Please continue this blog. It is the best, and your analysis of KO is very interesting and above all humorous. This so called sex symbol is just plain nuts, and an adorable woman Michelle Malkin will agree with me concerning is true orientation.

The BigBear

First, I love how you're ever so quick to dismiss Keith's valid point that the President denied a direct connection after saying there was one. You use the same tricks, ask a hypothetical question to try and make Keith look stupid - didn't work. The President is now trying to change history (as the Vice President has tried to do so many times) and say that he didn't say something that he actually did. And just in case you didn't know, a direct connection once removed is just what it sounds like. If Al Qaeda caused 9/11 and Saddam supported Al Qaeda, then there is a connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda.

Secondly, you act surprised (like you always do) when Keith reports a story that happened.. OVER THE WEEKEND! I'm sure that the reason that he doesn't come on T.V. over the weekend is the reason he reported it on Monday, but I could be wrong; you're only supposed to report on the news that happened that day, right?

Thirdly, you continue to spout bias and propaganda whenever someone expresses their opinion. Warrant-less searches of American’s houses don’t just seem unconstitutional – they are unconstitutional. A court doesn't have to rule it, as such as you seem to think, when it's written right in the Constitution itself.

You then take another shot at David Schuster (I should just start saying discredited before I say someone's name who I don't agree with and it'll be true.. or not). Schuster simply reported the facts of the case: It will not hold up well for Scooter Libby (is it a bad thing to speculate on trials now?), it is a long shot, and many news organizations seem to think that Libby will blame someone else.

P.S. When you claim that Keith's show is just propaganda it makes you look like a fear monger.

Let me get this straight, BigBear: Keith isn't funny, but johnny dollar is; liberals are horrible and misguided, but conservatives like Malkin are; and liberals were behind the sinking of the Titanic. Am I right?

Warrant-less searches of American?s houses don?t just seem unconstitutional ? they are unconstitutional.

Clinton Deputy AG Jamie Gorelick in testimony before Congress:

The Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes and that the President may, as has been done, delegate this authority to the Attorney General.

Aldrich Ames and El Hage will confirm that since both had their homes searched without warrants. Even more, the evidence obtained from those searches was used to convict them.

By the Clinton DOJ.

SMG

> you act surprised (like you always do) when Keith reports a story that happened.. OVER THE WEEKEND!

He reported the story on Friday. Now he's at it again on Monday. He's just flogging the story because he's disappointed people didn't jump on it with all the ignorance he showed, and he's trying to start a bandwagon effect. A bandwagon effect based on Countdown's 300,000 viewers? Hahahaha!

> A court doesn't have to rule it, as such as you seem to think, when it's written right in the Constitution itself.

You're right, a court doesn't have to rule on it, since a court ALREADY HAS RULED ON IT. Funny how Keith's "expert" witness didn't mention that.

> You then take another shot at David Schuster (I should just start saying discredited before I say someone's name

I call him discredited because he IS discredited. Anyone who would doctor a quotation just to fit Olby's spin isn't a reporter, he's a discredited hack. He earned the "discredited" descriptor the day he did that.

The quote from "Mr." Bush was that "after September 11, it became apparent that it was dangerous to leave So-damn Insane in power" (not word for word because the transcript won't be out till Wed). And then the link about him supporting terrorists, including Al-Qaeda. Hardly irrefutable proof of Bush alleging a link between Hussein and 9/11.

Then the woman with the crooked glasses who could barely finish a coherent sentence about the warrentless searches, rambling an answer that even KO, seemed unable to follow it. Something about Feingold's question about torture leading to evidence of the Administration's intent to perform warrentless physical searches. It was so convoluted that it seemed she was just trying to get torture, wiretaps and physical searches in the same answer. She even equated it to "seizing" Americans and holding and torturing them. Logic be damned.

Countdown is starting to be like reading the DailyKos, DU, or HuffPo. Bush sucks, Republican's suck, and then a bunch of barely intelligible comments by partisan hacks agreeing with whatever the theme of the segment is.

Aldrich Ames and El Hage will confirm that since both had their homes searched without warrants. Even more, the evidence obtained from those searches was used to convict them.

Before such searches on domestic soil were proscribed by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. El Hage's home wasn't even in this country (which makes it immaterial to the argument) - the issue here is the application (or in this case, the inapplication) of the Fourth Amendment to American citizens living on American soil.

Could it be because the President has inherent constitutional authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence information?

Unless they repealed the Fourth Amendment while I was sleeping...yes. Under the current law (FISA and United States Code) any law enforcement agency, for any location within this country, must get a warrant. There is NO EXCEPTION written in there other than the "extenuating circumstances" that gives the DOJ an additional 72 hours to search prior to making the application.

Stop distorting the law to fit a talking point that has been thoroughly discredited.

You remember, the one where the President did make a "direct connection" between Saddam and 9/11. Except as redefined by Olby, that "direct connection" is a connection that's direct, except for the part where it isn't, because it's "once removed".

Okay, fine. Try these then:

"This [Hussein] is a person who can't stand America. This is a person who has had contacts with al Qaeda." - George W. Bush, Alamogordo, N.M. 10/28/02

"He's got connections to al Qaeda." - George W. Bush, Denver, Colorado 10/28/02

"This is a man who has contacts with al Qaeda. This is a man who poses a serious threat in many forms, but catch this form: he's the kind of guy that would love nothing more than to train terrorists and provide arms to terrorists so they could attack his worst enemy and leave no fingerprints." - George W. Bush, St. Paul, Minnesota, 11/3/02

Here's the rub and it lies in the implication. President Bush says that al Qaeda is responsible for 9/11. President Bush says that Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda are connected. It doesn't take a genius to draw the inference - if person A knew person B and person B caused event X, then people are going to assume that person A also caused event X. Almost every poll taken at or around the time of the 2003 invasion had substantial percentages of Americans believeing that Iraq and Saddam Hussein were connected to 9/11. Here's a sample:

45% of respondents to a New York Times/CBS poll believed that Saddam Hussein was "personally involved" in 9/11. (NY Times Poll 3/14/03)

According to a January, 2003 Knight Ridder poll, 44% believed that "most" or "some" of the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqi (none were).

Accrding to a poll reported September 6, 2003 by USA Today/Gallup 70% of Americans believed there was a connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11.

These people did not come up with this fantasy on their own. Not all at once. It's not a leap across the Grand Canyon. Put the pieces together the way the President did and the conclusion that he wants drawn becomes obvious.

Wow, this site is really pathetic. Bill O'Reilly apparently has some fanatical followers. This site doesn't even COMPARE to www.mediamatters.org. It's basically just a crybaby webblog.

mediamatters, lol, now there's an unbiased site.

Alot of people on both sides are fed-up with the Bush administration. If KO's analysis is the basis for choosing the other side then you Olby apologists and the Democratic party have got problems.

The sole point of exposing the propaganda of KO is to show how pathetic your side has to be in order to simply make a point that otherwise apparantly doesn't exist. The credibility of legitimate arguments are not taken seriously therefore.

Because the subterfuge is so transparant any semblance of a decent argument is lost. The clear over-reaching is pathetic.

Alot of people on both sides are fed-up with the Bush administration. If KO's analysis is the basis for choosing the other side then you Olby apologists and the Democratic party have got problems.

The sole point of exposing the propaganda of KO is to show how pathetic your side has to be in order to simply make a point that otherwise apparantly doesn't exist. The credibility of legitimate arguments are not taken seriously therefore.

Because the subterfuge is so transparant any semblance of a decent argument is lost. The clear over-reaching is pathetic.

Johnny Dollar, you forgot something. Although you said KO did mention the three stooges the full comment was "The three stooges slapping each other with planks after they just bummbled a job at Mrs.Weaselbottom's".

Was that the runaway bride in Olby's final segment tonight? Spooky. She's the perfect match for final segment weirdos Moe Rocca and Michael Mutsto.

Trekkie:
Before such searches on domestic soil were proscribed by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

C'mon, you're a smart guy. You know that cannot be done.

(1) Inherent constitutional powers (as Gorelick claimed they were) of the president can not be proscribed by congressional actions. These are, of course, constitutional powers and can only be taken away by amending the constitution.

Congress cannot forbid something that is permitted by the constitution simply through legislation.

(2) Warrantless physical searches are not proscribed by FISA. They are limited by the act; but not forbidden.

Details here:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001822----000-.html

But as I said above, if someone says (1), then (2) is unconstitutional.

Anyway, the FISA Court of Review ruled in 2002 that the executive has the inherent powers to conduct warrantless searches - physical or electronic - without warrants.

Whether they were right or wrong is secondary to the fact that the law is completely unsettled as to whether the executive branch has this authority.

SMG

SMG, now you've gone and let the cat out of the bag. I wanted to see how long Trekkie was going to insist, based on his exhaustive legal research, that there is NO EXCEPTION to the prohibition against warrantless searches. Even though I've asked him to cite case law to back up his claim, all he has done is sputtered about calling a truce on the subject.

But now that you've spilled the beans, I guess it's OK to reel Trekkie in now. Yes, the FISA Court of Review precisely held that the President, based on inherent constitutional powers, has the right to conduct warrantless searches for intelligence information. And their ruling included the fact that enacting the FISA law does not and cannot abrogate the constitutional authority of the Commander in Chief. Trekkie has been denying all of these points consistently, without citing any case law to support his (and Olby's) position. Now it's clear why: the case law is precisely OPPOSITE to his position.

By the way, the FISA Court of Review's opinion was itself appealed to the US Supreme Court. The Supremes declined to hear it, so it stands as the law.

(1) Inherent constitutional powers (as Gorelick claimed they were) of the president can not be proscribed by congressional actions.

Except Congress didn't do it - President Clinton did when he signed an Executive Order that placed physical searches within the framework of FISA.

Second even if FISA is unconstitutional, unless and until a court of competent jurisdiction declares that the President is obligated to adhere to it.

Whether they were right or wrong is secondary to the fact that the law is completely unsettled as to whether the executive branch has this authority.

And when the law is unsettled, the government's action should err on the side of caution.

Now it's clear why: the case law is precisely OPPOSITE to his position.

Ah, I smell a red herring.

The case you cite ignores the matter at issue. It states that the President has "authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information." It does not answer the matter at issue: does the President, under that authority, have the power to conduct unauthorized surveillance of U.S. citizens on U.S. soil (notwithstanding FISA)?

That question was not taken up by the court.

So Trekkie, are you claiming that the case involved non-US citizens on foreign soil? Is that your position? You are denying that this case involved "domestic spying"??

I would argue that erring on the side of caution would be to have a wire tap program seeing as it deals with national security. But I understand the arguement.

So Trekkie, are you claiming that the case involved non-US citizens on foreign soil? Is that your position? You are denying that this case involved "domestic spying"??

Oh boy, there's a trap question if I ever heard one...

I'm saying the court didn't address the issue, which means you revert to the default setting in the law. That default setting is "follow the provisions of FISA".

Oh, and I notice that everything else I addressed in my first post has been blithely ignored.

while SMG and JD resign themselves to arguing the legality and constitutionality of Bush's warrantless actions, both have strayed from the topic JD chose to actually blog about. Considering the complete spanking trekkie gave him on the issue at hand, it is no wonder he chose FISA over the Saddam/Al Queda connection. Hey everyone, LOOK! Its the Goodrich blimp!

-----------KOOK ALERT---------
TONIGHT ON HANNITY&COLMES THEY ARE GOING TO FEATURE THE ALREADY DEBUNKED "SHOCKING DOCUMENT" THAT "PROVES" A BIN LADEN/SADDAM CONNECTION. IF THIS DOCUMENT WERE IN FACT TRUE IT WOULD BE A #1 STORY ON FOX, AND WOULD ENJOY WALL TO WALL COVERAGE. THEY ARE JUST THROWING HANNITY A BONE HERE. ALSO NOT ONE OTHER NETWORK NEWS IS EVEN TALKING ABOUT THIS "SHOCKING DOCUMENT". UNLESS YOU GO TO THE RIGHTWING KOOK SITES WHICH ARE BY NO MEANS LEGIT NEWS SOURCES. THANK YOU AND HAVE A NICE DAY........THIS HAS BEEN A BLUFIRE KOOK ALERT UPDATE..........

Trekkie's weak "direct connection, once removed" examples of "contacts" are not worth arguing about. They show not one instance of Bush ever claiming a "direct connection" between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein. Iraq DID have contacts with Al-Qaeda. A lot of countries did. Pointing that out doesn't mean you are alleging they were directly responsible for 9/11. I suspect Trekkie knows that as well as Krazy Keith does, but the rhetorical point is more important than being intellectually consistent.

> I'm saying the court didn't address the issue

Baloney. Their ruling placed no restrictions of place or subject on the President's powers. That's why the ACLU wanted the Supreme Court to reverse it, and failed in the attempt. The question of "constitutional authority" to conduct searches in Rangoon doesn't even arise, and has never been an issue. The only issue being litigated is whether that authority applies in the US. It does. I have spoken.

Trekkie:
Except Congress didn't do it - President Clinton did when he signed an Executive Order that placed physical searches within the framework of FISA.

One president cannot simply sign an executive order limiting the constitutional powers of all or any future president. Limits, moreover, that are legislative acts on that power.

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Its provisions can only be changed legislatively through the amendment process.

Wow, you think Clinton (or any president) can simply sign an EO and take away the constitutional powers of future presidents?

In effect, the president can amend the constitution?

Hmm, can GWB sign an executive order that no US citizen born in the state of Illinois can serve as president?

I might just go for that one.

SMG

Omfg...you foam finger waving lunatics are seriously concerned over olbermann's semantics while you practice the same craft?! According to my estimation your "direct connection" would ultimately (in this debate) need to be defined as "Saddam was remotely piloting all 4 planes." This thread is just too funny considering the fact that in previous statements the administration has claimed both no "direct connection"

I didn't say that there's a direct connection between September 11th and Saddam Hussein. We did say that he was a state sponsor of terror. I was very careful never to say that Saddam Hussein ordered the attacks on America.

and that there was "no connection" at all

We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th."

Are we now to assume that Al Queda had no connection with 9/11? Or Just no "direct connection."

This is comedy gold, truly it is.

> both have strayed from the topic JD chose to actually blog about.

Actually, J$ blogged about several topics that people choose not to respond to. Like Olby's calling in of another "expert" witness from the left fringe to give their legal opinion of the NSA surveillance. When has Olby had ANYONE on to give legal analysis from the other perspective, arguing the points made in In Re Sealed Case? No, instead we get Turley, Martin, and a parade of "experts" all of whom parrot Keith's personal opinion. On The Hour of Spin you get the whole gamut of perspectives, everything from A to B.

Or how about the Moussauoi trial, Big News on Countdown when a decision came down against the government. But when the Judge backs off on her ruling, it doesn't even get a one-sentence mention. Instead we get a whole segment on Scooter Libby, filled with brilliant insights like he's going to try to blame someone else. Why does the Moussaoui case get Big Story treatment from Krazy Keith when it makes the government look bad, and NO COVERAGE AT ALL when the Judge grants the prosecutor's request and backs off her previous ruling?

Yup, there are things J$ blogged about that some people just don't want to talk about.

Omfg...you foam finger waving lunatics are seriously concerned over olbermann's semantics while you practice the same craft?! According to my estimation your "direct connection" would ultimately (in this debate) need to be defined as "Saddam was remotely piloting all 4 planes." This thread is just too funny considering the fact that in previous statements the administration has claimed both no "direct connection"

I didn't say that there's a direct connection between September 11th and Saddam Hussein. We did say that he was a state sponsor of terror. I was very careful never to say that Saddam Hussein ordered the attacks on America.

and that there was "no connection" at all

We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th."

Are we now to assume that Al Queda had no connection with 9/11? Or Just no "direct connection."

This is comedy gold, truly it is.

Wow, you think Clinton (or any president) can simply sign an EO and take away the constitutional powers of future presidents?

You're really reaching on that one. And I'm not going to answer a question designed as a trap.

Hmm, can GWB sign an executive order that no US citizen born in the state of Illinois can serve as president?

What is it with you people and ridiculous non-sequitors?

Iraq DID have contacts with Al-Qaeda. A lot of countries did.

But no country's connections were hyped more than Iraq. The Administration played that up in speech after speech after speech. In the first polls after 9/11, almost no one claimed that Iraq played a part in it. Two years later, the numbers I posted before showed that significant numbers of Americans suddenly believed that they did.

Give me a rational explanation for how we went from "Iraq was not involved" in 2001 to "Iraq was involved" in 2003.

Trekkie:
You're really reaching on that one. And I'm not going to answer a question designed as a trap.

Trap? Please, if you can't answer a question or you've lost an argument, just acknowledge it. We're grownups here.

An executive order by one president cannot take away the constitutional powers of future presidents. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. EO's cannot change that.

Where's the trap in my post? Do you think an Executive Order by one president can take away the constitutional powers (inherent or explicit) of another president?

Hmm, can GWB sign an executive order that no US citizen born in the state of Illinois can serve as president?

This was entirely tongue in cheek (the Illinois reference was referring to Senator Hillary Clinton).

SMG

Hey TREKKIE,don't you have a real job?Between here and the I LOVE KEITH sites you seem to be a full time employee of COUNTDOWN.

Trap? Please, if you can't answer a question or you've lost an argument, just acknowledge it. We're grownups here.

You and a few others may be, but quite a large contingent would then hammer me incessantly if I didn't parse my words very carefully.

I think you're wrong, but I'm tired of treading the same ground over and over with you and J$. All I get is a headache and sore fingers from typing. Agree to disagree?

Hey TREKKIE,don't you have a real job?

*sigh* You're not my parents, so you (with all due respect) can go screw yourself.

Hey TREKKIE,don't you have a real job?Between here and the I LOVE KEITH sites you seem to be a full time employee of COUNTDOWN.
------
The real question is does JD have a real job? Between here, his other site, trolling on NewsHounds, and other sites, he seems to be a full time employee of Faux News.

Nah, he's just a disgraced former lawyer who couldn't even hack it working for the county. So now he embarasses himself daily with his rantings and ravings and I love Faux "hobbies". Oh well, at least it keeps him from pretending to be a lawyer.

funny,,, its a fantasy that the president said in a photo-op in 2001, " you cannot seperate osama bin laden and saddam hussein". You just can't face the reality that under the unprecidented incompetence of bushco and rummy that we have perpetrated one of the greatest political disasters of all time. We have disrespected our country, the constitution, and our men and women at arms with this sensless bufoonery..and you just cant stomach it. you are in denial.. get therapy.

Trekkie:
Agree to disagree?

Sure.

One last point? I view the president's decision to authorize the NSA program as part of his commander-in-chief powers, powers that are far broader, as we all know, than during peacetime.

You, it appears, view his actions as being part of his chief law enforcement officer powers. These powers are much more limited and have more checks upon them (e.g., judicial review).

If one has a more expansive view of his authority, i.e., C-in-C, then you'll likely view the program as within his constitutional powers. If one has a more limited view of his authority, i.e., law enforcer, then you'll view the program as outside of those powers.

Enough from me.

SMG

Johnny D.

you know you got em' When the only thing they have left are personal attacks. From a guy named Ramrod.

Hey puck, that's always the last resort of the desperate. And naturally, he got almost everything wrong, but that's also typical of Olbermanniacs.