
Or- and this just occurred to me- is he accusing the Bush Administration itself of being responsible for this latest leak of possibly unconstitutional NSA activity, a leak made for its own political gain? if you find this most implausible, consider this:
______________
Cheney Says NSA Spying Should Be an Election IssueBy Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, February 10, 2006; Page A07Vice President Cheney suggested last night that the debate over spying on overseas communications to or from terrorism suspects should be a political issue in this year's congressional elections.
Speaking to Republicans gathered for the annual CPAC convention, Cheney said the debate over the National Security Agency surveillance program "has clarified where all stand" on an issue that has drawn criticism from congressional Democrats and some Republicans.
"And with an important election coming up, people need to know just how we view the most critical questions of national security, and how we propose to defend the nation that all of us, Republicans and Democrats, love and are privileged to serve," Cheney said.His comments reflected the emerging GOP plan to make national security and terrorism the centerpiece of House and Senate elections. White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove telegraphed the strategy last month when he told a Republican audience that "we are dealing with two parties that have fundamentally different views on national security."
Cheney's comments were the closest a top White House official has come to calling for the NSA program to be a political matter.
Democrats have criticized the White House for politicizing national security issues such as the USA Patriot Act and NSA surveillance.
Its unclear whether the GOP strategy will work, however.
In a new Associated Press poll, about half of those surveyed favored the wiretap program. In the same poll last month, 56 percent opposed it. White House officials privately argue that President Bush's greatest political strength is the same one that helped Republicans in the last two elections: fighting terrorism.
In recent weeks, Bush has shifted his public focus away from Iraq and trained it on winning public support for the program. Some Democrats argue that Bush is breaking the law by spying on people in the United States without a warrant and without congressional or judicial oversight. Bush contends that the Constitution and the 2001 congressional war resolution give him the authority to take such steps to track down terrorism suspects.
"Some in Washington are yielding to the temptation to downplay the threat and to back away from the business at hand," Cheney said. "That mind-set may be comforting, but it is dangerous."
_________________
Interesting. I wonder who Porter Goss is really pointing the finger at?
And who is really laughing at whom? (per Mr Gonzales).
The New York Times is grossly overpriced, as any New Yorker can tell you. But I don't like the idea of its being put on a leash.
There's a fresh probe into behavior at Abu Ghraib, but I won't go into that now.
-z
Posted by zeugma on February 12, 2006, at 15:58:43
In reply to Re:leaks and Goss-who are the betrayers?, posted by zeugma on February 12, 2006, at 14:19:13
<<President George W. Bush has condemned the leak as a "shameful act">>
Ok, so President Bush sets himself up here as a patriot defending his program's secrecy and calling its leakage "shameful."
Now I come across this [from TIME Magazine, Feb. 12, 2006]
<<
President Bush may wave away Democratic critics of domestic eavesdropping, but one challenger is proving harder to dismiss: Heather Wilson, a plainspoken Air Force veteran from New Mexico and four-term G.O.P. Congresswoman little known outside of national-security circles. As chair of the House subcommittee that authorizes technical intelligence, she has waged a behind-the-scenes battle for access to information about the controversial surveillance program since word of it leaked in December. She won a significant victory last week. After she called for a full investigation of the spying, the White House ended 54 days of stonewalling and briefed the full House Intelligence Committee.Two days later, at the House G.O.P. retreat on Maryland's Eastern Shore, after Bush told lawmakers that he had resisted briefing them to keep more program details from getting leaked, Wilson retorted that the original leak appeared to have come from his Administration and that Congress has a right and a duty to exercise oversight. "The men who wrote the Constitution feared most a strong Executive with control of a standing army," Wilson tells TIME. "Our Constitution is set up to protect all of us from tyranny.">>
Fascinating. Rep. Wilson is a Republican and acknowledged expert on national security matters.Now, if Rep. Wilson is correct, is President Bush condemning his own action as "shameful"?
-z
Posted by jakeman on February 13, 2006, at 23:07:51
In reply to George W Bush, posted by wildcard11 on February 10, 2006, at 8:32:32
> IMO should be REMOVED from office yesterday. He is proven to have broken many laws and to be a liar so could someone PLEASE help me understand why he is still in office? Clinton gets a bl*w job( i'm not condoning it), and the impeachment process starts but Bush kills thousands and lies and NOTHING??!!! What is going on?
>
> Just my opinion~won't be back to debate ;-)I hope you will be back, you and many others.
warm regards ~Jakeman
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 16, 2006, at 8:40:05
In reply to Re: reference, annotated, posted by deirdrehbrt on February 11, 2006, at 18:40:05
> I hope public record of an individual in service isn't considered objectionable.
It depends, is posting it being sensitive to the feelings of others?
Please don't take this personally, this doesn't mean I don't like you or think you're a bad person.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Follow-ups regarding these issues should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration. They, as well as replies to the above posts, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Politics | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.