A fight over al Qaeda that Obama is happy to have

McCain’s worst enemy in this race is going to be his own tongue.

Hallelujah!! Finally, somebody with the backbone, the self-confidence and the debating skills to smash those porkfarmers right in the mouth, as they have so richly deserved for so long.

There is nobody….I repeat, nobody….on the planet who can fillet a neocon like Barack Obama. Thank you, Barack!!

Partial quotes are part & parcel of the Republican propagandists’ package.

Did you expect more of McCain?

Sincerely,

an alliterative activist

Barack is pointing out the forest to all those who have only seen the trees so far. Good for him (and us)!

Again, McCain is out to harvest the fear vote. Don’t expect his campaign to make much sense vis a vis reality and existing international circumstances. I can discern Obama’s concern is in regard to the bona fide al Qaeda organization that we all know now resides in the sovereign nation of Pakistan. McCain is obfuscating such discernment for political gain. Will he succeed with such cynical rhetoric? That is one of the questions of this ’08 election cycle that we should be a bit entertained with as we await a Democratic victory in November. -Kevo

We’ve been waiting for such a long, long time to finally see a Democrat running for the president who won’t take the right’s petty crap and has the skills to beat them over the head with it. Even Hillary supporters have to take pleasure in watching Barack deftly prove how idiotic McCain is.

This is going to be a good general election campaign. Real good. McCain throws tinfoil while Obama drops anvils on him—and we’re still 6 months away from the conventions?

This is something I will enjoy all the way up until Barack defeats McCain in November.

McCain is:

A. Getting Involved in a land war in Asia.
B. Going in against a Sicilian when death is on the line.
C. Attacking a far more deft and intelligent person to score points with war supporters who are a significant minority.
D. All of the above.

Actually, Mr. Benen al-Qaeda WAS in Iraq before any American boots hit the ground.

The leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq was Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, hell you could even look it up.

More to the point the “war on terror” is not simply a police operation directed towards hunting down bin-Laden or specific al-Qaeda cells, thought that is important.

The war on terror is much more broad a concept, it’s all about stopping radical Islamic terror, which is not so neatly circumscribed within an al-Qaeda mold.

There are hundreds of fundamentalist Islamic terror groups worldwide and they all rightfully find themselves in our crosshairs.

Sorry to rain on your parade and your obvious romance with Mr. Obama, but he is abysmally ignorant on this matter, and you seem to lap it up because your understanding appears to be on the same level.

Oh the humanity!

Can I do it? Can I watch a younger man beat an old man to a pulp?

Can I watch as the Senator from Illinois gives the pallid turd of Arizona a right good stomping?

Can I watch as a principled honest man winds up and knocks a hypocrtical toady of the Bush Regime into the Potomac?

Yes! Yes I can watch! Let there be popcorn!

And get some decent spoofs in here.

The reality is, if McCain hadn’t backed Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld., and then insisted for the last several years that we “stay the course,” al Qaeda in Iraq wouldn’t exist, and Osama bin Laden wouldn’t be able to use Iraq for fundraising and recruiting. And how is this a known fact, that Al Qaeda would never have been able to raise funds or recruit from an Iraq still under Saddam Hussein? See, this argument is completely unsubstantiated, and not based in any reality. Hussein had no problem funding Islamist terrorists, as was proven by his funding of Hamas suicide terrorists. Just because he didn’t want them in his own country doesn’t mean he wouldn’t have had a problem covertly help them financially (or other things). That was a legitimate threat, which is now gone since Hussein has benefited humanity by becoming a corpse.

The argument from weakness is Obama’s continued ridiculous argument that the U.S. shouldn’t have gone to Iraq in the first place. But we’re there now. Al Qaeda is there now. It’s not like Bush and McCain invited them in, as Obama seems to imply. If there’s any lesson to be learned from Vietnam, it’s that U.S. abandonment of a country actually trying to be free is not a good thing.

Got a problem with this statement from Obama:

“I think we should always cooperate with our allies and sovereign nations in making sure that we are rooting out terrorist organizations, but if they are planning attacks on Americans, like what happened in 9/11, it is my job — it will be my job as president to make sure that we are hunting them down.”

How is he going to do that when he’d have the NSA get court orders in order to force U.S. telecommunications companies since they wouldn’t want to voluntarily assist as they would be too afraid of getting sued for this voluntary assistance? And why would Obama force the NSA to get warrants based on probable cause, even after surveillance began, which gives the members of these same terrorist organizations, those communicating with each other exclusively overseas, rights guaranteed under the 4th Amendment? Doesn’t he actually, you know, want to hunt the terrorists down before they commit terrorist attacks like 9/11?

It strikes me that none of you seem to be able to mouth the words, “Islamic Jihadism,” until you develop the vocabulary necessary to even talk about the conflict between barbarism and civilization that the war on terror represents, you will not only appear foolish, but you will never win a major national election.

SteveIL

Put plainly the Dem party is simply not credible on national defense and security.

Since 1972 they have been apologists for the totalitarian left, they have opposed every single major weapons system and are now siding with the radical Islamists because in their fever dream hallucinatory politics, G W Bush is the truly evil one.

You cant reason with people like this, they are mentally ill, all you can do is defeat them, which is going to happen AGAIN in November.

As of this post, the only story I see online is “McCain mocks Obama”. It doesn’t matter how good your comeback is if no one reports it.

BTW, what do people make of the new LA times poll showing McCain over either Clinton or Obama. Is this the inevitable result of Obama and Clinton fighting each other while McCain “focuses” on his message? Will it resolve itself after one of them drops out of the race?

There were two reasons Zarqawi was in Iraq: (1) he was outside Saddam’s reach; (2) Bush refrained from attacking him because he preferred having the talking point that there was a terrorist in Iraq to actually doing something about it.

You can look it up.

And get some decent spoofs in here. -TAIO

Here, here. Better trolls please.

I know the herd is getting thin, but c’mon!

How is he going to do that when he’d have the NSA get court orders in order to force U.S. telecommunications companies since they wouldn’t want to voluntarily assist as they would be too afraid of getting sued for this voluntary assistance? -SteveIL

You honestly can’t be that absolutely stupid can you? It’s like you decided to be a parody, like Colbert, and just started believing your own crap.

Aside for you willfullly ignorant misunderstanding of FISA operations, if you want a government that can spy on citizens any time they want, there are plenty to chose from. I’ll even help you pack.

But here in the ol’ US of A we happen to like our freedom. Want to violate it? Better have a damned good reason and a warrant.

Hey, William, buddy, I know, right, like war is so cool. Hey, I’ve got an idea, since you totally love war so much, enlist.

http://www.goarmy.com

Or have they not lowered their standards enough yet to let you in?

I see that the Doug “Dunderhead” Feith Fan Club has arrived….

There were two reasons Zarqawi was in Iraq: (1) he was outside Saddam’s reach; (2) Bush refrained from attacking him because he preferred having the talking point that there was a terrorist in Iraq to actually doing something about it.

You can look it up.

The MSNBC piece didn’t conclude either of the above Democrat talking points. Nobody in Iraq was outside of Saddam’s reach (he had a tens of thousands of security forces who could covertly go whereever he told them to go).

Many political polls are run by right-wing corporations, and no surprisingly, they tend to show right-wing corporatist candidates “ahead.” Probably the point of this is to soften up the people for Republican victories from electronically rigging the elections on election night. It worked like a charm in 2004. Kerry rolled over and played dead like a good corporate Democrat. The Gallup Poll is notoriously slanted towards the right wing: they had Hillary ahead of Obama by some six to eight points before the Wisconsin Democratic Primary Election, which was actually a landslide for Obama. I suggested to myself that Obama would sweep Wisconsin by 20 points; he won by 16 or 17, so my wild uneducated guess was closer than all those professional polls. Another problem is that the pollsters don’t question the voters with only cell phones… They tend to be younger, smarter, well educated, well off and Obama supporters to boot.

Try to remember back several months ago, didn’t the polls show that Rudy G. would beat Hillary in the election? Polls tend to vary greatly, from being somewhat reliable, to being only slightly reliable to almost totally worthless.

“I have some news for John McCain,” Obama continued, “That’s there was no Al Qaeda in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain” began the Iraq war, he said.

Uhh, shouldn’t that be Bus, McCain and Clinto began the war?

It looks like McCain is looking to win the White House by securing the 30% of Americans who thing Bush is doing a great job. Maybe the plan is to somehow have Obama (or Hillary, in that unlikely scenario) only get 25% of the vote? What, have 45% of ballots “lost” or something? Because that’s the only rationale I can see for campaigning based on how badly Bush & co screwed up the war.

doubtful said, Aside for you willfullly ignorant misunderstanding of FISA operations, if you want a government that can spy on citizens any time they want, there are plenty to chose from. I’ll even help you pack. Then why don’t you enlighten me with your expert statutory knowledge of FISA and everything that has gone on, like the reason why the PAA was enacted.

But here in the ol’ US of A we happen to like our freedom. Want to violate it? Better have a damned good reason and a warrant. I don’t have a problem with that. But why do you want to extend that to our enemies overseas?

McCain is trapped, because the audiences he speaks to still believe that Saddam Hussein was involved in the 9/11 attacks. He can’t make sense without losing his base, because they are senseless from hatred, both of al Qaeda and moreso of Democrats.

Not that doubtful needs my help to handle SteveIL, but shooting fish in a barrel seems a fine way to spend an afternoon break so here goes.

You mention the PAA, and then ask “why do you want to extend that to our enemies overseas?”

Of course, the PAA does much more than that – it allows for calls where one end is domestic. Which brings us to

“Then why don’t you enlighten me with your expert statutory knowledge of FISA and everything that has gone on, like the reason why the PAA was enacted.”

First, I cannot get behind your bootstrapping assumption that the PAA’s mere enactment proves it was necessary. That is a clever Ed Meese-like argument that if someone is arrested and an is criminal supect, they must be guilty of something.

Second, FISA — the good old pre-Bush version — was perfectly effective. Republicans are doing nothing but pure grandstanding on this one; there is not one bit of credible evidence that FISA had not worked just fine. The FISA court denied about 5 warrant requests in its entire existence; the standards are very leinient; it moves quickly — and the ultimate fact that undermines the Republican talking points is that if a security agency believes there is an emergency, they can engage in surveillance for three days before they have to go to the FISA court.

So what, exactly, is the problem with FISA that requires amendment, or political hullabaloo? There is none – the Republicans simply want political hullaballoo, so they make stuff up for political gain.

Surely some wingnut will argue that the post-9/11 amendments and proposed amendments to FISA would have helped prevent 9/11. Alas, there is (a) no credible evidence of this and (b) we had, under the old laws, all the information we needed – it just didn’t get translated until after 9/11 because we have a massive shortage of Arabic translators. (And even this retrospective is very generous to Bush; arguably all of the warning needed was in the August 2001 PDB that Team Bush blew off).

So, yeah, that is the relevant “knowledge of FISA.”

How is he going to do that when he’d have the NSA get court orders in order to force U.S. telecommunications companies since they wouldn’t want to voluntarily assist as they would be too afraid of getting sued for this voluntary assistance?

NSA can get court orders pretty easily, especially since they only have to do it 72 hours after the request is made to the telecoms. And especially since the FISA court rarely rejects warrants.

And why would Obama force the NSA to get warrants based on probable cause, even after surveillance began, which gives the members of these same terrorist organizations, those communicating with each other exclusively overseas, rights guaranteed under the 4th Amendment?

He wouldn’t. FISA only covers focus on US subjects.

Doesn’t he actually, you know, want to hunt the terrorists down before they commit terrorist attacks like 9/11?

Yes unlike Bush, who allowed 9/11 to happen under his own lazy watch.

OK better trolls please.

Oh and the Saddam-Zarqawi link was debunked by Republican Pat Roberts:

Senate Intelligence Committee’s report, Sep. 2006:

[Bin] Ladin generally opposed collaboration [with Baghdad]. (p. 65)

According to debriefs of multiple detainees — including Saddam Hussein and former Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz — and capture documents, Saddam did not trust al-Qa’ida or any other radical Islamist group and did not want to cooperate with them. (p. 67)

Aziz underscored Saddam’s distrust of Islamic extremists like bin Ladin, stating that when the Iraqi regime started to see evidence that Wahabists had come to Iraq, “the Iraqi regime issued a decree aggressively outlawing Wahabism in Iraq and threatening offenders with execution.” (p. 67)

Another senior Iraqi official stated that Saddam did not like bin Ladin because he called Saddam an “unbeliever.” (p.73)

Conclusion 1: … Postwar findings indicate that Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qa’ida and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al Qa’ida to provide material or operational support. Debriefings of key leaders of the former Iraqi regime indicate that Saddam distrusted Islamic radicals in general, and al Qa’ida in particular… Debriefings also indicate that Saddam issued a general order that Iraq should not deal with al Qa’ida. No postwar information suggests that the Iraqi regime attempted to facilitate a relationship with bin Ladin. (p. 105)

Conclusion 5:… Postwar information indicates that Saddam Hussein attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture al-Zarqawi and that the regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi. (p. 109)

Does Obama remember the name Al-Zarqawi who had a base in Iraq long before the war? I thought we already went over this with the Kerry campaign (see link)

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=7174

“Actually, Mr. Benen al-Qaeda WAS in Iraq before any American boots hit the ground.”

Oh my, you actually drank the Kool-Aid, didn’t ypu?!

Watching “Rampstrike” McCanine do a public “rampstrike” every day for the next six months is going to be fun!

SteveIL,

The PAA was passed because the adminstration didn’t want to work in good faith to revise FISA. They wanted no oversight of their activities as opposed to updating the oversight of the existing FISA court. Congress knew it was a POS when they passed it and that is why it has a sunset clause.

Congress has offered to sit down with the President to work out an updated FISA law which would address the administrations concerns. However, the administration has decided to simply engage in demagoguery about how the US will lose “vital” intelligence unless the president gets his way.

FISA was originally instituted in response to abuse by another Republican president (pesky details!) who decided to use wiretaps to monitor political opposition. Do you really feel that the government should have the right to ease drop on any conversation (after all, they only have to “believe” it involves a foreign source)? …with absolutely no oversight (save their own discretion)?

Per doubtful’s remarks, there are plenty of countries where this is currently the practice. I chose not to live in them and I have not been convinced we have to become like them in order to “save” ourselves.

“He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security.” – Benjamin Franklin.

Brian A
Seriously? Zarqawi who Bush passed twice on attacking because it would undermine his casus belli? Who operated in the northern no fly zone? You don’t know enough to troll here.

Not that doubtful needs my help to handle SteveIL, but shooting fish in a barrel seems a fine way to spend an afternoon break so here goes.

You mention the PAA, and then ask “why do you want to extend that to our enemies overseas?”

Of course, the PAA does much more than that – it allows for calls where one end is domestic.

Actually, doubtful does need your help. And so do you. It is obvious that being in denial of the reason why the PAA was passed is a good excuse for those who attempt to interject the wrong conclusions. The PAA was passed because the supposed rubber-stamp FISA court declared that surveillance of two individuals communicating with each other, and both in foreign countries, was the equivalent of a local telephone call if the communications hub was in the U.S., and therefore illegal and requiring a warrant. Which extends the rights guaranteed to “the people” (those of us in the U.S.) to those overseas terrorists we are at war with. Which makes this statement, So, yeah, that is the relevant “knowledge of FISA.”, wrong. Again.

NSA can get court orders pretty easily, especially since they only have to do it 72 hours after the request is made to the telecoms. And especially since the FISA court rarely rejects warrants. Immaterial. Why have to get a court order if the U.S. companies would be happy to volunteer to help?

He wouldn’t. FISA only covers focus on US subjects. As I explained. It doesn’t. It now extends to those we are at war with overseas.

Yes unlike Bush, who allowed 9/11 to happen under his own lazy watch. Disregarding the Bush part of that sentence, Obama’s statements, based on his own platform and policy, doesn’t make any logical sense. How can he go after Al Qaeda if to prevent a terrorist attack if he doesn’t use the tools he can to do so? Plus, why would he want to re-invade Iraq if to keep Al Qaeda from setting up a base there, when in fact Al Qaeda is already there and is already trying to set up a base in Iraq (not to mention our soldiers are making that real tough right now)? Explain the logic of that.

Senate Intelligence Committee’s report, Sep. 2006: Ahem, pre-war intelligence is not evidence, but a best guess. It is also not the same as postwar evidence that is gained after-the-fact. To think otherwise defies logic. Therefore, it is irrelevant to the discussion.

SteveIL and William, you seem to be demigods on this matter of al Qaeda. I read your perspectives as wrapped in misnomer and misinformation. You will be indentured to such perpectives as long as you continue your unassuming ways of believing outright debunked Republican talking points of the past 5 years. I will not waste my time trying to unwrap you.

The canyons of your minds will keep you trapped until you wish to climb the mountains of understanding and knowledge! In the meantime, all the world sees the catastrophic results of an ill-fated invasion based on at best faulty intelligence, and worst a rope the dope play by this WH crowd. So, here we are in an elecion cycle where the Republican party has nothing to offer the American public but more fear. SteveIL and William, I am a Republican now for over 30 years. The depravity of this current Republican party is so pronounced at this time, I look forward to a very new, very real direction change for our beloved nation. Civil liberties, inalienable rights, and the Bill of Rights define our “civilization” and where are you two in practacing such American ideals? -Kevo

Some simple answers for SteveIL:

“Why have to get a court order if the U.S. companies would be happy to volunteer to help?”

Because otherwise their actions would be illegal.

“(FISA) doesn’t. It now extends to those we are at war with overseas.”

Utterly false. Neither PAA nor FISA restrict NSA eavesdropping on foreign sources. I quote someone who knows more about this than SteveIL will ever learn: “The material difference is that FISA requires warrants for eavesdropping on Americans (after the fact, if necessary) while the Protect America Act allows the President to eavesdrop on any Americans without having any oversight at all.”

“Explain the logic of that.”

Based on that paragraph, and that paragraph alone, SteveIL, you are obviously not capable of anything remotely resembling logic. I have seldom seen so many non-sequiturs and outright illogic compressed so tightly.

Are you really trying to dismiss the Senate report as “not relevant?” Wow. Get a grip, SteveIL, something around here may not be relevant, but the Senate report isn’t it. There is no absolute oracle of truth, but the Senate report is a decent approximation.

Don’t believe one optimistic word from any public figure about the economy or humanity in general. They are all part of the problem. Its like a game of Monopoly. In America, the richest 1% now hold 1/2 OF ALL UNITED STATES WEALTH. Unlike ‘lesser’ estimates, this includes all stocks, bonds, cash, and material assets held by America’s richest 1%. Even that filthy pig Oprah acknowledged that it was at about 50% in 2006. Naturally, she put her own ‘humanitarian’ spin on it. Calling attention to her own ‘good will’. WHAT A DISGUSTING HYPOCRITE SLOB. THE RICHEST 1% HAVE LITERALLY MADE WORLD PROSPERITY ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE. Don’t fall for all of their ‘humanitarian’ CRAP. ITS A SHAM. THESE PEOPLE ARE CAUSING THE SAME PROBLEMS THEY PRETEND TO CARE ABOUT. Ask any professor of economics. Money does not grow on trees. The government can’t just print up more on a whim. At any given time, there is a relative limit to the wealth within ANY economy of ANY size. So when too much wealth accumulates at the top, the middle class slip further into debt and the lower class further into poverty. A similar rule applies worldwide. The world’s richest 1% now own over 40% of ALL WORLD WEALTH. This is EVEN AFTER you account for all of this ‘good will’ ‘humanitarian’ BS from celebrities and executives. ITS A SHAM. As they get richer and richer, less wealth is left circulating beneath them. This is the single greatest underlying cause for the current US recession. The middle class can no longer afford to sustain their share of the economy. Their wealth has been gradually transfered to the richest 1%. One way or another, we suffer because of their incredible greed. We are talking about TRILLIONS of dollars. Transfered FROM US TO THEM. Over a period of about 27 years. Thats Reaganomics for you. The wealth does not ‘trickle down’ as we were told it would. It just accumulates at the top. Shrinking the middle class and expanding the lower class. Causing a domino effect of socio-economic problems. But the rich will never stop. They will never settle for a reasonable share of ANYTHING. They will do whatever it takes to get even richer. Leaving even less of the pie for the other 99% of us to share. At the same time, they throw back a few tax deductable crumbs and call themselves ‘humanitarians’. IT CAN’T WORK THIS WAY. This is going to end just like a game of Monopoly. The current US recession will drag on for years and lead into the worst US depression of all time. The richest 1% will live like royalty while the rest of us fight over jobs, food, and gasoline. Crime, poverty, and suicide will skyrocket. So don’t fall for all of this PR CRAP from Hollywood, Pro Sports, and Wall Street PIGS. ITS A SHAM. Remember: They are filthy rich EVEN AFTER their tax deductable contributions. Greedy pigs. Now, we are headed for the worst economic and cultural crisis of all time. SEND A “THANK YOU” NOTE TO YOUR FAVORITE MILLIONAIRE. ITS THEIR FAULT. I’m not discounting other factors like China, sub-prime, or gas prices. But all of those factors combined still pale in comparison to that HUGE transfer of wealth to the rich. Anyway, those other factors are all related and further aggrivated because of GREED. If it weren’t for the OBSCENE distribution of wealth within our country, there never would have been such a market for sub-prime to begin with. Which by the way, was another trick whipped up by greedy bankers and executives. IT MAKES THEM RICHER. The credit industry has been ENDORSED by people like Oprah, Ellen, Dr Phil, and many other celebrities. IT MAKES THEM RICHER. So don’t fall for their ‘good will’ BS. ITS A LIE. If you fall for it, then you’re a fool. If you see any real difference between the moral character of a celebrity, politician, attorney, or executive, then you’re a fool. WAKE UP PEOPLE. The 1% club will always say or do whatever it takes to get as rich as possible. Without the slightest regard for anything or anyone but themselves. Vioxx. Their idea. Sub-prime. Their idea. NAFTA. Their idea. Outsourcing. Their idea. The commercial lobbyist. Their idea. The multi-million dollar lawsuit. Their idea. $200 cell phone bills. Their idea. $200 basketball shoes. Their idea. $30 late fees. Their idea. $30 NSF fees. Their idea. $20 DVDs. Their idea. Subliminal advertising. Their idea. The MASSIVE campaign to turn every American into a brainwashed credit card, pharmaceutical, love-sick, celebrity junkie. Their idea. All of which concentrate the world’s wealth and resources and wreak havok on society. All of which have been CREATED AND ENDORSED by celebrities, athletes, and executives. IT MAKES THEM RICHER. So don’t fall for their ‘ good will’ ‘humanitarian’ BS. ITS A SHAM. NOTHING BUT TAX DEDUCTABLE PR CRAP. Bottom line: The richest 1% will soon tank the largest economy in the world. It will be like nothing we’ve ever seen before. and thats just the beginning. Greed will eventually tank every major economy in the world. Causing millions to suffer and die. Oprah, Angelina, Brad, Bono, and Bill are not part of the solution. They are part of the problem. EXTREME WEALTH HAS MADE WORLD PROSPERITY ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE. WITHOUT WORLD PROSPERITY, THERE WILL NEVER BE WORLD PEACE OR ANYTHING EVEN CLOSE. GREED KILLS. IT WILL BE OUR DOWNFALL. Of course, the rich will throw a fit and call me a madman. Of course, their ignorant fans will do the same. You have to expect that. But I speak the truth. If you don’t believe me, then copy this entry and run it by any professor of economics or socio-economics. Then tell a friend. Call the local radio station. Re-post this entry or put it in your own words. Be one of the first to predict the worst economic and cultural crisis of all time and explain its cause. WE ARE IN BIG TROUBLE.

Grim,

I still have some gas in my trolling motor.

A classified memo obtained by Stephen F. Hayes, prepared by Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith in response to questions posed by the Senate Intelligence Committee as part of its investigation into prewar intelligence, stated the following regarding al-Zarqawi:

“Sensitive reporting indicates senior terrorist planner and close al Qaeda associate al Zarqawi has had an operational alliance with Iraqi officials. As of October 2002, al Zarqawi maintained contacts with the IIS to procure weapons and explosives, including surface-to-air missiles from an IIS officer in Baghdad. According to sensitive reporting, al Zarqawi was setting up sleeper cells in Baghdad to be activated in case of a U.S. occupation of the city, suggesting his operational cooperation with the Iraqis may have deepened in recent months. Such cooperation could include IIS provision of a secure operating bases and steady access to arms and explosives in preparation for a possible U.S. invasion. Al Zarqawi’s procurements from the Iraqis also could support al Qaeda operations against the U.S. or its allies elsewhere.”
————————————————————————————————————
As to why we didn’t just take out his camp before:

CENTCOM’s Deputy Commander, Lt. General Michael DeLong, in an interview with PBS on February 14, 2006 claims that the reasons for abandoning the opportunity to take out Zarqawi’s camp was that the Pentagon feared that an attack would contaminate the area with chemical weapon materials: “We almost took them out three months before the Iraq war started. We almost took that thing, but we were so concerned that the chemical cloud from there could devastate the region that we chose to take them by land rather than by smart weapons.”

Why have to get a court order if the U.S. companies would be happy to volunteer to help? -SteveIL

Because those companies are not legally allowed to turn over that information and eavesdrop on US citizens. For example, If the Bush Administration wanted me to choke the life out of you, I could do it, but it would still be illegal and I’d be punished for it.

You see, the government can’t ask people or corporations to break the law, and if the corporations do break the law (and not all of them asked did, see Google and Qwest) then they should be punished. I ask you, if the information is so important and illegal wiretapping is such a valuable tool, why isn’t the government pursuing non-compliant companies?

It is because they don’t want anyone to challenge it; the whole reason they want to grant immunity to ATT&T and the other law breaking companies is because they don’t want this case to make it to the Supreme Court. Even a SCOTUS as conservative as this one would recognize it was illegal, and then someone in the Administration would have to be punished (especially since the SCOTUS knows a Democrat is on their way into the White House).

How can he go after Al Qaeda if to prevent a terrorist attack if he doesn’t use the tools he can to do so? -SteveIL

He can because he’s not a fool. He knows he has the tools available to him. (For the record, Bush knows this as well, which is why he wouldn’t support the extension. He just needed a talkin’ point.) A TP which you ate up like so much leftover pizza, I might add.

Ahem, pre-war intelligence is not evidence, but a best guess. -SteveIL

What? Are you high?

Really good stuff you’re smokin’ to come up with dumbassery like that. The intelligence community is not just sitting around best guessing all day. You think the CIA, FBI, and NSA are just throwing darts? Well, maybe under Bush, but that’s not what they should be doing. I don’t even know what to say to that. It’s like arguing about existentialism with a five year old. They aren’t going to get it no matter what you say.

The metal has really warped your mind, boyo. You’re completely unable to grasp even the most elementary of concepts. I’m surprised you’re still able to form paragraphs without a place for guitar solos.

You are, by far, the most feckless and dunderheaded troll I’ve ever seen. If the ever winnowing group of asshats that still support this criminal administration are as patently unable to grasp simple concepts as you, then the Democrats have nothing to fear for the next 50 years.

To the persistent SteveIL:

Why have to get a court order if the U.S. companies would be happy to volunteer to help?

Because without judicial oversight, the ‘happy’ companies could be asked to wiretap political opponents without accountability.

FISA court declared that surveillance of two individuals communicating with each other, and both in foreign countries, was the equivalent of a local telephone call if the communications hub was in the U.S., and therefore illegal and requiring a warrant

Incorrect. In reality, the August FISA bill passed by Congress eliminated the need for warrants in such cases — i.e., foreign-to-foreign communications which are routed through the U.S. network (through fiber optics). FISA has gone through several updates to keep up with the times.

How can he go after Al Qaeda if to prevent a terrorist attack if he doesn’t use the tools he can to do so?

He will use the tools. There is no outstanding issue about the tools, the only argument is about retroactive immunity for telecoms, which has no bearing on going after terrorists.

Why would he want to re-invade Iraq if to keep Al Qaeda from setting up a base there, when in fact Al Qaeda is already there and is already trying to set up a base in Iraq (not to mention our soldiers are making that real tough right now)?

Obama would not re-invade but said would “hunt” down the terrorists and “act” against the bases; by withdrawing troops, he would also transition responsibility for policing the streets (right now it’s American responsibilty indefinitely) to the Iraqis.

You’ve really got nothing, SteveIL. Keep it coming though.

Brian A – Doug Feith? “sensitive” reporting? Seriously? Would that be from “curveball”, perhaps?

Why doesn’t Republican Pat Roberts not believe Doug Feith then?

With 86 recent stories about Al Queda in Iraq on CNN’s website, where has Obama been? Under a rock? – He doesn’t have a clue what is going on in the world let alone how to be a President and deal with international issues.

“Why have to get a court order if the U.S. companies would be happy to volunteer to help?”

Because otherwise their actions would be illegal.

Some say otherwise, based on Article II, Section 2. The legal questions haven’t been answered. The only two lawsuits similar to your reference were thrown out. The 40 pending lawsuits would very likely also get thrown out, thus negating their purpose, except to enrich trial lawyers donating to Democrats. It’s also interesting to note that “liberals” would punish legitimate patriotism.

“(FISA) doesn’t. It now extends to those we are at war with overseas.”

Utterly false. Neither PAA nor FISA restrict NSA eavesdropping on foreign sources. I quote someone who knows more about this than SteveIL will ever learn: “The material difference is that FISA requires warrants for eavesdropping on Americans (after the fact, if necessary) while the Protect America Act allows the President to eavesdrop on any Americans without having any oversight at all.”

Continuing to be in denial of the reason for enacting the PAA in the first place is not an excuse. For your reference, check this out:

The judge, whose name could not be learned, concluded early this year that the government had overstepped its authority in attempting to broadly surveil communications between two locations overseas that are passed through routing stations in the United States, according to two other government sources familiar with the decision.

Get it? Two terrorists, both overseas, communicating with each other, but the communications hub routing the communication went through the U.S. The FISA court declared this illegal, now requiring a warrant. For two terrorists overseas communicating with each other. The courts now protected the terrorists we are at war with under the 4th Amendment. Whomever the “someone who knows more about this than SteveIL” you quoted is also probably in denial. Again, not an excuse.

Are you really trying to dismiss the Senate report as “not relevant?” Nope. But to cherry-pick only the postwar evidence instead of the pre-war intelligence renders the comment irrelevant. Because we went to war based on the pre-war intelligence. You can’t possibly think that anybody could go to war based on postwar evidence. The illogic of that defies description.

FISA court declared that surveillance of two individuals communicating with each other, and both in foreign countries, was the equivalent of a local telephone call if the communications hub was in the U.S., and therefore illegal and requiring a warrant

Incorrect. In reality, the August FISA bill passed by Congress eliminated the need for warrants in such cases — i.e., foreign-to-foreign communications which are routed through the U.S. network (through fiber optics). FISA has gone through several updates to keep up with the times.

No, the August FISA bill was the PAA, which is now expired. Which means a warrant is now needed in these cases.

Why would he want to re-invade Iraq if to keep Al Qaeda from setting up a base there, when in fact Al Qaeda is already there and is already trying to set up a base in Iraq (not to mention our soldiers are making that real tough right now)?

Obama would not re-invade but said would “hunt” down the terrorists and “act” against the bases; by withdrawing troops, he would also transition responsibility for policing the streets (right now it’s American responsibilty indefinitely) to the Iraqis.

After removing troops, how does one “hunt” down the terrorists and “act” against the bases by not re-invading Iraq, even with just airpower? After all, violation of airspace is an invasion, is it not? By the way, Petraeus is actually turning over policing and fighting and many other things over to the Iraqis now. Would Obama just stop that, and then have to do it again later when he has to “hunt” down the terrorists and “act” against the bases by re-invading Iraq?

Remember, Obama hasn’t changed his tune since last August. A lot has happened since. Again, being in denial (which seems to be a trend for “liberals”) is not a valid excuse for offering conclusions not based in reality.

I remember a scene in the movie Patton where Bradley is telling Patton that he has to halt an advance on a town. Patton (George C. Scott) asks (and I’m paraphrasing), “We took that town this morning. What does Ike want me to do, give it back?”

Obama has a McCain impression? This guy really can do anything!

SteveIL@43 – I can’t say I’m familiar with any of this, but are you really submitting as an argument an unknown court decision from an unknown judge based upon the word of two unknown government sources? Really?? Or did I miss something?

Haha, SteveIL’s claim about the two terrorists comes right from Boehner via Neil Cavuto. A couple of believable sources, those two. Why, SteveIL, you just changed my mind with that bit of revolutionary evidence!

Boehner should totally have an unplanned walk-out since his evidence is being ignored. It’s all the more believable that your source couldn’t even find the judge’s name who made the ruling you’re just so darned upset about.

If they knew they were terrorists, why didn’t they get warrants?

Face it, boyo, Boehner is lying because it suits the Administration’s line of bullshit.

Oh, man, you just absolutely can’t be serious, right? You’re totally Colberting this shit right? It’s just so ridiculous. Thanks for the laugh.

Crisbo, Doubtful and Ohioan, all I can say is that I am very impressed and delighted that you have not only great passion, but also a wealth of information and knowledge that has helped me to solidify my already strong confindence in the ability of Mr Obama to run this country and bring her back to her position of greatness that she had before Mr “I know what I am doing and no one else understands” Bush stole the election.

If Boehner is lying, then why would Congress pass the PAA in the first place? And, how do you know he’s lying? Or does the entirety of your “evidence” consist of Boehner being a Republican?

SteveIL,

Since you are so knowledgeable, perhaps you can answer the following question:

Obviously, the case you cite involves two non-Americans outside the USA. Clearly, their calls originated and ended outside the USA. What, in FISA, prevents the NSA from intercepting the call outside the USA?

The only reason the FISA judge objected, after all, was that the intercept occurred inside the USA. Intercept outside the USA, and there’s no problem. The problem the FISA judge had was with “broadly surveilling” communications through a switch inside the USA, after all, or at least, that’s what your source claims.

Could it be, perhaps, that the purpose was to artificially create a need to install a tap whic h could be used to snoop on all calls through the switch (calls which include domestic calls)?

Orange, make it a date night and count me in! 🙂

As for better trolls, I much prefer no trolls. If we only had an educated populace, one that could discern fact from bullshit. Alas, we don’t. And then there are those who are paid to do what they do…sick but true. Amazing what greed, or whatever their (negative) driving force, does to a person.

And, trolls, don’t bother responding, I won’t engage. You are persona non grata to me.

Uh-uh, Charles. The article clearly states that the hub (the switch) for the communications was in the U.S., not where the intercept occurred.

For all the fear that some Americans have developed in regards to terrorism, you’d think that terrorist attacks were a regular occurrence.

So far we’ve been subject to one “attack” which is explained by a conspiracy theory so full of holes that it would be dismissed out of hand if the government wasn’t the teller. Sure, there were the pizza delivery guys who were going to attack an Army base; there was the US manufactured anthrax; and there have been a couple of other bumbling plots that all have government informants in common.

My cup o fear runneth over. I find it rather amusing that so many big, tough, go get ’em Americans are actually such whiny, fraidy cats. They remind me of children who are convinced that there are real alligators under their bed and monsters in their closet. Give us your cowardly and your whining…the huddled masses of snivelization.

Some people need to look “fascism” up in the dictionary in order to realize that even bin Ladin’s wildest wet dream of the new caliphate would not constitute fascism. On the other hand, the US government working closely with telecom corporations would fit the definition.

Finally, maybe if we didn’t insist on installing our military personnel in their countries we wouldn’t have this problem. We might also like to remember that Osama bin Ladin offered to attack Saddam Hussein for us at the time of Gulf War I. You patriots remember that, right? Back when he was our buddy…like the good ole days in Afghanistan.

SteveIL,

OK, I can see this is going to involve some elementary education, so everybody, bear with me as I give SteveIL a short course on topology.

The calls originated somewhere OUS (Outside the US). They didn’t just instantly hopto a US switch (or hub), as cell phones don’t have that range. Therefore, they must have come into the US hub (or switch)) from outside. What would have prevented the NSA from installing a tap before they entered the US, or after they left?

Uh Brian,
I would take anything prepared by one of the stupidest f%^&ing guys on the planet and reported by Stephen Hayes with a whole salt lick block. Gen DeLong, good luck with your promotion in the upcoming McCain Administration.

Grim,

You are entitled to your opinion of anyone but please show me where that information is not correct. Just saying someone is stupid and not pointing out where he/she is wrong shows some stupidity on your part.

Brian,

Unfortunately for your argument, it’s not just Grim saying Feith is stupid. Virtually everybody who knows him agrees with the assessment “stupidest man on the planet”.

What would have prevented the NSA from installing a tap before they entered the US, or after they left? Who says that didn’t happen? The article clearly states the hub, the routing system, was in the U.S. Remember, it also didn’t say it was a phone call, just communications; it very well could have been an email or web messaging.

Brian
It’s almost funny to watch you follow the classic troll script. To innocently offer long disproved and discredited winger crap and then expect someone to waste brain cycles trying to bring you to the light. You are either acting in bad faith or my original point stands: You don’t know enough to be having this conversation.

SteveIL,

The judge in the article says it didn’t happen outside the US. His objection was to the NSA sifting through communications passing through a switch inside the US, without a warrant.

You really haven’t the faintest clue, do you? It makes no difference whatsoever what type of communications it was.

Read history. During the Saddam Hussein rule, there were no Al Qaeda in Iraq causing disruption to any political life in Iraq. It’s that simple.
And you call yourself intelligent factual posters on this blog? It’s obvious you’re not informed. Try reading a little history before you go vomiting ridiculous facts that are nonsense. Oh, and by the way, Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11, nor did he have Weapons of Mass Distruction. Did you know that?

Grim,

It is easy to say I am following some script and I am offering disproved or discredited information but that seems to be your script. Since anything I post here you can just re-use your feeble statement because you have no facts to counter the point I will now give you undisputable FACTS, please let me know how wrong I am:

FACT-Here is what Obama said:
“if al Qaeda is forming a base in Iraq, then we will have to act in a way that secures the American homeland and our interests abroad”

FACT: Al Zarqawi and his group of wonderful human beings who just wanted to plant olive trees and sing love songs had a training camp in Iraq before the war.

FACT: Lt. General Michael DeLong gave an interview to PBS where he stated they wanted to take the camp but by land because they didn’t want to drop bombs for risk they may accidently hit a chemical weapon stockpile. This would make sense since the United Nations located and destroyed large quantities of Iraqi chemical weapons throughout the 1990s in spite of persistent Iraqi obstruction. Was Lt. General DeLong telling the truth? I guess we won’t know, but I will give him the benefit of the doubt unless you have any facts to dispute his claim. I guess I am just a naive troll though.

OPINION: Obama seemed to be unaware that there were terrorist camps in Iraq before the war.

Fact: al Zarqawi didn’t join al Qaeda until 2004. Ansar al Islam spent its effort attacking the kurds. Al Qaeda in Iraq wasn’t formed until 2004.

So Obama was exactly correct, and you conclude that he was wrong? Interesting methodology.

Brian A

Here is a link to satisfy your request for information:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/05/AR2007040502263.html

While Al Zarqawi may have been in Iraq before the war, he did not affiliate himself with Al Qaeda until after the invasion.

So why would others believe so strongly that Al Qaeda was in Iraq before the war? Well, because some of them have wanted Saddam out of power for a long time. I invite you to look at the names of the people who sent this open letter to then President Clinton.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

These same names (and those of the people they hired) have their fingerprints all over the “evidence” Saddam was involved with Al Qaeda. Douglas Feith was hired by Rumsfeld to head up the “Office of Special Plans” in the Pentagon. Most of the “evidence” used to make the case for the Iraq war came out of this office.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/jul/17/iraq.usa

Even Lt. General Michael DeLong thought Feith was full of BS.
“… Feith wasn’t somebody we enjoyed working with, and to go much further than that would probably not be a good thing. To be honest, we blew him off lots of times. Told the secretary that he’s full of baloney, his people working for him are full of baloney. It was a real distraction for us, because he was the number three guy in the Department of Defense.”
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/interviews/delong.html

So, aside from a cadre of officials in the Bush administration that have wanted to remove Saddam from power for years, no one is presenting evidence that Al-Qaeda (the people responsible for 9/11) were in Iraq prior to the US invasion.

Obama has already said he will act when necessary to protect the US. I don’t see a problem with that stance.

Charles (#61):

The judge in the article says it didn’t happen outside the US. His objection was to the NSA sifting through communications passing through a switch inside the US, without a warrant. Yes, we are in agreement on this.

You really haven’t the faintest clue, do you? It makes no difference whatsoever what type of communications it was. Oh, I beg to differ. I do have a clue. The judge equated two people in foreign countries electronically communicating with each other in some fashion (cellphone, email, web messaging, etc.), with the communication having to go through the U.S. (because the routing technology designed to allow these two to communicate with each other is based in the U.S.), with the equivalent of a local U.S. telephone calls through a land line. That’s what this judge did. In order to tap into a local U.S. telephone call through a land line, a warrant with probable cause of a crime must be obtained first. Why? This is a right guaranteed to the person(s) making local U.S. telephone calls through a land line. The 4th Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Except in this case, the two terrorists the U.S. is at war with aren’t in the U.S., the surveillance (monitoring, tracking, tracing) may not be occurring physically in the U.S., but the technology that allows the two terrorists who are outside the U.S., and who the U.S. is at war with, to communicate with each other is routed through the U.S. Now the terrorists are now protected by the 4th Amendment. According to an unelected judge. The PAA closed that gap. Now the PAA is expired. And the law reverts to what is based on this judge’s ruling. And surveillance of terrorists is now at the whim of another unelected judge, who probably would authorize a warrant, but there is no guarantee. And if, and it is possible, however unlikely, that a judge doesn’t authorize a warrant, monitoring communication between two terrorists the U.S. is at war with, who would never ever be considered “the people” as stated in the 4th Amendment, would have to cease. Intelligence is lost. Because a court deemed the rights of the terrorists we are at war with, the ones the U.S. wants to kill, are more important than the President’s ability to be the civilian commander in chief of the military.

Now, tell me how one fights a war in the civilian court system? You really haven’t the faintest clue, do you?

Now, tell me how one fights a war in the civilian court system?

SteveIL – War?? Hate to break it to you, but you don’t fight terrorists with armies. You fight them with police. Even wiretaps aren’t military related. They’re for police, FBI, those kind of people; which are part of the civilian system. Even our military in Iraq isn’t serving a military function. They’re mostly acting as police; a job they’re not really trained for. War?? Are you sure your rhetoric even makes sense to you? How about the War on Drugs? Can we fight that one in the civilian court system? We might call it a “War on Terror” but it’s still not an actual war. Wars can be won. We’ll always be faced with terrorists and drugs.

BTW, are you really telling us that President Obama will get to wiretap anyone he wants? Really?? If not, what checks should we have in place to make sure he’s not intercepting your emails?

SteveIL,

What the article actually said: “The decision had the immediate practical effect of forcing the NSA to laboriously ask judges on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court each time it wanted to capture such foreign communications from a wire or fiber [optic cable] on U.S. soil.”

What you said: “the surveillance (monitoring, tracking, tracing) may not be occurring physically in the U.S.,”

You are wrong. Completely. By the way, the above quote was taken directly from the article in the WaPo that you refer to. You can look it up. It’s the only actual report we have, even though it rests on questionable sources.

chrisbo,

Thanks for the links and counter points rather than just saying I am throwing wild accusations to the wind. I will concede that Al Zarqawi’s choir boy group was not named Al Qaeda before the war but lets look at his history:

1) he formed the group Jund al-Sham in 1999 with $200,000 of start up money from Osama bin Laden (as a side note he befriended bin Laden in the late 80’s during the Soviet/Afganistan invasion)

2) After the September 11 attacks, Zarqawi traveled to Afghanistan and joined Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters resisting the U.S.-led invasion where he was wounded.

3) In the summer of 2002, Zarqawi settled in northern Iraq, where he joined the Islamist Ansar al-Islam

4) According to Perspectives on World History and Current Events (PWHCE), a not-for-profit project based in Melbourne, Australia, “Zarqawi was well positioned to lead the Islamic wing of the insurgency when the March 2003 invasion took place. Whether he remained in Ansar al-Islam camps until April 2003 or laid the preparations for the war during extensive visits to Baghdad and the Sunni Triangle is uncertain, but clearly he emerged as an important figure in the insurgency soon after the Coalition invasion”

So yes you are correct that his dirty dancing summer camp was named something other than al Qaeda but do not mis represent that he had no affilation with them.

If we had gone in and killed Osama and attacked al Qaeda before 9/11 when we had a chance I could see the same arguments being made for that as the Iraq war. I suppose where we differ is that I do not want to wait for a 9/11 to justify going after terrorist organizations, I would rather be proactive.

The reality whether we like it or not is that there are Terrorist in Iraq now. Whether their name is Mehdi Army militia, Tawhad and Khalid bin Al Walid Brigade, Ansar al-Islam, or Al-Qaeda we need to defeat them.

As far as Lt. Gen DeLong I don’t know who hated/thought he was full of boloney/distracted them. Has anyone disputed, discounted, or discredited his claim about bombing the camps before the war?

I think we have beat this dead horse enough, I am going to bed. Take care

Brian A

I make no claims Zarqawi was an innocent. Merely that Obama was not “wrong” about there being no Al-Qaeda in Iraq prior to our invasion. Indeed, Bin Laden’s plan was to draw the US into a long war in Afghanistan in hopes it would drain the US financially and draw in fighters from throughout the Middle East to his cause (much like the Soviet war did). Bin Laden often said it was the Mujahedeen who brought on the collapse of the Soviet Union because of the Afghan war.

So, when Afghanistan fell so quickly, Al-Qaeda didn’t have a plan B. That is why they high-tailed it to the Pakistan border. It wasn’t until we diverted troops to prepare for Iraq and outsourced the Tora Bora siege to local warlords that Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda’s command structure was able to slip into Pakistan.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0304/p01s03-wosc.html

This gave them time to regroup and try their plan again… in Iraq.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/08/24/2013753.htm

I agree there are a number of armed groups in Iraq right now. However, it is a mistake to lump them all together. Not all of them represent threats to the US. While many of them are fighting us because they want us to leave, they aren’t going to “follow us over here”. What we need to do now is simply get over this idea that somehow there is going to be a clean solution in Iraq. McCain isn’t going to “win” this thing any more than Obama or Hillary is going to “lose” it. Leave or stay, we screwed the place up royally. It is arrogant of us to think we can somehow patch this up when most of the populous now blames us for their misery (http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/27/iraqis-poll/). However, Al-Qaeda is regrouping in Afghanistan, so that is where our real fight lies. We should finish what we originally started in Afghanistan.

War?? Hate to break it to you, but you don’t fight terrorists with armies. You fight them with police. Even wiretaps aren’t military related. They’re for police, FBI, those kind of people; which are part of the civilian system. Give me a break “Doctor”. The poster-boy for “liberal” law enforcement is Mike Nifong. Hell, “liberals” do nothing in the cities they rule to stop the plague of street gangs, except to violate the 2nd Amendment and take away the only protection left for law-abiding citizens in those cities. It’s a war. Congress authorized it in 2001. We don’t need a warrant to either capture or kill the enemy. In fact, deadly force is a requirement, not a last resort as it is in police work. So don’t even bother with that lousy and invalid argument.

SteveIL – What in god’s name are you talking about? “Plague of street gangs”? I live in a very liberal city and I’m not sure we have a gang problem at all. And where don’t we need a warrant? In our country? Europe? Those are the places we need to worry about. I’m not worried about terrorists in Iraq. It’s the ones that might be here that we’re concerned with.

And there’s a good reason why police only use deadly force for a last resort, and we’d be much better off in Iraq if we had that policy. That’s part of the problem: We killed too many innocent people, and even when we kill the guilty people, their relatives vow revenge. The whole point of police work is that we don’t know who “the enemy” is. In a war, the enemy wears uniforms and has set battles. In terrorism, anyone can be the enemy, and their best move is for you to think that everyone is the enemy; and unfortunately, that’s what too many of our guys there think. Counter-terrorism isn’t fought like a war at all.

And should I take it that you’ve given implicit permission for President Obama to start reading all your emails next year without any kind of warrant or oversight? Good to know. I sure did like it better when conservatives were afraid of their government, though.

Oops! That last comment came from me. I think some terrorist took over my computer temporarily.

What the article actually said: “The decision had the immediate practical effect of forcing the NSA to laboriously ask judges on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court each time it wanted to capture such foreign communications from a wire or fiber [optic cable] on U.S. soil.”

What you said: “the surveillance (monitoring, tracking, tracing) may not be occurring physically in the U.S.,”

You are wrong. Completely. By the way, the above quote was taken directly from the article in the WaPo that you refer to. You can look it up. It’s the only actual report we have, even though it rests on questionable sources. Yes, it says that. And I still refer to this:

That is not in the article I linked to. I checked it and re-checked. It is, in fact, from this article, which came out 9 days after the one I linked to. Thank you very much for not providing the link.

By the way, Charles, you do remember the quote from the article I linked to? Allow me to display it again [emphasis mine]:

The judge, whose name could not be learned, concluded early this year that the government had overstepped its authority in attempting to broadly surveil communications between two locations overseas that are passed through routing stations in the United States, according to two other government sources familiar with the decision.

Yep. That’s just great. Fighting a war in the courts, providing the enemies of the United States, those Congress authorized the government to kill (without a warrant), the rights specified in the 4th Amendment. That is what this ends up being about. I’m sure some ambulance-chasing shyster will be glad to file a lawsuit advocating that killing the enemy is a violation of the 8th Amendment. That is unless you want to call dead terrorists late-term abortions or assisted suicides (which makes sense since they want to die anyway). Then at least American citizens will be protected from the courts and abortion doctors and Jack Kervorkian can be sent to do the killing. Or better yet, of being guilty of homophobic hate-speech (which “liberals” would apply a sentence of death if done by an American; an Islamist terrorist would be offered a membership on the board of Harvard or Columbia) or being Republicans (which is a crime to “liberals”, also punishable by death).

“Liberals” love accusing conservatives of being fearmongerers. “Liberals” use arguments like, “Americans are more likely to die in a bathtub than from terrorists,” or, “More Americans are killed in car accidents than by terrorists.” So what are “liberals”? That’s right. Fearmongerers. Their enemy is ALWAYS and EXCLUSIVELY the U.S. government. Period. Nobody else. Add that it’s a truly paranoid form of fearmongering. Sure “liberals” want to get bin Laden. But the U.S. government is always the real enemy. Guess what, “liberals” are more likely to die falling in the bathtub than being monitored by the government. “Liberals” are more likely to be killed in car accidents than being monitored by the government, or killed by the government. “Liberals” are more likely to be killed by the street gangs they do nothing about (except coddle) than would be monitored or killed by the government. See how that works? All the same stupid arguments “liberals” use.

It’s a blessing this type of idiotic and disjointed thinking wasn’t around when the U.S. had to fight the Nazis. After all, Hitler declared war on us, like Osama bin Laden, but he never attacked the U.S. But we went after him. Osama bin Laden wasn’t attacked until he attacked us on 9/11. Of course, we wouldn’t have been around to worry about bin Laden because Hitler would have eventually attacked us and it is possible our parents or grandparents would have been lampshades or soap. But, hey, all that matters is the right of “privacy” (except we wouldn’t be here to have any rights) and the rights of the enemy, isn’t it?

Damn editing. It should have started out this way.

What the article actually said: “The decision had the immediate practical effect of forcing the NSA to laboriously ask judges on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court each time it wanted to capture such foreign communications from a wire or fiber [optic cable] on U.S. soil.”

What you said: “the surveillance (monitoring, tracking, tracing) may not be occurring physically in the U.S.,”

You are wrong. Completely. By the way, the above quote was taken directly from the article in the WaPo that you refer to. You can look it up. It’s the only actual report we have, even though it rests on questionable sources.

Yes, it says that. That is not in the article I linked to. I checked it and re-checked. It is, in fact, from this article, which came out 9 days after the one I linked to. Thank you very much for not providing the link.

Charles, you do remember the quote from the article I linked to? Allow me to display it again [emphasis mine]:

The judge, whose name could not be learned, concluded early this year that the government had overstepped its authority in attempting to broadly surveil communications between two locations overseas that are passed through routing stations in the United States, according to two other government sources familiar with the decision.

Then continue from “Yep.”

After all, Hitler declared war on us, like Osama bin Laden, but he never attacked the U.S. But we went after him. Osama bin Laden wasn’t attacked until he attacked us on 9/11.

SteveIL, could you really be this stupid, or are you just doing this for our amusement? First off, Hitler DID send saboteurs to attack us, and we caught them and executed several of them.
http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq114-2.htm

Secondly, Clinton tried repeatedly to kill Bin Laden before 9/11. We also tried to pressure other countries to give him to us, but they wouldn’t. And towards the end, the only way we could have gotten him is if we had invaded Afghanistan, which conservatives would have had a shitfit about, just like they did for Clinton’s other war. Where the hell have you been? We were after him YEARS before 9/11.

And that was back when conservatives were afraid of our government. When “jack-booted thugs” were about to beat down our doors and “black helicopters” were watching our moves; in the heyday of Ruby Ridge and the Branch Davidians, and when rightwing extremists blew up a federal building in Oklahoma City. Where the hell were you?

The entire point of our constitution is to protect us from our government. That’s why we have checks and balances and separation of powers. People can’t be trusted with too much power. And now you guys are telling us that it’s ok for President Obama to listen in on your dirty phone calls and read all those pervy messages you’re sending in MySpace? Really?? What the hell is the matter with you people?

SteveIL,

You are still wrong. Your article, which is based on the same data as the one I quoted,still says the problem the judge had was with government wiretapping inside the US. Illegally. Without oversight.

Obama. has arabic blood in him, you can see it in his skin and features, i bet he would rather sit down with and ddrink tea with Ben laden, wouldnt evan be a surprise if he took grandma’s cookies with him.

Look at this website: http://icasualties.org/oif/

American Troops are STILL DYING AT THE RATE OF ONE A DAY!

IS THAT IMPROVEMENT? AS SUGGESTED BY MCCAIN! ALL THE SURGE HAS DONE IS GET US BACK TO THE SAME GAME OF DEATH WE’VE ALWAYS HAD SINCE EARLY 2005! THIS IS PROGRESS?

Don’t take the Repuklican bait over Iraq, the FACTS say the USA in Iraq is in a MAJOR SUPER DISASTER!!! WE CAN ATTACK AL QAEDA WITHOUT HAVING TO REMAIN INDEFINITELY IN IRAQ!!! WE KILLED AL MASRI (AL QAEDA #3) WITH A DRONE FROM OUTSIDE IRAQ AND DUE TO OUTSIDE INTELLIGENCE NOT A MASSIVE TROOP SURGE!!! TELL THE PUBLIC THE FACTS TO PREVENT REPUKLICAN DISTORTION AND FALSE PATRIOTISM.

MCCAIN ISN’T TALKING ABOUT THE MASSIVE SURGE OF CORRUPTION OVER THE BILLIONS OF DOLLARS BEING LOST IN IRAQ WITHOUT ANY CONCRETE RESULTS IN FIVE YEARS!!! WE ARE BUILDING A $750 MILLION DOLLAR EMBASSY USING A KUWAITI CONTRACTOR?! EXPOSE THE GLARING BLUNDERS BEING SUPPORTED BY BUSH SURROGATE MCCAIN !!

GIVE ME AN F*&^N BREAK STRAIGHT TALK EXPRESS MCCAIN YOU SOUND MORE LIKE THE BUSHWHACK MACHINE!!
~Commentary taxfree and Always in the American interest!~

OMIGD!!

I JUST SAW THIS ARTICLE AFTER POSTING!!!! MORE PROOF OF THE BUSHWHACK MACHINE!!!

By Sudarsan Raghavan and Amit R. Paley
updated 3:01 a.m. ET, Thurs., Feb. 28, 2008

BAGHDAD – U.S.-backed Sunni volunteer forces, which have played a vital role in reducing violence in Iraq, are increasingly frustrated with the American military and the Iraqi government over what they see as a lack of recognition of their growing political clout and insufficient U.S. support.

Since Feb. 8, thousands of fighters in restive Diyala province have left their posts in order to pressure the government and its American backers to replace the province’s Shiite police chief. On Wednesday, their leaders warned that they would disband completely if their demands were not met. In Babil province, south of Baghdad, fighters have refused to man their checkpoints after U.S. soldiers killed several comrades in mid-February in circumstances that remain in dispute.

Some force leaders and ground commanders also reject a U.S.-initiated plan that they say offers too few Sunni fighters the opportunity to join Iraq’s army and police, and warn that low salaries and late payments are pushing experienced members to quit.

SEE REMAINDER http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23382421/

SteveIL, could you really be this stupid, or are you just doing this for our amusement? First off, Hitler DID send saboteurs to attack us, and we caught them and executed several of them.
And you are proving my point. Based on your understanding of a war, this was the equivalent of those who were never held responsible for the embassy bombings in Africa or the attack on the U.S.S. Cole, both events occurring around the time and after Osama bin Laden, and those complicit in his activities, declared war on the U.S. (through a fatwa). Per the reasoning of your statements, that wars are fought in the courts, the conviction and execution of the saboteurs (and any others) should have been the extent of U.S. involvement against Nazi Germany. Not only that, they were denied any writ of habeas corpus, although Congress did not include any such suspension of it (as provided for Article I, Section 9), leaving it for the courts to determine it.

Of course, you base your argument on the fact that the U.S. actually did declare war on Nazi Germany, even though the U.S. had not been attacked (the U.S. declaration was on 12/11/41, in response to Hitler declaring war on the U.S. the day before). Per Ex Parte Quirin, the denial of habeas was allowed to stand based on what the Court’s determination that it was part of what had been called the Articles of War (since re-branded as the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and the sections of the Articles of War in the U.S. Code specified in Justice Stone’s opinion have since been moved). It was entirely legal and constitutional.

In the present, we don’t have a declaration of war per se, but we do have the 2001 AUMF, part of the War Powers Resolution. Since it’s inception back in the early 1970s, no suit has been brought forth challenging whether or not a non-declaration in a manner specified in the 2001 AUMF is the equivalent of a full declaration, thus allowing for interpretation that it can be considered the equal of a full declaration. Therefore, the court should have ruled (and there’s no way to know since the actual ruling is secret) that the NSA’s activities against two overseas terrorists, those we are at war against as specified in the 2001 AUMF (and would include the Taliban since it was they who were complicit in allowing Al Qaeda plan for the 9/11 terrorist attack in Afghanistan while it was under their rule) would be allowed regardless of where any tracking is done since the NSA falls under the Department of Defense and falls within the auspices of the commander in chief authority of the President.

Secondly, Clinton tried repeatedly to kill Bin Laden before 9/11. But he failed. Miserably. Because he didn’t use the powers he had to do his constitutional duty to protect the United States (the people and the Constitution). His “attacks” were puny and worthless, and his “requests” were pathetic and useless. He was more worried about how he would be personally thought of than he was in defending the country. It was his duty as President and Commander in Chief to show strength and explain any actions he should have taken to the American people and justified it to them, and take his lumps. He refused to do that. Carter was the same way (against the Soviet Union and Islamist terrorism). Reagan and the first President Bush did partially, mostly against the Soviet Union (Reagan) and Saddam Hussein (Bush, but not wholeheartedly since Hussein remained in power), but not against Islamist terrorists, who weren’t as great a threat when those men were President. So Clinton wasn’t the only one. But the threat Clinton faced exclusively was Islamist terrorism, those who declared war on us, and he did, in effect, nothing. All because he was more worried about himself than the country.

Charles, not only am I not wrong, I will tell you where the legitimate problem is (because I’m such a great guy). “Liberals” don’t seem to be capable of doing simple arithmetic, understanding that 1+1=2 or 2+2 =4. “Liberals”, especially those so-called “experts” in civil rights (Glenn Greenwald; explain to me why he still isn’t a litigator and now a hack writer; maybe he sucked as a lawyer), are totally missing the point about all of this. I admit I’m not a lawyer, but searches of the law aren’t that difficult to do or understand for us “civilians”.

The NSA is now required to get a warrant to track two terrorists overseas even if their communication comes through the U.S. and the communication is tracked in the U.S. Supposedly, not doing so is a violation of the 4th Amendment. However, it ignores the reasonableness clause. The 4th Amendments requires a probable cause warrant to be requested to protect against unreasonable searches and seizures. This has been interpreted by the courts to allow the TSA to search an individual American’s luggage at the airport without a probable cause warrant, and it allows state revenue agents to set up roadblocks at a state’s border to stop all motorists, search their cars for certain excessive amounts of goods (liquor, cigarettes) crossing into that state, and potentially seizing it, all without a probable cause warrant issued against a motorist. But with the NSA, a warrant is required? That’s ridiculous. And dangerous. Why? Because the primary target of the NSA is an enemy terrorist overseas, one not protected by the rights guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution.

However, if the target is a potential enemy on U.S. soil, but determination of whether or not the potential enemy might be a “U.S. person”, it is not the NSA who has to go through the bureaucracy of getting a warrant, but the Department of Justice, since it is they who will target the person for potential prosecution. That falls under the auspices of the Patriot Act. More specifically, the USA Patriot Act Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005. It also falls under the jurisdiction of the Department of Justice, not the military, since the military is not authorized to take action of this kind against someone on U.S. soil, and the NSA is part of the military. The problem is Sec. 116 (page 23), “Confidentiality of National Security Letters”, and Sec. 117, “Violations…”. The target of the letter cannot even disclose any elements within the letter, even to an attorney, without having taken redress through a judge (in the judicial district of the target’s geographical location), or even that they received a letter (as I read it). They can discuss legal advice, provided any information regarding a letter, even its existence, isn’t disclosed. Punishment for disclosure could land anyone in prison for 5 years, even if it turns out the target is not convicted of any other crimes. Here is a layman’s explanation: this letter to an individual is not the equivalent of a court order since there was no request to a judge needed by the DoJ to send the letter to the individual, since court orders under the Patriot Act fall under the auspices of having telecommunications company provide information required in targeting potential enemy terrorists on U.S. soil (this is different than the targeting of enemy terrorists overseas).

The bottom line is that what the NSA is doing is not the problem, but what is done with anyone who is on U.S. soil that is being targeted by the government for terrorism. I agree with anyone who believes these sections of the Patriot Act need to be examined and redone. Not only that, wars don’t last forever, even the one authorized by the 2001 AUMF. Any changes needed to the Patriot Act should also include a sunset provision that references the ending of the authority of the 2001 AUMF, whenever that does occur.

There you go. Protection for people within the United States, even those who could be terrorists. The military is allowed to monitor overseas terrorist communications without having to use the courts to engage in battle. Everybody is happy. It would be nice if “liberal” civil rights “experts” would use simple arithmetic and think “outside the box”, as they claim to do but don’t, as we simple-minded flat-earth theocratic conservative Neanderthals can and do.

And you are proving my point. Based on your understanding of a war, this was the equivalent of those who were never held responsible for the embassy bombings in Africa or the attack on the U.S.S. Cole, both events occurring around the time and after Osama bin Laden

Never held responsible? Again, your ignorance on all this is stunning.

From Snopes:
On 7 August 1998, powerful car bombs exploded minutes apart outside the United States embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, killing 224 people and wounding about 5,000 others. Four participants with ties to Osama bin Laden were captured, convicted in U.S. federal court, and sentenced to life in prison without parole in October 2001. Fourteen other suspects indicted in the case remain at large, and three more are fighting extradition in London.
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/clinton.htm

Huh, sentenced to life…in civilian courts. Go figure. Moreover, when Clinton ordered missle strikes to hit Bin Laden after that (which missed him by a few hours), Republicans went apeshit and accused him of doing that to divert attention from the Lewinsky thing (which was much more important than getting Bin Laden). Again, where the hell were you during all this? I remember this all quite well.

As for the Cole bombing, that happened in October 2000, a month before the election. We didn’t confirm that it was Al Qaeda until December of that year, and then Bush took over the following month. From what I understand, the Clinton Admin left the Bushies a plan to deal with this, but somehow this one seemed to have slipped away. I guess the statute of limitations on terrorist bombings is only three months. Or perhaps Bush just thought this was still Clinton’s problem to deal with.

And are you really suggesting that Republicans were going to give Clinton authority to invade Afghanistan? Oddly, I don’t remember them clamoring for this. In fact, I remember them complaining loudly every time he ordered military action anywhere. It wasn’t until Bush took office that they started getting gung-ho again. But Clinton got loudly denounced for waging war in Kosovo and sending missles after Bin Laden and Saddam.

Finally, this is NOT war. This is NOT the equivalent of Germany or Japan or anyone country declaring war on us. You declare war on countries, not people. Even the dreadful AUMF involved action against countries harboring terrorists; not war on individual people. I never suggested that war was fought in courts. I stated correctly that this is NOT war.

The term “war” loses all meaning in your context. But that’s your only point. If this isn’t “war” then everything you say is meaningless. So you changed the definition of the word and insist that the rules of warfare now apply. Well they don’t. We’re not even at “war” with Iraq anymore. We’re occupiers doing police work. That’s why conservatives never really wanted to tackle the terrorism issue, as they only want to invade countries. That’s what armies are good for. Counter-terrorism is much more exacting work and doesn’t have much need for tanks and airplanes. Using the military to stop terrorists is like using a hammar to open Dom Perignon. Sure, it’ll get open; but you won’t be happy with the results.

And again, are you giving President Obama the authority to wiretap your phones without any warrant or oversight? You continue to ignore this point, and it’s central to the issue.

“Secondly, Clinton tried repeatedly to kill Bin Laden before 9/11. But he failed. Miserably.”

So when Bush leaves office, and bin Laden is safe an sound in a village in northern Pakistan (a lot better than the Afghan cave he lived in back in 2001, I’m sure), will he haved failed? Miserably?

Also, Clinton wasn’t afforded the luxury of having friendly governments in Kabul and Islamabad, allowing US forces to operate with complete autonomy.

And last I checked, the battle for Tora Bora, the best chance to capture bin Laden, happened on Bush’s watch.

In fact, According the Ron Suskind’s One Percent Doctrine, CIA officer Hank Crumpton briefed both Bush and Cheney on the importance of bringing in US forces to ensure that bin Laden would not be allowed to escape Tora Bora into Pakistan.
And nothing was done.

SteveIL – No, the August FISA bill was the PAA, which is now expired. Which means a warrant is now needed in these cases.

So by allowing the PAA to expire, Bush and the Republicans are endangering America by their own definition. Instead, they put Telecom amnesty ahead of protecting Americans. Why is that not the definition of treason?

But with the NSA, a warrant is required? That’s ridiculous. And dangerous. Why? Because the primary target of the NSA is an enemy terrorist overseas, one not protected by the rights guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution.

When the primary target is an enemy terrorist overseas, a warrant is not required. Why is that such a hard concept to grasp? Also, as stated above the only outstanding issue is telecom immunity, yet you still argue without facts about warrants? You also attack Greenwald personally – I guess you have run out of facts to base your claims on, so in true GOP style, personal attacks are the way to go.

Never held responsible? Again, your ignorance on all this is stunning. One, there is no link to The Ottawa Citizen October 19, 2001 article called “U.S. Embassy Bombers Get Life Sentences.” None of the links in snopes or from Mike Hersh has any details of that case other than those terrorists were given life sentences; not when they were captured, not when they were brought to the U.S., not when they were convicted, nothing. Two, look at when they were given their life sentences: October, 2001, three years after the embassy bombings. In the meantime, the U.S.S. Cole was attacked. Great way to fight that terrorism with that law enforcement.

And then Clinton had the gall to worry more about having to answer for his statements that a blow job was not sexual act, so much so that he lied to a grand jury about it. That isn’t just irresponsible and negligent, it’s criminal. But Clinton is defended by saying he was fighting terrorists because the embassy terrorists were sentenced…three years after they committed their crimes, ignoring the fact that the U.S.S. Cole was bombed before that sentence came about.

And are you really suggesting that Republicans were going to give Clinton authority to invade Afghanistan? Oddly, I don’t remember them clamoring for this. So the defense of Clinton not doing anything is blamed on the Republicans. I see. Here’s a clue: as President, it was up to Clinton to make the hard choices about defending this country, even if he had to take his lumps for it. Reagan, the first Bush, and even Nixon (ending the U.S. military commitment in Vietnam the way he did), took their lumps for making the hard choices. In the matter of the first President Bush, the lumps he took for raising taxes, not for battling Saddam (nor getting Saddam out of power), and wasn’t re-elected. But Clinton was more worried about his petty definition of a sexual act than in defending the country. The defense of these actions by Clinton is pathetic.

I’m not even going to comment on what you think is a war. But if you think I’m going to believe you when you say that you don’t believe wars are fought in the courts, you haven’t shown me anything that is contrary to what I believe are those views.

One other thing, “Doctor”, As for the Cole bombing, that happened in October 2000, a month before the election. We didn’t confirm that it was Al Qaeda until December of that year, and then Bush took over the following month. From what I understand, the Clinton Admin left the Bushies a plan to deal with this, but somehow this one seemed to have slipped away. I guess the statute of limitations on terrorist bombings is only three months. Or perhaps Bush just thought this was still Clinton’s problem to deal with.

Wars are not dependent on the changing of a President (WWII started with FDR, ended with Truman; Korea started with Truman, ended with Ike; Vietnam started with Ike, went through JFK and LBJ, and ended with Nixon). That is weak. Even the Somalia relief effort started by the first President Bush didn’t end before Clinton took office because it would have been too inconvenient for the new President. What political fallout could Clinton have had by getting a war declaration or an AUMF in December, 2000? He wasn’t going to have to run for re-election, his wife was safely ensconced in her Senate seat, what was the problem? And if Bush wasn’t doing enough to stop what eventually came, and I have no problem agreeing with the merit of that argument up to a point, could it be that it was because Clinton hadn’t done anything more than he did, made it a really serious concern that Bush should get involved in, possibly to where Bush would have had to change his policies for 2001? Maybe an AUMF would have gotten Bush off his ass and taken things more seriously, don’t you think? Stop with that tired argument of Clinton leaving office in a month.

2Manchu said, So when Bush leaves office, and bin Laden is safe an sound in a village in northern Pakistan (a lot better than the Afghan cave he lived in back in 2001, I’m sure), will he haved failed? Miserably? Yes, as far as getting bin Laden. But there hasn’t been any further terrorist attacks in the U.S., has there? Why do you think that is?

Also, Clinton wasn’t afforded the luxury of having friendly governments in Kabul and Islamabad, allowing US forces to operate with complete autonomy. Awwww. Cry me a river. Neither did Bush immediately after 9/11. But he got Islamabad to be a “friendly” government, and went after Al Qaeda and kicked out the Taliban.

Ohioan said, When the primary target is an enemy terrorist overseas, a warrant is not required. With the PAA expired, yes it is under certain circumstances. Read the whole thread and comment.

So by allowing the PAA to expire, Bush and the Republicans are endangering America by their own definition. Excuse me, but that isn’t how it happened. The House had a version of the bill to vote on, the Senate version that had immunity in place. Pelosi refused to call for a vote, which is what caused the PAA to expire. The only way Bush and the Republicans could even be considered as endangering America by their own definition is if the extension to the PAA passed both the House and Senate, the President vetoed it, and the veto couldn’t be overridden. That didn’t happen. Pelosi is endangering America. She is more interested in receiving campaign funds from ambulance-chasing shysters licking their chops to make a financial killing suing the telecom companies (even if they lose the cases) than in protecting America, as required by her oath of office.

Uhm, SteveIL, are you seriously suggesting 9/11 wouldn’t have happened had we gotten life sentences for those bombers earlier? Or if we had killed them immediately? What part of “Suicide Bomber” don’t you understand? They’re not going to stop just because we killed one of their buddies; and if anything, it will make them more determined. But the point is that you said we didn’t do anything about the Embassy Bombing, a false claim that you guys have been fed for years, and the truth is clearly different.

That’s one of the problems with killing terrorists, even if we kill a bad guy, we still killed someone’s brother/uncle/cousin/son/father. And it doesn’t matter if the guy deserved to die; his family members will still want revenge. That’s the advantage of a court system and due process; people are more likely to accept the outcome and won’t seek revenge. And that isn’t to mention all the innocent people will kill by mistake. And again, a court system would help with that too.

And you’re seriously suggesting that it’s Clinton’s fault that Bush didn’t do anything about terrorism until after 9/11, because Clinton should have declared war on Afghanistan a month before leaving office? Really? As a reminder, Bush only got a AUMF after 9/11, and he probably wouldn’t have gotten one any other way. BTW, I agree that the BJ was a dumb, dumb thing to do that crippled his abilities. But all the same, that doesn’t excuse Republicans who kept hounding him every time he tried to attack Bin Laden or Saddam.

As for the Snopes link, I used it because it was the first I could think of. My mistake for not realizing you couldn’t use Wikipedia. Here you go:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_U.S._embassy_bombings

“Yes, as far as getting bin Laden. But there hasn’t been any further terrorist attacks in the U.S., has there? Why do you think that is?”

Kind of like how there wasn’t a terrorist attack by a foreign group between 1993 and the time Clinton left office?

“Awwww. Cry me a river. Neither did Bush immediately after 9/11. But he got Islamabad to be a “friendly” government, and went after Al Qaeda and kicked out the Taliban.”

So maybe Bush should have tried to make Pakistan “friendly” before 9/11? In fact , what exactly did Bush do before 9/11 against bin Laden?

And I’m sure had Al Gore been president on 9/11, he also would have made the decision to go into Afghanistan. Any president put into that stuation would have acted the same.

As for the Snopes link, I used it because it was the first I could think of. My mistake for not realizing you couldn’t use Wikipedia. I don’t use it except as a last resort because the information is unreliable, and would link to the references anyway. This isn’t a slight because I think it’s a liberal site, or that all the bad information is deliberately put there; mistakes can be made. But thank you just the same. It still doesn’t answer my question. When were they arrested? That isn’t in there, at least not with the four who got life.

That’s one of the problems with killing terrorists, even if we kill a bad guy, we still killed someone’s brother/uncle/cousin/son/father. Yeah, and why don’t you tell me that the reason Al Capone or any of his murderous thugs killed people is because really they were all really great family men who just…you know…acted a certain way when it came to, uh, selling liquor.

You’re done arguing this if you’re going this route.

And I’m sure had Al Gore been president on 9/11, he also would have made the decision to go into Afghanistan. Any president put into that stuation would have acted the same. Maybe. We’ll never know. Because it didn’t happen, we can’t ever know. So it really doesn’t matter.

Kind of like how there wasn’t a terrorist attack by a foreign group between 1993 and the time Clinton left office? An U.S. embassy is U.S. territory. A U.S. Navy ship is U.S. territory.

The capture of the four given life sentences isn’t in the indictment either, except for possibly one of them, who seems to have been the one who spilled the beans on the other three.

“Maybe. We’ll never know. Because it didn’t happen, we can’t ever know. So it really doesn’t matter.”

True, I just like to play the hypothetical game. However, my previous question stands:
“So maybe Bush should have tried to make Pakistan ‘friendly’ before 9/11? In fact , what exactly did Bush do before 9/11 against bin Laden?”

And my follow up question:
What exactly has George Bush done that makes him a better president than Bill Clinton (or the hypothetical presidency of Al Gore) when it comes to fighting al Qaeda?

“An U.S. embassy is U.S. territory. A U.S. Navy ship is U.S. territory.”

This was your previous comment:

“Yes, as far as getting bin Laden. But there hasn’t been any further terrorist attacks IN THE U.S., has there? Why do you think that is?”

When you say “in the US”, it means “within the national borders of the United States of America”.

Now, I’ll give you Alaska and Hawaii, even though they’re not part of CONUS, but to say that you want to include US property on foreign soil as being “in the U.S.”, well that’s stretching things a bit, don’t you think?

You’re done arguing this if you’re going this route.

Wow, a concession of defeat! I can’t believe it. I finally got through to a conservative!!!

Woohoo!

“So maybe Bush should have tried to make Pakistan ‘friendly’ before 9/11? In fact , what exactly did Bush do before 9/11 against bin Laden?” Hey, I’m not going to gloss over it. Not more than Clinton. For eight months he didn’t do hardly anything against bin Laden and Al Qaeda. I would not say Bush was a huge improvement over Clinton in the eight months he was President before 9/11, or any kind of improvement at all; he did worse. But I’m not going to say Clinton was that much of an improvement since he had the power and refused to use it.

Clinton was a very popular President. Despite scandals, he was able to convince enough of the American people to vote for him. Yet when it came time to convince the American people that the power of the U.S. government, real power, needed to be brought to bear against the scum of bin Laden and the complicit Taliban, he didn’t even try. Imagine a President who was a good at selling himself not even willing to try to sell the idea to the American people of the threat to national security that the evil of what is Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda, and the Taliban. Just think about that for a moment; a salesman not trying to sell something. And for the personal reasons I mentioned earlier.

You like “what if” games. Truth be told, I like them too. How about this. Suppose Clinton sent in 100,000 troops, including airstrikes from Saudi Arabia and carriers in the Gulf, into Afghanistan, uproots bin Laden and Al Qaeda, overthrows the Taliban, the works. Goes through with getting something like the current government in place, maybe with Ahmad Shah Massoud of the Northern Alliance as the leader (remember, he was killed a day or two before 9/11). And things go well, democracy established, bin Laden maybe dead. Good things.

Now let’s move a couple of countries over to Iraq. Under Saddam Hussein. He has no respect for the U.S., or anybody else for that matter, and he’s about ready to kick out the UN weapons inspectors. Then Clinton goes in with the assault on Afghanistan. Clinton has shown some balls, not only against bin Laden and the Taliban, but also against the heat of Gingrich and congressional Republicans. Maybe Saddam thinks twice about evicting the weapons inspectors, but decides to test the waters and come out with some more bluster. Then Clinton unleashes the hugely bipartisan Iraq Liberation Act (which did happen). Now the cowardly pig that is Saddam Hussein is really scared after seeing what happened in Afghanistan, where he actually might end up suffering the wrath of a strong U.S. President, and decides that weapons inspectors shouldn’t be kicked out, nor should he do much more mayhem and murder against his own people. He remains “boxed in”. And becomes a good boy (well, as good as Saddam could be).

Yeah, what if. Maybe Gore would have easily taken the White House in 2000. And we wouldn’t be talking about the billions spent to free Iraq from 1) Saddam Hussein; and, 2) Al Qaeda. Yeah, what if. It didn’t happen that way though, did it? Clinton was more worried about being questioned for his statements about what is considered a sex act, going so far as to lie about it to a grand jury (which I said before)..

When you say “in the US”, it means “within the national borders of the United States of America”.

Now, I’ll give you Alaska and Hawaii, even though they’re not part of CONUS, but to say that you want to include US property on foreign soil as being “in the U.S.”, well that’s stretching things a bit, don’t you think? Nope. Embassies are U.S. territories; it’s why many of us still hold a grudge against the verminous Iranian government. I do need to correct the record, though. There have been attacks on U.S. territory (embassies) since 2001. Of course, we are at war. Before 9/11, nobody in the U.S. took the war seriously enough.

Yes, “Doctor”, you win. I will now go away and sulk and live with myself…

I know I couldn’t continue with that sentence and keep a straight face (or is it straight fingers?).

SteveIL – My god, I finally can agree with you. Clinton DID squander his popularity. Of course, your fantasy scenerio is a bit much. The man was severely attacked by Republicans for an all-air NATO campaign in Kosovo, as well as a few missle strikes against Bin Laden and Iraq. You actually think he could have sent ground troops into Afghanistan? Even Bush couldn’t have done that, pre-9/11.

Honestly, how much of this was stuff you were asking for at the time? And how much of this is hindsight talking? I agree that Clinton did little with his popularity, but I suspect that’s how he stayed so popular: That’s all he was really trying to achieve..

As for Iraq, that was always a mistake. Saddam was never a threat to us. Even when he had WMD’s, they weren’t to be used against us. He just wanted to be a big fish in a small pond and was playing the same kind of toughguy games all those guys play. The only difference is that he got on our shitlist and we wouldn’t let him off. But he was no different from lots of the leaders we consider to be “allies”. You know all that. The neo-cons just wanted Iraq (for oil, Israel, whatever), and Clinton kept the pressure off by taking a strong stance and a few bombings. But it was yet another case where Clinton triangulated to stay popular; rather than do the right thing. And yes, this is what I was saying at the time, and I was never a diehard Clinton supporter. I supported him, but I was never really happy about it. Our aggressive stance against Iraq was a mistake.

Well, that was an interesting scenario.

The man was severely attacked by Republicans for an all-air NATO campaign in Kosovo, as well as a few missle strikes against Bin Laden and Iraq. He let non-US members of NATO lead the charge on that. Plus, it wasn’t that all-out (didn’t need to be). And look how well that’s turning out? Now we have a belligerent Russia allied with Serbia blustering about the treatment of Serbia from the other European nations. Where have we heard that before? For the record, other than Milosevic being gone (that part was good), neither Clinton or Bush did will with Serbia/Kosovo at all.

You actually think he could have sent ground troops into Afghanistan? Even Bush couldn’t have done that, pre-9/11. Clinton didn’t try. Who knows? As far as Bush, he wasn’t elected on a platform of worrying about how to fight a war being waged at the time he was elected, and had a different agenda.

Honestly, how much of this was stuff you were asking for at the time? And how much of this is hindsight talking? Hindsight, baby, yeah!!! Seriously, I thought the first President Bush was right at the time for Operation Desert Storm, and stopping it to wait until the Iraqi generals in their military overthrew Saddam. As it turns out, they were bigger cowards than Saddam. But I was willing to go along with the President. Until 9/11. That did change everything

As for Iraq, that was always a mistake. Saddam was never a threat to us. Even when he had WMD’s, they weren’t to be used against us. No, he was a threat. He was always a threat. He invaded two countries, and was muscling in on Saudi Arabia. He was most definitely a threat. And before the 2003 invasion, his sons were just as much a threat. I’m just glad the sanctions were never lifted to prove whether or not I would have been right, but I think I would have been.

I agree that Clinton did little with his popularity, but I suspect that’s how he stayed so popular: That’s all he was really trying to achieve.. If you think about it, that is a really sad statement. I would even credit LBJ with knowing that the threat from the Communists was real, knowing his decisions in the face of the criticism and loss of popularity really hurt him politically, and perhaps personally. By comparison to Clinton, he actually exhibited leadership, an absolute requirement for a President.

neither Clinton or Bush did well (not will, as above) with Serbia/Kosovo at all.

SteveIL – With the PAA expired, yes it is under certain circumstances. Read the whole thread and comment.

Read my whole comment and comment. The PAA expired because Republicans refused to extend the deadline for expiry. Pelosi not allowing a house vote if for a renewed bill, not extension of the current bill. From AP: “McConnell acknowledged last week that the White House’s refusal to extend the wiretapping law was meant to pressure Congress to pass the Senate bill.”

Again, you keep arguing without facts, even though your cohorts have already given up and have started a new line of attack – going after trial lawyers.

SteveIL – Your point on our Kosovo campaign does nothing but make my point better, and completely undermines your theory that Clinton could have sent ground troops in Afghanistan. Again, they roundly denounced him for a much easier fight and even attacked him for missile strikes. Yet you think he could possibly have sent ground troops in? Right.

Again, what you’re saying only makes sense to you now. It didn’t make sense to people back then. But you’ve decided to hold Clinton’s feet to the fire based upon what you think now. That’s just not how things work. Invading Afghanistan only became viable after 9/11, not before. Even I supported that one, though there were peaceniks who opposed that war too.

And give me a break with the “Invaded two countries.” We helped him invade one of those countries and he did so with our complete approval! Does that make us bad guys? We turned a blind eye to all his evil-doing, and there is some evidence that we even helped him get WMD’s. The point is that he wasn’t a threat to us and he was contained. He wasn’t going to invade anyone in the 90’s. As we now know, he didn’t even have a real army; nor should we have thought he did.

Sure, Saddam was a bad guy. But there are still lots of similar bad guys we consider allies. We even let them torture people for us. The only thing that made Saddam worse than these others is that we decided to think he was worse; and that’s because certain people in our country wanted an excuse to invade his. But unfortunately, the world is still chock full of Saddams, and no one expects us to invade each one. Nor are we able to. As long as they’re not a threat to us, we shouldn’t worry about them. And Saddam was never a threat to us.

Read my whole comment and comment. The PAA expired because Republicans refused to extend the deadline for expiry. Pelosi not allowing a house vote if for a renewed bill, not extension of the current bill. From AP: “McConnell acknowledged last week that the White House’s refusal to extend the wiretapping law was meant to pressure Congress to pass the Senate bill.”

Again, you keep arguing without facts, even though your cohorts have already given up and have started a new line of attack – going after trial lawyers. Had you provided the facts, you wouldn’t keep trying to pass the buck. Every Republican voted against the extension. But the Democrats have a more members in the House. Had every Democrat voted for the extension, it would have passed. 34 Democrats voted against it and it failed. Pelosi has refused to bring up the vote on the Senate bill. Period. Because she knows it would pass. And as far as blaming ambulance-chasing shysters, there’s data that the telecoms are paying more to Dems than Republicans as well (check out the comments in this CB post. Pelosi has created a bidding war for her “services” between the shysters and the telecoms. Nice, eh? And these are the officials you vote into office, these representatives who claim they are “champions of the little guy”? Utter hypocrisy.

We helped him invade one of those countries and he did so with our complete approval! I don’t think so. I do know what you are referencing. Re-read the exact quotes again on that (sorry, I don’t have time to get the links). The most the first President Bush can be accused of is of having a momentary case of the “Neville Chamberlains”. That’s it. No help from us invading Kuwait (or Iran, and don’t even think about going there), no approval. Bush just didn’t make it clear enough to Saddam to not invade. Saddam did that all on his own.

Yeah, I don’t like the hypocrisy of supporting some of the clowns the U.S. does support. But alliances are never based on ideology, but on the best deal with the least hassle from those allies. Ideology is nice, but not a requirement of foreign policy. That is the lesson of alliances in history. After all, Hitler was an ally with Stalin, at least until Barbarossa.

al Qaeda is in Iraq now. Obama says let them be and fight al Qaeda, but ony in Afghanistan. If criminals are in two hotels in Chicago would the police go after one hotel and not the other? Would it matter when or why the criminals arrived at the hotels. If criminals were living in one for years but just arrived in the other what difference would it make?

Al Qaeda arrive in Iraq like roaches to the Roach Motel. Are we not better off knowing where they are and killing them off there then having them pull off another 9/11 here?