Stupid Quote of the Week
From the Chicago Tribune:
"The terrorists started this war, and the president made it clear that we will end it at a time and place of our choosing." - White House spokesman Scott McClellan
Umm, Scott, what's he waiting for?
If anyone has a dumber quote than that from a U.S. public official this week, let's hear it.
37 comments:
How about - 'It takes a Plantation' from Hillary? But your quote from GWB to Young Scotty is Tops!
I'd say any quote from any number of idiotic Democrats who say we shouldn't wiretap conversations of Al Qaeda-US communication since Bid Laden made it clearer than ever that he is trying to commit mass murder in the US.
I'd say any quote from any number of idiotic Democrats who . . .
Nothing dumber than a dumb Democrat ..... except a Smart Republican.
And no . I didn't make that one up.
You know, if you're going to support illegal wiretaps, fine. But don't ever EVER talk about "freedom" or "the founding fathers" or "the Rule of Law" again. Because this is PRECICELY the sort of abuse that the founders so carefully sought to prevent.
And stop getting hung up on the terrorism protection. The FISA was created for just this sort of thing - and acts quickly.
Well put, 1:29.
There is one question that the President and his administration have yet to answer: why didn't you seek retroactive approval for the wiretaps, given the 72-hour retroactive window provided by FISA?
That's the crime. That's the question they won't and can't answer. Instead they dream up ridiculous claims that the authorization to use force and/or the President's position as Commander in Chief (of the Armed Forces, by the way, not the Nation) "implicitly" gave Bush the ability to sidestep FISA. What "implicit" powers do you think he'll come up with next? That's what keeps me up at night. That should keep all Americans, Republican and Democrat alike, up at night.
Democrats are walking a very fine line with this attack. You are essentially criticizing him for doing TOO much to try and protect America against terrorists. If you can convert everyone to your conspiracy theories that will keep us up at night looking for black helicopters, more power to you. But I think it will backfire in the end.
If there are any other Republicans reading this, perhaps you can help me. I'd like to design a bumper-sticker to answer the witty "Clinton lied, no one died." Something along the lines of "I'd rather have a President who would break the law to save my butt than his own".....any suggestions?
This is why the Democratic Party is dying. President Bush is trying to prevent another 9/11 or worse and Democrats are so blinded by their hatred of Bush they are trying to say he violated the law. Total crap. Read John Schmidt's op-ed in the Trib. The president has a right to protect the American people in time of war. Most people in America understand that. They don't buy the Democratic position. They know damn well that if there was an attack, the Democrats would be the first to the podium bitching that we failed to intercept the plot. I hope you guys keep arguing this issue. It's killing you.
Again, the Republicans have totally missed the point. The FISA court has signed off on 99.9% of the requests they've received for wiretaps, it's a secret court so going through it doesn't impact the secrecy of an investigation, and it's retroactive for 72 hours after the tap is in place. The only reason to circumvent FISA is if the subjects of the NSA, Bush approved, taps were such an egregious attempt to broaden the definition of a terrorist to "enemy's list" version 2006 that the rubber stamp FISA judges wouldn't approve them.
To try to reshape this into an endorsement of how hard W is trying to protect us is a grossly dishonest attempt to change the subject.
1) Check the polling, genius. This is a 50/50 issue. So either way, someone thinks you're wrong.
2) Beyond the soundbites the average American hears on the news, beyond the polling data, there's this little thing called The Constitution. IT precludes the president from illegal wiretaps (Fourth Amendment, in case you wish to contest that).
Congress has not declared war - and they certainly haven't declared marshall law.
This isn't about hatred of Bush - it's about following the law.
Members of our Armed Forces take an oaths to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States," the President and Members of Congress take similar oaths. If you can find the footnote in those oaths that says "*except when we deem it necessary to directly oppose the Constitution," by all means, point it out.
Before conservatives were largely a caricature of themselves, they would have taken grave offense at these transgressions.
Now; with the very notable exception of Christohopher Hitchens, a Bush cheerleader/Iraq war-apologist and plaintiff in one of the wiretap lawsuits; most self-styled conservatives find themselves defending this practice. That's pathetic.
If we've learned nothing in the last few weeks, we've learned that absolute power does indeed corrupt absolutely.
Anonymous said...
"This is why the Democratic Party is dying."
Actually, in 2004 the Democratic Party had a net gain in state legislative seats nationwide.
Pretty good for a dying party.
I also note that Illinois Republicans lost nearly every election for the last four years.
Face it: While Repubicans prosper in every other state in America, you all keep floundering. Name one state where the Republican Party is in worse shape than Illinois. Face it. You are not much good at being Republicans.
"To try to reshape this into an endorsement of how hard W is trying to protect us is a grossly dishonest attempt to change the subject."
You say "reshape." Are you implying that the real, original purpose for seeking and using this authority was something other than national security?
Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me......one that I think you'll have trouble selling to the American people.
Umm, aren't we getting away from YDD's original point?
Would any of the republicans like to defend Scotty's statement?
Admit it, it was dumb. Real dumb.
cbm....you are absolutely right. It was a very, very poorly articulately point that doesn't stand up well when broken down and thought about too literally.
But (god, there is always a "but", isn't there?)....I bet if we combed the records we could find some really dumb sounding quotes from Joe Lockhart & Dee Dee Meyers, don't you think?
It's not illegal wiretapping. So stop your Constitutional grandstanding. I hope the Democrats challenge. Like your chances on the Supreme Court now?
It's not a 50-50 issue. Most of the polls are much more decisive. Only the questions that are loaded make it anywhere near 50-50.
Bush hatred will allow, once again, allow Republicans to prevail on national security in 2006. Thanks for not learning your lesson, Democrats.
The majority of the country does not want phony roadblocks thrown in the way of people trying to stop our innocent citizens from being slaughtered.
GOP is right. And I am betting Scotty-Boy mis-spoke, so no one would need to defend him.
Oh, and...
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
It doesn't get any clearer than that.
Phony roadblocks? That's good.
Say, let's get rid of that phony roadblock preventing me from stealing my neighbor's car. Or the phony roadblock that prevents me from killing someone who I suspect may or may not wish me harm.
"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." -George W. Bush
Indeed, Mr. President. Indeed.
"Should the Bush Administration be required to get a warrant from a judge before monitoring phone and Internet communications between American citizens in the United States and suspected terrorists, or should the government be allowed to monitor such communications without a warrant?"
56% said they should get a warrant; 42% said it would be ok to monitor without a warrant.
Hardly backs up your claim - and a pretty fairly and consisely worded question.
The president has inherent constitutional authority to protect the national security. He has the right -- the duty -- to protect even jackasses like you who apparently would rather allow Al-Qaidi to destroy our cities than concede Bush is right.
"Anonymous said...
The president has inherent constitutional authority to protect the national security. He has the right -- the duty -- to protect even jackasses like you who apparently would rather allow Al-Qaidi to destroy our cities than concede Bush is right."
O.K., now we found a quote that was dumber than the statement by McClellan.
So much for living in freedom according to our nameless friend, who wants a government who can do literally anything -- as long as it is done in the name of security.
It is amazing that our nameless friend apparently wants freedom in Iraq, but not in America.
People like you don't deserve freedom.
Best to keep one's mouth closed, and be thought a fool, than to open it up and remove all doubt.
The President is not a monarch. He has a duty to protect and preserve the Constitutionally Guaranteed rights of all Americans - even pretend conservatives who have no credible argument so they resort to childish name-calling like you.
Oh, and by the way...this has been going on for at least two years, and none of the numbers has turned up anything, and FBI officials have said the thousands of "leads" have done nothing but waste their time and cause undue intrusion on innocent Americans. So spare us all the ridiculous tripe about this program preventing bin Ladin from leveling US cities. You're embarrassing yourself.
GOP. If it's only being done for national security purposes, then why aren't they taking the very resonable, legal step of going in front of a secret court and getting a warrant? You don't have to be a conspiracy nut to think something is not kosher when there's a very clear set of guidelines in place and they ignored them. I haven't heard anyone say let terrorists do whatever they want. I want criminals caught, but I damn well want to be sure that one rogue cop, or one rogue president, is going after criminals and not abusing their constitutional authority. Republicans generally like to dismiss slippery slope arguments about constitutional freedoms (unless they're talking about the 2nd amendment), but there is a core constitutional issue at play here. If the FISA court wasn't such a dead solid perfect means to give the goverment the flexibility they need to wiretap suspected terrorists I might understand the argument some seem to be making that the threat to their lives is so grave that they accept bypassing the constitution (I wouldn't agree, but at least I could wrap my head around it). The problem here is the remedy exists, secrecy is protected, it's retroactive after the tap's in place for god's sake.
GOP, you are right. Lockhart and Meyers may have made equally ridiculous statement. If this blog existed back then, I'm sure you would not have hesitated to bring them to our attention.
As for the Anon who said Scotty must have misspoke, I doubt it, but if he did he certainly can set the record straight. He gets a captive audience every day.
How in the hell is it infringing on anyone's rights if a conversation is monitored between a member of al-Qaeda and a US citizen? Are you people nuts? Me, if someone down the street is talking to al-Qaeda I want the government to know about it. Only the ACLU will touch this one. If you wacko liberal Dems' position is so logical and mainstream, why haven't any national Dems challenged this in court. BECAUSE IT IS OUT OF THE MAINSTREAM.
anon 8:26
What evidence do you have that every conversation wiretapped without a warrant was between a member of Al-Qaeda and a US citizen? The point is those of us "out of the mainstream" (in this case that means people with an IQ above room temperature who don't assume facts not in evidence) want to know, if in fact, these warrantless wiretaps were actually conducted only during conversations with Al-Qaeda memebers. If they did, there would be no problem obtaining a FISA warrant.
But then trying to introduce facts when arguing with a brainless drone such as you is pointless.
The only brainless drones I know are at the NYTIMES and those who heel at that far leftwing paper's command. Now that they have published classified information about how we are tracking Al Qaeda, I'm sure they will use email code words, couriers, etc. and make it harder for us to detect their plots to kill innocent men, women and children in this country. What if warrantless surveillance had picked up the 9/11 plot? I guess in your world and the world of the ACLU, you would have thrown that information in the trash because it was obtained in a way that some liberal professors who hate Bush say was illegal. Well, the NYT went to one of its favorite liberal professors, Cass Sunstein, and he said it was legal. Guess what -- the Times for the first time probably ever, forgot to quote Cass.
You are missing the point moron. There's nothing that they're getting through warrantless taps that they couldn't get by doing it legally. let's say you're a gun owner, therefore let's have the government come in and take your guns without a warrant because just maybe you'll fly off the handle at some undetermined point in the future and kill an innocent man, woman or child. And while they're at it let them search your house, car and computer and tap your phone. You never committed a crime? Oh well, you might just decide to at some point, let's stop you now. Don't you fell safer now.
Cousin, you're all over the map. The ACLU-NYTIMES conspiracy to aid and abet al Queda claptrap is what makes you sound like a pasty freshman in college who listens to too much talk radio.
Ditto (mega dittos) the notion that before the NYTimes story, Osama@aol.com was sending Zarquawi@gmail.com emails saying "tomorrow I'm gonig to blow up a train." but NOW they're encrypting their emails.
If they were that stupid, they'd have had a tough time crashing a station wagon into a barn.
It was said before and I'll say it again - the FISA warrants are fast and easy to obtain and are retroactive up to 72 hours. If your next door neighbor is chatting up Osama - the NSA should have no trouble whatsoever getting a warrant.
Oh, and if a warrantless wiretap had picked up on the 9/11 plot - it probably would have been filed next to the daily security briefing, cryptically titled "Bin Ladin Determined to Attack Within US."
You Democrats have no idea whether FISA warrants are adequate to cover exactly what the NSA is doing. You are just parroting Daily Kos talking points. It's because you want to attack Bush, pure and simple. There's no question he's trying to protect us from mass murder. What do you think he's trying to do, spy on Michael Moore?
Dude, I NEVER go to Daily Kos - and I couldn't give a frog's green behind about Moore.
Sorry to disappoint. I acutally read. You ought to give it a shot.
Anyone remember the scene in Cool Hand Luke when Luke is boxing Dragline? Luke keeps getting the snot knocked out of him. But he keeps getting up. And Dragline keeps pounding him.
Savor the flavor, cousin. That's probably the last time you'll ever be favorably compared to a great actor in a classic role. But like George Kennedy's Dragline, it's time for the majority of us who are right and have facts on our side to shake our heads and walk away.
You've got a handful of nothing. But here - it ain't a cool hand at all.
Adios.
You liberals sure do like Hollywood.
I read too. Read former Assistant US Attorney John Schmidt, a Democrat, argue convincingly in the Trib a few weeks ago that Bush was right.
Anonymous said...
"You Democrats have no idea whether FISA warrants are adequate to cover exactly what the NSA is doing. You are just parroting Daily Kos talking points. It's because you want to attack Bush, pure and simple. There's no question he's trying to protect us from mass murder. What do you think he's trying to do, spy on Michael Moore?"
Hopefully the government is watching you. You sound like a crazed terrorist to me.
anon 11:19. Although your posts don't really indicate an ability to read, I'll asume you read or heard Bush's comments on April 20, 2004 months after the warraantless wiretaps started:
"Any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order."
"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,"
And you can't argue secrecy, because the FISA warrants are secret. Your boy lied, and just because Rush and Hannity tell you to adopt the Goebbels "big lie" technique and dig your heals in no matter what, you do. It's interesting that the only defense you're able to keep throwing out is the one op-ed written by Schmidt. I'll bet you haven't even read it yourself, because you've been unable to articulate any of the arguments he made.
Too be so paranoid about the threats that exist that you're willing to cede freedom for your narrow concept of safety puts you clearly in the grooup Franklin was talking about when he said you deserve neither. That's Ben Franklin, by the way. He doesn't have a nationally syndicated right-wing talk show, so you probably haven't heard of him.
You left-wing wackos are so hell-bent on filling the template: Bush is a liar! you lose sight of the politics. The politics are that the country sees Bush is trying to protect them and you are trying to undermine him. Not very complex. As for your obsession with saying Bush is a liar when any rational person can see he is sincere, my only pop psychological guess is that you are trying to compensate for Bill Clinton, who truly was and is a pathological liar. You Democrats are somehow trying to make Bush more like Clinton. Yes, Bush has flaws like anyone else but you are picking the wrong ones and it doesn't take a smart person to figure that out. That's why he won re-election. Or perhaps you leftists can explain to me how Bush won re-election if he is such a liar.
And there it is. If you oppose unconstitutional wiretaps, if you DARE to question HRH Bush, you are a "left-wing wacko."
Incidentally, Bush's approval rating is in the 40s - his disapproval in the 50s. So, your conceptions of the country's backing of his agenda are off.
And Clinton, a "pathological liar," as you describe him, was also re-elected, so I guess your circular argument doesn't really hold water.
You can keep saying what you're saying (and offering NO facts), but it will still be wrong, and you'll still be pathetic.
But it's kind of fun to get you all frothed up. You should have gone out...enjoyed another January day in the 40s (we'll save the global climate change argument for another day). Isn't there some sort of petition drive to rename the Washington Monument after Reagan or build a monument to Oliver North or something?
Fellow Republicans -
Can't you see that by engaging in this discussion we're taking the Democrats' bait?
They want to make the 2006 state elections about NATIONAL politics rather than STATE politics--because they would lose the election if it were simply on the statewide merits of the case.
If Bush did half the things that the Democrats say he did, then let's impeach him. If not, perhaps they should tone down their rhetoric and keep our political discussions civil.
In addition, if he did in fact do those things, then Bush and his inner circle, not the Republicans, should bear the responsibility. After all, it's a somewhat basic assumption that the leader of one's party will neither lie to the American people nor betray its fundamental convictions; if the Democrats are right, we Republicans are in the same boat they are.
Let the national pundits drone on and on about whether the 2006 elections are a reflection on Bush's job rating. We have more at stake in this election--the future of our state--and we're not buying the bait-and-switch stunt.
"We're trying to find the labor to increase production....Underground work is different, and sometimes young workers get discouraged."
- Don Blankenship, Massey [Energy Company]'s chairman and chief executive, 9/26 (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=aNERiSkAgRxs&refer=top_world_news)
Coal mining hasn't gotten any less discouraging this month.
A question for people who know better: how is the IL coal industry (both management and union) reacting to the recent mine accidents?
No. I meant "pasty."
As in "Ever since little Johnny started listening to the gaping cracks on AM talk-radio, he spends all his time online in the basement reading NewsMax and making pi$$-poor arguments in defense of that psycho zealot in the White House. He never leaves the basement, he mumbles curses to himself about 'stupid liberal traitors,' and his skin has grown pasty. I think he has a mental disorder"
Pasty.
Post a Comment