Speaking of playing to your base, back on Friday, the Countdown story on the memo from the Guardian got a plug at Crooks and Liars. One similar to the type you mentioned earlier last week from Media Matters.

Said C&L: "Countdown did a segment on the new memo between Bush/Blair that came out yesterday."

They continue: "Keep your sets tuned to Olbermann. He's been doing great work."

Plus meandering back through old Kos archives, there's a headline that says: "Are Keith Olbermann's Ratings Improving (Due to Us)?"

From the show's transcript, the Guardian story of last Friday was approximately 200 words, if you're counting those devoted strictly to the story. About 70 of those words were from the clip of the State Department's Spokesman.

That leaves a mere 125 words on the new memo story. About the same number that are in my comment at this point.

Great job journalism?

You poor suckers. You really believe that O'Reilly, Bush and Gonzales are looking out for you? You jerks probably want the loyalty oath to be brought back. Onward Christian Soldiers Marching Onto War. Rollingstones has an article on Senator Brownback you right-wingers will love. Brownback has reasons for secret meetings among the exclusive "Christians, who are above dumbies like you" These meetings are for the intellectuals -- four on four. You average facist Americans are too dumb to understand. Sen Brownback wants to rid society of gays because they threaten his and your marriage. Does that mean he is tempted to run away with another man and foresake his marriage and children? And, if so, should he be what? Outed? And how about that "secular society" he wants to annialate? My guess is his heartthrob is Ralphie Reed, the poster child for kissing Pat Robertson's ass. Sleep tight. G.W. is lookig after you.

That is just great stuff Jill! Keep up the good work!

By the way, here is how Keith's ratings progress while he speaks:

[quote][Let's be generous -- he starts with 3.0 rating] If Congress believes, turning to this current situation, that it did not authorize the President to do these kind of freelance wiretaps, and [2.7] Senator Specter's remarks suggest it's not entirely a partisan issue, that there's doubt in many quarters [2.3] on the administration's side of things, why not have, or why is Congress not [1.6] moving toward passing some sort of action that says, by the way, [1.0] we did not authorize the President to do this, please read and sign? [Ends with a .7 consisting of schizophrenics, Kos Kids and Mark David Chapman]

BTW, what are Olby's current ratings?

And what do those ratings translate to in actual heads before the tube?

Found some old numbers but the rating site, the ratings numbers, and de-jargonization of the information...?

On Friday, I believe there was a substitute host for O'Reilly. Did Keith beat a SUBSTITUTE HOST?

The Scoreboard: Friday, February 3:

8pm: O'Reilly: 1,653,000 / Zahn: 467,000 / Grace: 424,000 / Countdown: 260,000

Poor Keith only managed half of Nancy Grace's numbers. That is some pathetic work right there. I bet the show would do better en Espaniol!

HEY JILL
By Mark David Chapman

Hey, Jill, don't make it bad
Take a sad life and make it better
Remember to let us into your heart
Then you can start to make it better

Hey, Jill, don't be afraid
You were made to go out and get help
The minute you let us under your skin
Then you begin to make it better.

And any time you feel the pain, hey, Jill, refrain
Don't carry the world upon your shoulders
Well don't you know that its a fool who plays it cool
By making her world a little colder

Hey, Jill! Don't let us down
You have found us, now come and join us
Remember, to let us into your heart
Then you can start to make it better.

So let it out and let it in, hey, Jill, begin
You're waiting for someone to perform with
And don't you know that it's just you, hey, Jill,
You'll do, the movement you need is on your shoulder

Hey, Jill, don't make it bad
Take a sad life and make it better
Remember to let us into your heart
Then you can start to make it better

So Jill comes on here to post, and instead of talking about the post on tonight's countdown, she goes into a rant about gays and Pat Robertson. If the liberals wanna know why they have been out of power for so long then look no farther than Jill.

As for me I would much rather have W trying to protect me then Olby, whose first move as President would probably be to invite Osama over and make him Director of Homeland Security and to put Jon Dean in the Attorney General Role.

OK, where'd get those numbers?

At least Olbermann wouldn't have given the job of capturing Osama to the Afghan warlords. That little piece of work was compliments of the current President.

And as for the "I" word. If the President broke FISA, and breaking FISA is a felony offense, then I think you could argue it's a "high crime or misdemeanor". Of course, with The Architect twisting arms and blackballing GOP Senators who don't give the President near-infinite power to do whatever he wants, we'll never get to that.

Read the Steel Seizure Case. The Supreme Court ruled there that no President has the power to act above the law or in direct opposition to Congress. If the AUMF did not grant the power the President claims (which several congressmen, Republican and Democrat, say it had no such provision), then his power is at it's "lowest ebb".

Nice job Trekkie!

"Outsourcing!" "Tora Bora" "I threw my Medals . . . Ribbons. . .Medals over the fence" "I was for the war before I was against it"

Stupid liberal hoardes! Bill Clinton was OFFERED BIN LADEN but chose not to take him. If you want to look in the retrospectoscope, you might want to be thorough about it.

As for "outsourcing at Tora Bora" you liberal socialists / isolationists were for it before you were against it! When we went into Afghanistan, all we heard from liberals was "we are gonna lose! Our troops are gonna die! Boo hoo hoo we're scared!" The President was trying to minimize casualties by utilizing the native forces to look through dangerous caves at Tora Bora! I know if Jean Francois Kerry were back in the military he would have run head-first into combat and free-climed Tora Bora stopping only to capture Bin Laden, and that is why the good people of Taxachussets see fit to elect him all the time, along with his companion in Senatorial hypocrisy -- you know, the one who was for negligent homicide before he was against it and was for cheating on exams before he was against it and was for all-men social clubs before he was against them.

Oh mighty liberal Democrats, give us the retrospective plan on how to win the war no less than one year from when it is due! We all await your treatises on how we should have done this and could have done that! Notice the crickets chirping when we ask you WHAT TO DO RIGHT NOW! In those circumstances, you cry "stop monitoring terrorists, stop fighting wars, stop interrogating prisoners!" Nice plan chums!

Am I Jill yet?

Hey Trekkie,

Thank you for the suggested reading! I am very curious about your reading list -- would you mind enlightening us?

As for the NSA, here's a question:

What do you want us to do? We all know there are terrorists in or soon to be in our country. We know they need marching orders. We know these communications are INTERNATIONAL and ELECTRONIC. We know that finding them requires eavesdropping. So, are you liberals for or against getting the info?

Trekkie, I know you have ADD, so I pose a question for you to answer, knowing full well the extent to which you will not answer it:

1. How would you design a communication surveillance program to catch enemy combatants on US soil?

I don't want to hear "Bush blah blah Rumsfeld blah blah Tora Bora grumphle blech waah waah waah." I want to hear "Trekkie's Urgent Reconnaissance Database Solution" (TURDS for short).

Jill,you said "you average fascists Americans". Out of curiosity, where are you from?

For the last time, and I'm probably waisting my time, the site isn't pro-Bush just anti KO. If you go on another rant about how much everyone here loves Bush I will assume your autistic with the ability to type nonsense, or just trolling. For your sake I hope its that latter.

Best Regards,
American Fascist

>no President has the power to act above the law or in direct opposition to Congress.

Really. So if Congress passes a law that says the Congress shall appoint all federal judges from now on, the President would have to follow it?

Johnny Dollar--that is one of the stupidest posts I've ever seen. Maybe you don't quite realize this, but much like the President doesn't have the power to act above the law, Congress cannot legitimately pass laws that are in direct opposition to the Constitution (that's an important document from about 200+ years ago; perhaps you've heard of it).

If, however, Congress were to pass and ratify a Constitutional Amendment providing themselves with the power to appoint judges (which could never happen because it would destroy the system of checks and balances), then yes, the President would have to follow it.

Remember, spying on terrorists is good. Everyone we spy on is a terrorist. And if they are not a terrorist, then we wouldn't have spied on them. Besides, if you have nothing to hide, then you should welcome the government looking at your mail and listening to your conversations. Right? What are ya hiding from Bush?

> Congress cannot legitimately pass laws that are in direct opposition to the Constitution

Congratulations. You have grasped the entire point.

Something tells me that if were President Hillary doing the same thing that Bushie is doing, Johnny Dollar would pee his pants crying for impeachment and removal. Because it is Bushie, though, you turn the other way and say "9/11! 9/11!"
Why is that?

Below are the top 5 songs this week on Billboard's Hot 100 chart. Obviously, since these the highest rated songs, they are the best quality music out there...

1 Beyonce Featuring Slim Thug -
Check On It

2 Nelly Featuring Paul Wall, Ali & Gipp
Grillz

3 Mary J. Blige - Be Without You

4 Zac Efron & Vanessa Anne Hudgens
Breaking Free

5 James Blunt - You're Beautiful

> Because it is Bushie, though, you turn the other way and say "9/11! 9/11!"

Huh? Do you make up this stuff as you go along?

> if were President Hillary doing the same thing that Bushie is doing

There's no if. Clinton did it, FDR, Woodrow Wilson, Kennedy...the record is clear.

"There's no if. Clinton did it, FDR, Woodrow Wilson, Kennedy...the record is clear."

More false talking points. Why do you so blindly follow Cheney/Rove? The WH is clearly in the wrong and even so much that some in the GOP have questioned the circumvention of their Constitutional authority to MAKE laws and of the WH to FOLLOW/ENFORCE the law. How pathetic.

Dear Moonbats,

While your input is certainly interesting, your inability to focus is a problem. I am going to ask all MOONBATS ONLY the following question which Trekkie has thusfar failed to answer:

How would you, John (or Jane) Q. Moonbat, design a communication surveillance program to catch enemy combatants on US soil?

Let's take baby steps before we try to run.

What's truly frightening is that people defending Bush and wiretapping forget about warrants and the FISA court. It's called checks and balances; Bush decided it didn't apply to him.
The wiretap stuff done by Wilson and FDR (FDR also created internment camps for American citizens; you wanna bring those back,too?) is outlawed by FISA. Please cite where Clinton went around FISA.
No President can be above the law, or just think a law is "voluntary". And all partisanship aside, are you guys okay with this? This is pretty scary stuff when an elected official determines that he and he alone can say what laws and rights are valid.

> More false talking points.

FDR didn't intercept communications without a warrant? Clinton didn't conduct warrantless searches? Are you as misinformed as you sound? I'm starting to think this is KfK doing a parody!

Johnny, you're confused about Clinton... What you're referring to is Deputy AG Jamie Gorelick testifying to Congress that FISA (as written) did not require warrants for PHYSICAL searches. Shortly thereafter, FISA was modified to cover electronic wiretapping and physical searches.
Got it?

Jenna, try to pay attention while I educate you. Clinton's legal office issued a memo written by Walter Dellinger that laid out the constitutional basis for the inherent constitutional powers of the presidency, which are even greater during a time of war. Gorelick also testified to the same thing. That is why Clinton was able to conduct physical searches without a warrant. By the way, under the law, physical searches are MORE instrusive than electronic surveillance.

It doesn't matter what FISA covered or didn't cover. Clinton had the authority to do warrantless physical searches to get the goods on Aldrich Ames. Did you see even one Republican object to it at the time? I didn't. If the FISA law is rewritten to cover those searches, it has no more effect than if it was rewritten to tell the President he can't appoint judges. The Congress cannot amend the constitution by passing a law. The power Clinton had before FISA was, according to his own Justice Department, granted to him by the constitution. The constitution has not been amended. That power is still there.

Got it?

Sorry Johnny -- I wish this were all a parody (or at least just a bad dream.)

I have been posting anonymously now and again, most recently asking out Moonbat friends:

How would you, John (or Jane) Q. Moonbat, design a communication surveillance program to catch enemy combatants on US soil?

I expect answers from Trekkie, Obi-Wan, Jill and Jenna.

Johnny, your argument essentially says: "President can do whatever he wants, if he so chooses, according to the Constitution".
So, using that logic, why are there 2 other branches of government provided for in... drum roll please... The US Constitution?

ANSWER THE QUESTION JENNA

1. It's not my argument. It's what the constitution says.

B. The President can do whatever he wants as commander-in-chief with the powers the constitution gives him. He cannot go out and arrest his political opponents (tho Lincoln did that). He cannot go and lock up tens of thousands of people based on their race (tho FDR did that). He can do what the constitution provides. That means, according to Gorelick etc, that he can do surveillance on the enemy. Not on you and your boyfriend, not on Michael Moore. On Al-Qaeda.

III. Do you seriously believe that there aren't powers in the other two branches of government that are unchecked as well? Do you think the presidency is the only branch with unchecked powers? Please, go back and read the constitution.

Oh, and answer KfK's question while you're at it.

How about using a warrant issued by a court based on probable cause and evidence, rather than spying on someone on some secret criteria the government refuses to disclose? Ever hear of the 4th Amendment? Or do you prefer the guilt by association techniques of Salem Witch Burning trials, Spanish Inquisition and the Star Court?
2nd point: Bush and Gonzales are claiming that the AUMF grants him the power to spy, not the Constitution.

Hurray for Jenna! At least she tried to answer.

Now, how will you get probable cause?

> How about using a warrant issued by a court

If FDR didn't need it, if Wilson didn't need it, if Kennedy didn't need it, if Clinton didn't need it, why all of a sudden does Bush need it? Answer me that.

> Bush and Gonzales are claiming that the AUMF grants him the power to spy, not the Constitution.

I don't know what the AUMF is. If it's the authorization to use force, then that's another argument in my favor. But it basically just reiterates a constitutional fact. And if you're saying Gonzales doesn't cite the constitution for the authority, then you really MUST get all your news from Olby, because that is preposterously false. Read his testimony.

People who don't get their news from reputable sources should not rely on Olby for their "facts". Sometimes it's better to be uninformed than misinformed.

Let's not get too ambitious Johnny --

Let Jenna tell us how we will get "probable cause."

Maybe listening to the FBI re: flight schools and suspected terrorists and reading a memo...hmmm..."I believe the memo was titled 'Bin Laden Determined to Strike the U.S.'" might be enough for probable cause, increased surveillance, etc.
Or enough to get you off your @ss and skip the afternoon golf game in Crawford. At least ya'd think it would...

That's what we like here at OlbermannWatch. There's nothing like a good, substantive, thought-out, intellectual response. And that Was Nothing like a good, substantive, thought-out, intellectual response.

Heh heh... Gotta love it. Hey kids, the CONSTITUTION DOESN'T MATTER! Gonzo, Gorelick and George W. say so! We're in a war, so you gotta let the Prez and friends do what ever they feel.
Thankyaverymuch, please contribute to the Abramoff/DeLay Defense Fund.

Normally, Jenna, I would ask you another question here, but I've run out of time to post for now. I will tell you where I was going with this though.

At some point, Jenna, we have to decide how dangerous a threat terrorism is. If terrorists were just shoplifters, preemtion would not be an issue. Since terrorists can kill thousands if unchecked, preemption is imperative.

We can not wait for these guys to make themselves known. We need to be "proactive." At some point, we have to monitor communications to try to find these people, and this monitoring has to be on a very broad scale. It makes sense that the monitoring would be limited to international communications between suspect foreign subjects and people in the US. If you don't attempt to monitor these communications, you give the terrorists a free pass on the information highway, which can lead to the death of thousands. If we do broad scale monitoring of international communications, warrants will be of little use until the suspects are determined well down the line. Remember, these people can hide until the time is right for them to strike. The only thing they need to do is communicate with their commanders and co-conspirators. They can strike by blowing themselves up in a subway for instance, at which point the damage is done.

I think you get caught up in the details instead of looking at the practical reality. What if you don't look for these people as they talk to their pals in the Madrassas overseas, and they kill your family with a bomb? The legal intricacies all result from the NEED TO SPY. If you don't understand the underlying necessity of the NSA's actions, you won't be moved by the legal effluent that RESULTS FROM THE NEED.

Again, nobody wants to have to spy, but smart people know that it keeps their children safer than not spying. Terrorists bombed the World Trade Center not once but twice. If you are OK with bombings, then demand that we treat terrorism as a criminal issue and demand that law enforcement sit back and wait for the terrorists to make themselves known. However, realize that they only make themselves known when it is too late, and by that time, corpses are falling out of buildings or burning in subways.

Oh, won't you PLEASE think of the children! And the bombs that MAY go off if Bush doesn't get his way, and can spy without a warrant!
Well played, KFK. Scaremongering *and* kids! Karl Rove teach ya that?
On the flipside, we have Johnny telling us the Constitution doesn't matter when the Prez "says so", despite the face that even Ashcroft's own guys said the spying was in extremely shaky legal ground. Senators like Graham and Specter doubt the legality of the program...yet our SuperGenius Johnny Dollar is on the case to rebuff those claims.
I'm truly thankful for the few shows out there like Olbermann's, who asks questions regarding the Bush administration's claim of unbridled power.
O'Really, Hannity, Limbaugh... all those guys are are shills for Bush, yet you guys can't get enough of them telling you shit is really Shinola.

> Johnny telling us the Constitution doesn't matter

Please try to be coherent. I said the exact opposite. Reading Is Fundamental. And try answering the question I posed at 2:42 pm.

Your right. We can't go even a single day without the horror stories of Americans falling prey to illegal search and seizures, wire tapping, and being followed by men in black suits.

1. No one has yet to question the effectiveness of the wiretaps, just the legality. According to intelligence officials, everything that has gone on has hampered the efforts

2. If the wiretaps yield positive results, MOST AMERICANS DON'T CARE IF THE LEGALITY IS FUZZY. DO NOT CARE. The only people who care are politicians and journalists with agendas.

NOTE TO THE LEFT:ATTACKING THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION ON NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUES HELPS REPUBLICANS, NOT DEMOCRATS. FOCUS YOUR EFFORTS ELSEWHERE.

Keep throwing hissy fits. Come election time, the 20% of centrists that are on the fence will err on the side of conservatism errrrrrrrrr- I mean caution.

*THIS IS NOT A PRO-BUSH POST*

It really is amazing how true it is that the Democrats gravitate towards namecalling and angry rants, while the Republicans keep trying to focus on the issues. Not once has one of the left on this site tried to really address these issues. This forum is a perfect microcosm on the state of our country's current political discourse.

We may as well give up. Said Jenna:

"Oh, won't you PLEASE think of the children! And the bombs that MAY go off if Bush doesn't get his way. . ."

Anyone who wants to take a chance with National Security and mocks the concept of keeping families safe is of sub-normal intelligence. The impression I get is that Jenna is unteachable and a menace. You know, the kind of idiot who goes to Iraq to act as a human shield, or gets run over by a tractor while trying to save a suicide bomber's house. I only hope that she is the one who suffers as a result of her stupidity rather than the rest of us.

Hey Jenna, there is no "MAYBE" when it comes to terrorism in the US, only WHEN. Even your own beloved party of appeasers agrees.

Wow, I guess people who want the President to adhere to the Constitution and respect the rights granted therein, as well as laws enacted by Congress, are idiots. Oh well...
Sorry, Jim in Columbus, looks like your post was just a tad premature.

Hello Jenna,

We have been monitoring you. We know what political leanings you have. We know what TV shows you watch, what kind of obscenity you indulge in, how many feminine products you buy, who you call, and who you wished you called.

You are right about us. We don't really care about terrorists. We care about you. We want to know everything about you, and we want to disenfranchise you in the 2006 / 2008 elections by using what we know against you. We spy on liberals only, and we write everything down. Not even Arlen Specter can save you now.

Oh, and stop wearing that stupid hat you love so much. It really bugs us and messes up our pictures.

Party of appeasers? Like Reagan and da Gang in Beirut... weren't we out of there, like, in 48 hours after the USMC barracks went ka-blooey?

wow, I'm shaking. Seeing as how you brainiacs can't even get the play on words in my posting name...(rolls eyes)...

Oh yeah, Jenna -- you are so subtle! I had no idea that you were going for the double entendre there! Pure genius! Is your BF's name Mike Hunt? Is your Uncle's name Phil Atio? Are you in High School?

Now to address someone of value. Olbermann is going nuts right now, Johnny, so prepare yourself for tonight. Apparently, the worst Peanut-loving Shah-destroying Islamist-loving oil-embargo-fostering Olympic-boycotting rabbit-fearing UFO-seeing ex-President in American History (and that includes both North and South America) bashed Bush at a memorial service for MLK's widow, along with a "Reverend" who screamed about the lack of WMD's in Iraq! It is so classy and so much fun to behave like petulant children and insult a sitting President at a Memorial service. It is even more dignified for a horrific ex-President to attack a sitting President. what class! But this all makes sense after all -- a woman who had a great husband is dead, so it's all about Bush!

Can't wait for the truth about WMD's. We have an Iraqi General telling us that Saddam shipped the weapons to Syria, and we have Saddam's files and tapes to go through. Should be good.

I love Keith Olbermann!

Jenna, keep up the good work (but change your name - I am Christian and it offends me).

Bush is changing our country for the worse. Things were better when I was in charge.

The elections in Palestine were glorious. Venezuelan elections were on the up and up. The North Koreans gave me their word and I know that Bush messed up my agreement.

Hamas will change, and my son should be a Senator.

If FDR didn't need it, if Wilson didn't need it, if Kennedy didn't need it, if Clinton didn't need it, why all of a sudden does Bush need it? Answer me that.

Well, the FISA law didn't exist under the Wilson, Roosevelt and Kennedy Administrations. It did exist under Clinton, but at the time it did not apply to physical searches (I'm assuming you're referring to the Aldrich Ames case). That loophole was closed in 1995 and now FISA does apply. As for Project Echelon, both CIA Director Tenet and NSA Director Hayden testified under oath before the House Intelligence Committee that Echelon complies with all relevant FISA provisions.

I don't know what the AUMF is. If it's the authorization to use force, then that's another argument in my favor.

Not when Senators and Representatives on both sides of the aisle say that this program was not contemplated as part of the AUMF.

Again, go back to the Steel Seizure Case. Justice Frankfurter's concurring opinion - "It cannot be contended that the President would have had power to issue this order had Congress explicitly negated such authority in formal legislation. Congress has expressed its will to withhold this power from the President as though it had said so in so many words...."

FISA specifically denies the President the power to conduct domestic spying without a warrant. The power is withheld from the President, so he cannot then use his Article II authority to circumvent a clear expression of limitation by another branch of government exercising its power under the Constitution.

As to the question of what I would do, I would adopt the DeWine Amendment, which was written in 2002 to reduce the standard for obtaining a warrant in FISA Court to "reasonable suspicion".

FISA works, even in this so-called "wartime environment". Timeframe is not an issue because you can engage in the spying so long as you get the warrant within 72 hours. It's not a 30-page brief. It's a warrant application. The only reason they didn't follow the proper procedure is that they wanted to bypass the courts.

Again, where does it end? Under this broad "Commander-in-Chief" authority, can the President suspend federal elections if he determines that doing so would be a "necessary step" in preventing internal disruption?

Stupid liberal hoardes! Bill Clinton was OFFERED BIN LADEN but chose not to take him. If you want to look in the retrospectoscope, you might want to be thorough about it.

Yes, Clinton was offered bin Laden and had a plan to "take out al-Qaeda", but the plan didn't come into focus until December 2000. Clinton was not willing to commit a force to combat in the last month of his Presidency. This was partly because Bush 41 committed us to Somalia just before leaving office, a quagmire that Clinton took the lion's share of blame for. With an already embittered and polarized electorate, no one wanted to be accused of creating a conflict as revenge for the outcome of the election.

President Carter was right on one thing: Georgie is making this country worse.
Another thing: I knew I shoulda pulled outta Barb sooner. Sorry.

Trekkie phoned in via communicator:

"Yes, Clinton was offered bin Laden and had a plan to "take out al-Qaeda""

HA HAHAHAHAH HAH BWAHAHAHA

Oh, Bill was right on top of it! He was going to take out Al Qaeda! It took an INVASION OF AFGHANISTAN to take out Al Qaeda. Was he going to authorize that inbetween blow job sessions?

I have AUDIO OF BILL saying "I begged the Saudis to take [Bin Laden] but they wouldn't" as if that is a great excuse for letting a madman run loose.

Give me a break Trekkie. You already had no credibility prior to that post. Now you are approaching Olbermann levels of "negability." (To clarify for Trekkie, "negability" is to "anti-matter" as credibilty is to matter.)

HEAR BILL CLINTON FIGHT TERRORISM ONE SYLLABLE AT A TIME, and hear Hillary do damage control! I would laugh if there were no Obi-Trekkie-Jenna-Jills in the world:

http://www.newsmax.com/audio/BILLVH.mp3

Hi there.
Clinton has not been in office for Five Years.
Thank you.

NEWSMAX??? HOLY COW... Was Ann Coulter not available?

I wasn't talking to you asshat, I was talking to Trekkie, who regaled us with tales of brave "blowjob Bill" and his mystery plans to destroy al qaeda AND get laid at the same time.

Speak when spoken to "anonymous"

I see -- the relevant thing is not the ACTUAL SPOKEN WORD BY BILL, but the source? You stupid Dick

Someone wrote:

"NEWSMAX??? HOLY COW... Was Ann Coulter not available?"

The site was good enough for the Huffington Post, so it should be good enough for you. That's where the original link came from. You see, even dopey lefty sites tend to acknowledge the truth when it is captured on audio, but not you brave souls! Audio shmaudio! You guys have your own internal truth engine and it is always at 10,000 RPM's on the road to nowhere.

Wow, KFK, hard to believe douchebags like you actually exist. Despite the fact that the GOP has controlled the Executive and Legislative branches of government for the past 4 years, you find a way to blame a guy out of power for over 5 years for today's problems. What next, Abramoff is really Clinton in disguise? Man, are you lame.
Denial is more then a river in Egypt.

How mind-numbingly stupid are you people? I was RESPONDING TO AN ASSERTION BY TREKKIE. Learn to read you pack of idiots. I did not "blame a guy out of power for over 5 years for today's problems." That is a stupid assertion. Of course, why am I surprised that you can't keep your eye on the page long enough to read and understand what is going on.

I have to go, but I will be back to defend my beloved country against the Moonbat swarm!

> Well, the FISA law didn't exist

So what? I thought we had already established that Congress cannot take constitutional authority from a President unless they amend the constitution. The actions of FDR, Kennedy, Clinton, etc, were all justified as being part of the inherent constitutional authority of the Commander in Chief. You cannot wipe away constitutional authority by passing a law.

Congress could pass a law saying that it's a crime for the President to appoint judges. Does that mean the President is breaking the law by appointing a judge?

> Not when Senators and Representatives on both sides of the aisle say that this program was not contemplated as part of the AUMF.

Some say that. But the Supreme Court is more important. That argument was used in the Hamdi case, and the Supremes laughed it out of court.

Congress could pass a law saying that it's a crime for the President to appoint judges. Does that mean the President is breaking the law by appointing a judge?

That argument has been denied emphatically by another poster. Congress cannot pass such a law because the power to appoint judges and other "officers of the United States" is an enumerated power specifically given to the President in Article II, Section 2.

However, Article II Section 3 states that the President "shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed". FISA, absent a court ruling declaring it unconstitutional, is a law. The President is specifically required to execute that law. He is ignoring his duty in that respect.

Some say that. But the Supreme Court is more important. That argument was used in the Hamdi case, and the Supremes laughed it out of court.

Justice O'Connor's majority opinion from Hamdi.

"We do not reach the question whether Article II provides such authority, however, because we agree with the Government’s alternative position, that Congress has in fact authorized Hamdi’s detention, through the AUMF."

Unless you're reading some super-secret version of this case, the Court did not even broach the subject of the scope of the AUMF beyond the very narrow question of detaining "enemy combatants" captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan.

No I read the opinion to say that an authorization of force includes the ancillary and incident activities that war requries. Your position suggests that Bush had the authority to detain Hamdi and lock him up, but not to listen in on his phone.

Meanwhile, you can't claim that Congress "cannot pass such a law" because it goes against the constitution. They do that all the time! And according to President Clinton's Justice Department and Office of Legal Affairs, the President has a duty NOT to enforce such laws.

Commander-in-Chief is also an enumerated power. Congress cannot pass a law that infringes on it, and if they do such provisions would be null and void.

Where the heck is Bob Cox when we need him?

Your position suggests that Bush had the authority to detain Hamdi and lock him up, but not to listen in on his phone.

I'm not the only one -
"But nevertheless, you would have had--before you get to that point, you would have had a finding by a neutral and detached magistrate, and indeed in this case a sitting federal judge, district court judge, that all of the requirements of the statute are met and that there's probable cause to believe that this individual is engaged in international terrorism activities, or activities in preparation therefor." - Justice Department spokesman James A. Baker, testifying before the Senate Intelligence Committee in July 2002.

Meanwhile, you can't claim that Congress "cannot pass such a law" because it goes against the constitution. They do that all the time!

And every time the Courts strike it down as unconstitutional. One branch cannot infringe upon the enumerated powers of another.

The only enumeration in the power you describe is that the President is the Commander-in-Chief. The powers that derive from that authority are implied and can be checked by Congress (as they did when they ordered President Nixon to cease bombing Cambodia during the Vietnam War).

Your Baker quote is not about international surveillance. Not on point.

So you claim that Congress can take over a war, and tell the Commander in Chief you can bomb here, but not there; you can take that bridge, but you can't use tanks? Some Commander in Chief that would be. There is nothing about the constitution's granting authority to the CiC that supports that kind of loony argument.

frank church is responsible for 9/11? wow. that's a stretch. a loooooooooooooooooooooooong stretch.

Your Baker quote is not about international surveillance. Not on point.

It is absolutely on point if one end of the call happens on American soil and involves an American citizen. This argument that the program is "international" using the absolute literal definition of the word is patently absurd. When you spy on Americans who live in America, you are spying domestically. Therefore you need a warrant, unless you're telling me the Fourth Amendment doesn't apply to these Americans.

So you claim that Congress can take over a war, and tell the Commander in Chief you can bomb here, but not there; you can take that bridge, but you can't use tanks?

Considering that they can cut off funding for the war, I think they have a pretty good check on the President. How can you fight a war without money?

They told Nixon he couldn't bomb Cambodia because of their neutrality and they passed the Case-Church Amendment which effectively barred U.S. troops from remaining in Southeast Asia after August 1973. I doubt they make tactical decisions (that's for the Joint Chiefs), but they have some say in the broad strokes of who you can and can't attack.

kfk, in answer to your question, i would bug the CIA.

"NOTE TO THE LEFT:ATTACKING THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION ON NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUES HELPS REPUBLICANS, NOT DEMOCRATS. FOCUS YOUR EFFORTS ELSEWHERE."

NOTE THE RIGHT: YOU CAN KEEP TRYING TO FRAME THIS AS DEMOCRATS AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY, BUT THE REALITY IS THAT THEY SUPPORT THE ****LEGAL**** METHODS, BUT NOT UN-AMERICAN, UN-CONSTITIONAL ONES.

DEMOCRATS HAVE NOT COME OUT AGAINST THE MEASURES. THEY HAVE LEGITIMAT CONCERNS, AS THE WHITE HOUSE IS CIRCUMVENTING THE CONGRESS AND THE LAW.

THIS SHOULD NOT BE A PARTISAN ISSUE. ALL CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICANS SHOULD BE JUST AS CONCERNED. FORTUNATELY WE HAVE SEEN THAT REPUBLICANS ARE CONCERNED AND ARE EXPRESSING IT DESPITE ROVE'S THREATS (HMM... SENDING YOUR TOP POLITCAL ASS TO RESOLVE A SITUATION THAT YOU BELIEVE IS LEGIT, HMM...)

SO PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE CONTINUE TO SHOW YOUR TRUE COLORS TO AMERICA.

ALL CAPS! HOW REFRESHING! TOO BAD YOU CAN'T SHOUT THROUGH A BULL-HORN ON THE INTERNET!

Hey Dopey Wan,

The CIA is not partisan. All the leaks come from Democrat operatives. The CIA is filled with "career men" many of whom undoubtedly think like you. Congrats

NOTE TO THE LEFT:ATTACKING THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION ON NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUES HELPS REPUBLICANS, NOT DEMOCRATS. FOCUS YOUR EFFORTS ELSEWHERE."

you're right it was all caps.

"So you claim that Congress can take over a war, and tell the Commander in Chief you can bomb here, but not there; you can take that bridge, but you can't use tanks? Some Commander in Chief that would be. There is nothing about the constitution's granting authority to the CiC that supports that kind of loony argument."

This is all nonsense. The issue is circumventing the Congress and its laws. W could have easily got court orders (after the fcat no less) or petitioned for law changes that he would like have received.

you missed the point. not even in the ballpark.

Johnny,

Where IS Bob?

We could certainly use his unique post-labeling system right now and too, I've missed him.

I have asked him about this issue. That is all I can do. I only work here.

I regret I once asked him to get rid of registration to "liven up" the site.

Johnny,

Goodness, Johnny, you don't "just work here". You make it sound like you just sweep up the place instead of being one of the most intelligent bloggers on the web.

Do you get paid for your efforts here J$? I thought this was a manifestation of patriotic duty.

C, how did you know I sweep up the place? Mr Cox has me wash his car every Saturday too.

No I don't get paid for this, KfK. Watching Olbermann is a sort of penance. I'm hoping it will shorten my stay in Purgatory.

Mr. Dollar,

#1. There is no early parole from purgatory

#2. Everyone in Purgatory is forced to watch Olbermann

Here's a great link to a "news story" entitled,
"Dean: Rove Plans Bush Failures to Embarrass Dems".

It's the sort of Rove-as-evil-genius conspiracy plot that Olbermann goes for....however, I'm not so sure he'd appreciate this one...

http://www.scrappleface.com/