Cynical Nation

Wow! He really IS the second coming of Reagan, then....except when he's the second coming of George Herbert Walker Bush, using Washington has a private fiefdom to stuff the pockets of his children....

It'll be interesting to read the 2008 campaign post-mortems and the chapter on the Thompson campaign: Much ado about a lot of hype over an empty suit

Not all immigration from Cuba has been good, Barry. I'd hope that even Cuban-Americans would acknowledge that.

Castro snookered Jimmy Carter (OK, no mean feat) with "the Marielle Boat Lift," emptying his prisons and mental institutions and dumping them onto American soil.

Thompson seems to realize that he's got to "pander to the base," just as Edwards, Obama and HRC are all pandering to the Kos-kids, MoveOn and the other assorted fringe remnants that make up their base.

All politicians look their worst when they pander.

A lot of Republicans, after years of at least tacitly supporting the status quo, "cheap labor" argument on immigration, have come to realize that illegal immigration is THE issue for many Conservative voters right now.

Many Conservatives see a "national security" reason to do what should've rightfully been done fifty years ago - lock down the southern border as tight as a drum.

The ONLY people who've openly defended any kind of amnesty are the Moderate Republicans.

Since the Liberal Dems don't favor "cheap labor," calling it "exploitation (for some strange reason),...THEY'RE left, pretty much, without an argument.

NOT one Liberal Democrat....NOT ONE has been able to articulate an argument in favor of a more open border policy and they've been wise enough not to try and make one, for fear of pissing of over 70% of the country!

Thompson, Giuliani and Romney are falling all over each other to appear to be the most anti-illegal immigration candidate there is.

Unfortunately for them, Tom Tancredo already beat them there.

Fortunately for them, Tom Tancredo is about as viable a Republican candidate as Dennis Kucinich is a Democratic one.

That can only mean one thing, "First one to get Tancredo to agree to a VP spot wins!"

Hey Barry,
I dont think the link you provided to my post is (necessarily) correct. Or is it?

My one contact inside the Thompson campaign told me that the reason Fred is waiting to announce is to give his old friend John McCain an opportunity to exit gracefully.

I wonder if another reason might be that the campaign wants to give Fred a chance to get some practice in before he makes it official.

In the interest of full disclosure: Be it known that I am an unabashed Fredhead.

"In the interest of full disclosure: Be it known that I am an unabashed Fredhead."

WHY?

Because his record is good enough for me and I think he can win.

I am also a "Fredhead" but for a different reason. Because I believe that he is by far the worst republican candidate. If he is the one running in the general election, it would be catastrophy for the republicans and the democratic candidate would win in a landslide.

You're right, Blue, that link didn't go to your post at all. But it *did* go to a cool link about Roswell. I've fixed it now.

WF, I think he "can" win too. But given an already crowded GOP field, I'm not yet convinced that adding yet another candidate to the mix will improved the party's chances in 2008. I'm trying to remain openminded, however.

"Because his record is good enough for me...."

What's his record?

By the way, the Mets' record is 46-34 (1st place).

You just have to marvel at JMK's ability to remember things according to either the Democratic President or the Democratic Congress in charge at the time, and attibute blame solely to a Democrat or Democrats.

If he can't do that, because both the congress and president were Republican, he just has to time travel and claim that it is all somehow Clinton's fault. Maybe it STARTED with Clinton. Yeah, the poor Republicans inherited all of that BAD STUFF from Clinton, like the huge surplus that they squandered spending like drunken sailors.

Bush wants to legalize 20 million Mexicans, a large percentage of whom are career crimnals, but CARTER got snookered by the Cubans.

Such a Repug slut.

Fred -- Assistant U.S. Attorney; Senate Watergate Committee Minority Counsel; Successful private attorney who was largely responsible for TN Governor Ray Blanton's conviction for corruption; Eight years U.S. Senate; Accomplished actor and radio personality.

And, yes, my Yankee cap is in storage for now -- possibly for the rest of the season.

BTW, here's Fred's rebuttal to Hillary, notable in part because it was issued so speedily: A Good Day

The fact that his campaign is smart enough to jump on these things instantly tells me a lot about his organization.

Lots of nifty-sounding titles...not much there there, however.

Yes, Thompson can win -- if the Democrats nominate either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, both of whom poll within the margin of error. John Edwards, however, soundly kicks his phony, greedy ass back to Tennessee, or Hollywood, or whatever rock he crawled out from under.

Tha na true Diego....I mean Barely....the Mariel Boat Lift occured under Senior CARTER (not Clinton....I said Carter)....as it began in dee spring of 1980, and since both dee Houses of Congress were in Democratic hands at that time AND the negotiations (such as they were) were handled by that WH...I think my saying that "Castro snookered Carter..." is pretty accurate.

Why you bring Senior Cleeentone into dees? He wa nah mentioned here atol.

Besides I've ALWAYS said Senior Boooosh be very bad on the border issue and on dee spending too sometimes. Perhaps he siesta during budget meetings, I no know.

Regardless, I've conseestently criticized this admineestration where it was deserved (on excessive spending & illegal immigration) and praised them when warranted (the global WoT and the economy).

I have a full cone-fee-dence that no one here will be able to cone-tra- deect that.

Hey! I said CONE and TRA together, if I'd dropped that last sylable, I might have been talking about my all time favorite Freedom Fighters.

Jill,
Sorry but we disagree on this. I think that any democrat can beat Thompson. In reality, Thompson is not a serious candidate and that will become apparent with time. His candidacy is kind of laughable. Anyway, the most recent polls show that Hillary and Obama also beat him (and any republican). I think that the strongest democrat in a general election would be Hillary. Of course she is not progressive, but neither is Edwards (or Obama).

Thompson...44

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariel_boatlift

Learn to read, JMK. Does this sound like what you described? No, not at all.

Why do you give some retarded "Hannitized" version of every story? You are like a child sitting on papa Limbaugh's lap, believing every word he says in wide-eyed wonder.

"Reeely Rush! Did Carter really let Castro dump all of his felons and mental patients into the United States!"

"Why yes my little tot, that's exactly the way it was. Carter got snookered!"

"Wow!"

"Anyway, the most recent polls show that Hillary and Obama also beat him (and any republican)." (BW)

Really? Any Republican???

"Of Hispanic registered voters without a college education, 78% said they'd vote for Clinton. Among college-educated Hispanic voters, 50% support Giuliani and 47% support Clinton. However, education levels in black and white respondents showed "little variation in their preferences in the Clinton-Giuliani match-up." Nearly nine in ten blacks support Clinton and 8% support Giuliani. Among non-Hispanic white registered voters, Giuliani beats Clinton, 57% to 40%.

"Among all registered voters, Giuliani leads Clinton 49% to 47%."

http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2007/07/new_gallup_poll_2.html

"Castro snookered Jimmy Carter (OK, no mean feat) with "the Marielle Boat Lift," emptying his prisons and mental institutions and dumping them onto American soil." (JMK)


"Learn to read, JMK. Does this sound like what you described? No, not at all..." (BH)


FROM the article YOU referenced;

"The boatlift began to have negative political implications for U.S. President Jimmy Carter when it was discovered that a number of the exiles had been released from Cuban jails and mental health facilities."

Uhhhh, yeah, it sounds EXACTLY like what I described.

Once again, THANKS....for posting yet another source that backed up MY account and debunked your own view.

Is there any chance that I may hire you as a debate foil?

Just asking....

What dumbass JMK said:

"Castro snookered Jimmy Carter (OK, no mean feat) with "the Marielle Boat Lift," emptying his prisons and mental institutions and dumping them onto American soil."

Compared to what the Wiki ACTUALLY said:

Upon arrival, many Cubans were placed in refugee camps, while others were held to federal prisons to undergo deportation hearings. Some were later discovered to be violent felons released from Cuban prisons, but only 2% or 2,746 Cubans were considered serious or violent criminals under United States law and therefore were denied asylum."

So, JMK, did Castro really snooker Carter by, and I quote you, "emptying his prisons and mental institutions and dumping them onto American soil"??? Do you think that Cuba only had 2,746 criminals and mental patients?

Castro did release criminals and mental cases ALONG with the 98% of Cubans who desperately wanted out.

Once again, you might want to learn how to read, and stop giving the "Hannitized" version of every story.

Castro finally had to close his own borders to stop his own people from leaving. Yeah, that was a BIG WIN for Fidel.

Stop being such a wingnut slut.

Yes!

Castro snookered (took advantage of Carter) by shipping violent felons and mental patients in the Mariel Boat Lift.

Happily it occurred during the last year of Carter's star-crossed Presidency (he was already well past done), but it was another nail in the Carter coffin and albatross (deservedly or not....I say deservedly) around the neck of American Liberalism.

Carter got snookered and the Mariel Boat Lift was, in fact, a nightmare for Carter....I was in College back then, so I remember that and I remember pledging that I'd never vote for a Democrat for National Office (for the record, I voted for Nixon in '72 and Ford '76)...and I haven't to this day.

What I'm saying is that when people want to leave a communist country, I would have been stupid like Carter and allowed them to come to the United States!

Obviously Carter didn't know about the 2% who were released from prisons and mental institutions, so what I am saying is that I would just blanket deny all people who are the political prisoners of communism to rot.

Well, unless maybe they would work cheap for my corporate bosses! Hyuk!

Yeah, now you're talking!

Jimmy Carter got snookered.

He let Castro send his refuse to the U.S.

He was warned by many people, including many Cuban-Americans who knew that naive Libs like Carter tend to get fleeced by thuggish dictators like Castro.

The Mariel Boat Lift capped the most incompetent Presidency in U.S. history.

He buloxed the economy. His response to the stagflation (double digit interest rates, unemployment rates and inflation rates) was "Well, we'd all better just learn to tighten our belts."

The ONLY good thing to come from that was Ronald Maximus and the END of Keynesianism and the advent of Supply-Side economics.

Beyond that, the Carter administration was virtually single-handedly responsible for the rise of radicalized Islam, which had been a fringe movement in the Moslem world, as some would say, "the John Birch Society of the Islamic world," and gave it a base (Iran) and a legitimacy it never had before.

Militant Islam is a large part of the Carter legacy.

The Mariel Boat Lift fiasco was a small part of that failed legacy.

God I'm dumb, because 2% of the boatlift from a communist country were criminals and psychos (far less percentage-wise than the Republican Party) I still would have refused them entry into our detention centers for processing!

Now I'm going to go bang my head on the wall some more!

Doesn't matter! The Mariel Boat Lift resulted in a barbwired camp made for these "dangerous so-called refugees."

Sure, there are some nefarious Carter supporters who claim that the Mariel Boat Lift fiasco was "used to smear Carter" and "wrongly villify his tenure."

Of course, that's categorically untrue.

The Mariel Boat Lift was indicative of Carter's overall judgment - he failed to act, in fact he continued with the failed Keynesian policies that wreaked the economic havoc of STAGFLATION on our economy, his foreign policies gave militant Islam (which had been a fringe movement within the Muslim world for hundreds of years) a stable base in Iran and legitimacy, for the first time.

No, to date, there have been, so far as I know, ONLY five extremely delusional people, I've heard defend Carter's judgment over the Mariel Boat Lift - Carter himself, his brother Billy, yourself and two Cuban-born mental patients.

I understand the first two, and figure the last two are par for the course....you, well that seems to go to your "overall judgment," which is consistently poor.

I've tried to find ANY positive stories on the Mariel Boat Lift and to date I've found exactly...none.

Hyuk! I wonder if Big Oil just caused all those fake "shortages" to make Carter "play ball" with their evil cartel? YES!

"I wonder if Big Oil just caused all those fake "shortages" " (BH)


There were never ANY "fake shortages" Barely.

Even today, it's all a matter of supply & demand. Our energy companies produce tens of thousands of jobs and deliver all the energy that powers our lives...energy most people take for granted.

Oil prices are dictated by the actions of speculators who buy and sell oil futures, NOT big oil companies and certainly NOT politicians.

Oh sure, gasoline taxes raise the price at the pump, that's for sure, and barriers to drilling off shore and in ANWR reduce access to our own homegrown supply, BUT, it still all comes down to supply & demand.

With Exxon-Mobil and Conoco-Phillips set to pull out of Venezuela, oil prices may surge over the short-term, but long term supply will probably be fine.

I've heard the idiotic argument posed, "If another Keynesian got into office and really tried to reduce the wide disaparity in incomes and widen the prosperity for more people, many of the biggest (and pro-Republican) investors might pull out of the market to make that guy's policies look a lot worse than they are."

First that's utter nonsense.

Keynesian policies DON'T "spread the prosperity around to more people," they do the reverse - they use higher tax rates to decrease the take-home income of all Americans, in effect, "spreading the misery around to more people."

Beyond that, if a large group of investors DID pull out of the market, and that pullout resulted in the implosion of a Keynesian's economic policies, THAT'S still HIS (the Keynesians) fault, and the failure is still due to Keynesian policies, NOT that "investor pull out."

That's just common sense!

If another Keynesian (a "Carter-redux") came to power and instituted policies that reduced the benefits to investors, or increased the risk to reward ratio, investors would merely be "responding to incentives" in pulling back on their investments, so those Keynesian policies would bottom-line be responsible for the decrease in investments, the subsequent decrease in jobs creation and the resulting retraction of the economy.

Same thing with the idiotic idea that big energy, big tobacco, and other major industries may have undermined Carter's economic policies.

That viewpoint is pure economic illiteracy.

Carter's policies CAUSED those industries to retrench in order to survive. The effects of their retrenchment (massive job loss and double digit unemployment, a massive increase in inflation rates and interest rates) were ALL due to Carter's continuing along with failed Keynesian economic policies.

The resulting quarter century of unprecedented prosperity, since Reagan took office in 1981, has been due to SUPPLY-SIDE's success!

Hyuk, when it comes right down to it, I'm either an idiot or a liar, but most likely both!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_oil_crisis

"Nov. 27 - U.S. President Richard Nixon signs the Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act authorizing price, production, allocation and marketing controls."

Regulation? My hero Nixon, not Carter.

Hyuk!

Nixon was AWFUL too!

He was a Keynesian, just as LBJ & Carter were.

In fact, Nixon once said, "We're ALL Keynesians now." Thankfully, that sentiment was short-lived!

By the way, his wage & price controls were a dismal failure. SOcialists lauded them, but they resulted in oil companies refusing to sell their product at below cost and ultimately decreased production output into the future, which helped set the stage for the 1978 oil crisis that Carter failed to deal well with.

There were oil crises in BOTH Nixon's (1973) and Carter's (1978) terms, which, ONCE AGAIN, proves MY point, that it's foolish, to the point of insane, to suggest that "big energy" companies sought to undermine Carter, Nixon, or LBJ.

They were merely trying to make money providing THE product that kept our "oil-based economy" humming.

Carter,as I said, was almost certainly the second worst President in U.S. history, after the star-crossed James Buchanan, who all but made the Civil War inevitable when there were any number of ways out from that.

Carter's administration was just woefully inept overall and unlucky to boot. He was unlucky in that the implosion of the failed Keynesian policies that took root in 1964 were just hitting the U.S. like a tidal wave as he came into office, but he was inept in not being able to do anything about them but lamely suggest that the American people "just get used to tightening their belts."

The Carter administration was also inept in allowing militant Islam (a fringe element for centuries up to that time) a base, in Iran, giving it a legitimacy in the Muslim world it had never enjoyed.

He was inept in his handling of deinstitutionalization, which resulted in thousands of former mental patients now being left "homeless" on our streets and in his handling of the ill-fated Mariel Boat Lift...and the failed Iranian Embassy rescue mission, where U.S. helicopters couldn't take off in the desert sand storms.

LBJ began our descent into Keynesianism. Nixon happily continued those failed policies, as did Ford and Carter, mercifully was the LAST Keynesian U.S. President.

We were subsequently saved by the advent of Supply Side economics with Ronald Maximus.

I read your replies again...and they seem even more discombobulated.

Is everything OK?

Nixon's failures DON'T in any way alleviate Carter's! That's what you seem to imply, though I don't know why.

In fact, while Nixon was an unmitigated disaster - "affirmative action" quotas, wage & price controls, a humiliating pullout of Vietnam, he also did at least a few "good things," like opening up trade with China...and...well, opening up trade with China....and did I mention, opening up trade with China?

OK, that's still ONE more "good thing" then the Carter administration bequeathed us.

Carter looked squarely into the economic hurricane brought on by over a decade of failed Keynesian policies and didn't blink...nope, he just stared vacantly as that economic tsunami hit shore in the form of STAGFLATION - the "worst economy since the Great Depression!"

Carter's domestic policies were abysmal, as we suffered through what he called "economic malaise," and a second major "oil crisis" in half a decade!

But his foreign polices were just as inept.

We have the Carter administration to thank for all the problems that militant Islam is inflicting on the West today!

It's really undeniable that "If another Keynesian (a "Carter-redux") came to power and instituted policies that reduced the benefits to investors, or increased the risk to reward ratio, investors would merely be "responding to incentives" in pulling back on their investments, so those Keynesian policies would bottom-line be responsible for the decrease in investments, the subsequent decrease in jobs creation and the resulting retraction of the economy.

"That's why the idea that big energy, big tobacco, and other major industries may have undermined Carter's economic policies, is just idiotic.

"That viewpoint is pure economic illiteracy.

"Carter's policies CAUSED those industries to retrench in order to survive. The effects of their retrenchment (massive job loss and double digit unemployment, a massive increase in inflation rates and interest rates) were ALL due to Carter's continuing along with failed Keynesian economic policies and wondering why they didn't work.

"The quarter century of unprecedented prosperity that followed that disaster, since Reagan took office in 1981, has been due to SUPPLY-SIDE ECONOMIC'S success!

Hyuk, yep, that Carter brokered the ONLY lasting peace deal in the Middle East, between Israel and Egypt, saving countless lives and misery, but MY HERO Georgy Chimp Bush lied to us and got our guys to murder hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, engendered the hatred of all Arabs and Islam forever, and squandered any political capital with Europe from 9/11, stripped us of the constitutional rights we have held for hundreds of years, refused oversight, obstructed investigations, abused his presidential powers to protect his political hit-men, and was ... well, just a jolly good fellow compared to that snake Carter!

Besides, nobody has done more than Chimp to transfer wealth from the middle class to the very few at the top. Real income has dropped like a rock since that evil bastard Clinton left office! We pay WAY more for gas, utilities, health insurance -- and wages have been nearly flat, with many people just giving up after they lost their lifelong job to some foreign fucker willing to work cheap in a country with no human rights, civil rights, or pollution laws!

Yuppers, dat Carter was PLAIN EVIL. Good ding we gotz Chimp!

There was a "lasting peace in the Mideast?"

WoW! I must've blinked and missed that one?

Since Israel has been under assault from radical Islam throughout the 1980s, through the 1990s on through today....that "peace" didn't seem to last very long.

Personal income has been increasing slowly, but steadily since 2002.

In the first quarter of '07, unemployment dropped to 4.5% (less than half the unemployment rate that Carter presided over) and personal incomes rose slightly.

Again, Carter (the last Keynesian to occupy the WH) presided over the "worst economy since the Great Depression," with Stagflation (double digit unemployment, inflation and interest rates). Carter was woefully inept...not evil. That's what makes his Presidency so sad.

And Clinton, he was a Supply-Sider!

There was NO retrenchment to Keynesian policies under W J Clinton.

Clinton was to Supply Side policies (a Democratic devotee) what Nixon was to Keynesian policies (a Republican devotee). In short, while LBJ, Nixon, Ford and Carter were all Keynesians, Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton and Bush Jr., were all Supply Siders.

Durrr hyuk! Egypts an Israayal has been murderins each udder ebber since Carter da Commie brokah de peece! Dat's right! I saws it ons Fox neews! Rump Lardball says so on da radidio!

Hur hur hur -- look at me trying to lie. I said dat CARTER did all dat stuff that really NIXON did, along wid bein' a grate big ol' criminal just like Chimpsy boy!

Heh heh, I really am retarded! Now I is changin' my toon!

Sooooply sidden is da shyte! It all trick down baby! Just like at Enron when all dem Republican theifs was rapin' Californication for billions, dey tipped da shoeshine boy A WHOLE DOLLAH!

Dis ain't about makin' a few billionaires, it about what good fo' ever single one o' us!

Jes aks all dem programmahs who used to make big money an now works at Wal-Mart! Dey reel happy!

Now your making your usual batshit crazy arguments, just under a different nameplate.

You DIDN'T say "Carter brokered a lasting peace berween Israel and Egypt."

You said simply, "Carter brokered a lasting peace in the Mideast," and that is absolutely and patently wrong!

Egypt has been getting $4 Billion/year in foreign aid from the U.S. and THAT has certainly tempered Egypt's antipathy for Israel a little bit, BUT Egypt hasn't been the problem, has it?

The Palestinians, the Syrians, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and all the hubs of militant Islam have all made "the destruction of Israel" a centerpiece of their platforms.

So, once again, the phrase, Carter brokered a lasting peace in the Mideast, is erroneous in EVERY conceivable way.

In fact, since Carter gave militant Islam a base (in Iran) and a renewed legitimacy in the Arab world), the worsening state of affairs in the Mideast over the last quarter century is almost entirely due to his ineptitude.

Moreover, President Carter presided over the fall of Keyneisanism.

Since his ouster in January of 1981, we haven't had another Keynesian in the WH...and hopefully, we won't have one any time soon either.

Supply Side policies have worked! Today's economic indicators 4.5% Unemployment, 2.6% Inflation and low interest rates, coupled with a record breaking Dow, raising productivity AND personal income compare well with those of the late 1990s. Of course they compare extremely favorably to the STAGFLATION that Carter presided over - "The worst economy since to Great Depression," was Carter's legacy.

You could say that Alan Greenspan has been the "father of Supply Side policies," and with Bernanke (a Greenspan follower) in charge of the Federal Reserve, those monetary policies will almost certainly remain in force.

Where's all that anger coming from Barely?

Only a white-hot anger would motivate reckless and irresponsible arguments like "H-1B Visas exploded to over 1 Million under G W Bush," (when H-1B's went from 50,000 in 1993 to about 1 Million by 2000), to "RICO allows the U.S. government to confiscate assets based solely on suspicion," (when that is clearly not the case), to "Carter brokered a lasting peace in the Mideast," (when there's been virtually NO peace in the Mideast since Carter left Office...in fact Carter gave militant Islam a base (in Iran) and a legitimacy it never before had.

This weirdness between us is like an open tooth to me...I can't leave batshit crazy comments like those alone, but more than that, as a caring individual, I really want to get to the bottom of all this misplaced anger on your part...and I think we're getting close.

I really do!

Your posting (albeit insanely) with a similar moniker to mine (jmk) seems to portend a breakthrough.

Now, I'll admit it, I don't have a very good record on personal prognostications, BUT I'm prepared to go out on a limb here and say, "I predict a healing with regards to BH's anger."

Come on, reach out to me man, don't just blindly seek to prove my prognostication wrong...reach out to me! I think I can help...I really do.

Hyuk, dur hur hurr, humpty wumpty dur dur doo, doodle hyuk hyuk zippity dur!

OK, is this the "old Bailey," the "new Bailey," or the "new jmk," or some other personality you've come up with?/

I know I've just skimmed some of your more recent posts, but I haven't seen this new language thing before, although...that may not be a bad tact for you.

If you just posted everything in your own private language, it would be undecipherable, but not nearly so contentious, not to mention, it would be impossible for anyone to know if you're wrong about what your posting about or not.

Hey! It's worth a shot Barel-...I mean "new jmk."

I thought JMK said there weren't any of these?

Associated Press
Report: Gonzales Knew of FBI Violations

Democrats raised new questions Tuesday about whether Attorney General Alberto Gonzales may have known about FBI abuses of civil liberties when he told a Senate committee that no such abuses occurred.

Lying to Congress is a crime, but it wasn't immediately clear if Gonzales knew about the violations when he made those statements to the Senate Intelligence Committee or intentionally misled its members.

One Democrat called for a special counsel. President Bush, meanwhile, continued to support his longtime friend.

"He still has faith in the attorney general," White House spokesman Scott Stanzel told reporters Tuesday.

On April 27, 2005, while seeking renewal of the broad powers granted law enforcement under the USA Patriot Act, Gonzales told the Senate Intelligence Committee, "There has not been one verified case of civil liberties abuse" from the law enacted after the 9/11 terror attacks.

Six days earlier, the FBI sent Gonzales a copy of a report that said its agents had obtained personal information to which they were not entitled, according to The Washington Post (nyse: WPO - news - people ). Gonzales had received a least half a dozen reports describing such violations in the three months before he made that statement. The newspaper obtained the internal FBI documents under the Freedom of Information Act.

The violations, the Post reported, included unauthorized surveillance and an illegal property search.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a longtime critic of the Patriot Act, called for a special counsel.

"Providing false, misleading or inaccurate statements to Congress is a serious crime, and the man who may have committed those acts cannot be trusted to investigate himself," Nadler, D-N.Y., said in a statement.

Each of the FBI's violations cited in the reports copied to Gonzales was serious enough to require notification of the President's Intelligence Oversight Board, which helps police the government's surveillance activities, the Post reported.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said the inconsistency was troubling and pointed out what he said was another one: the Justice Department's accounting of when Gonzales became aware of the FBI's abuses of so-called National Security Letters - which allow agents to secretly obtain private information on ordinary Americans in terrorism investigations.

According to the department, Gonzales became aware of the abuses "prior" to March 9 this year, when Justice's inspector general released a report documenting them. Gonzales had been receiving reports of FBI abuses in terrorism investigations for months before that, according to the Post.

Leahy said the contradictions warrant further inquiry and said he'd be asking Gonzales about them prior to the attorney general's scheduled testimony before Leahy's committee July 24.

"It appears the attorney General also failed to disclose the truth about when he first knew of widespread abuses by the FBI of National Security Letters (NSLs)," Leahy said in a statement.

I thought JMK said there weren't any of these?

Associated Press
Report: Gonzales Knew of FBI Violations

Democrats raised new questions Tuesday about whether Attorney General Alberto Gonzales may have known about FBI abuses of civil liberties when he told a Senate committee that no such abuses occurred.

Lying to Congress is a crime, but it wasn't immediately clear if Gonzales knew about the violations when he made those statements to the Senate Intelligence Committee or intentionally misled its members.

One Democrat called for a special counsel. President Bush, meanwhile, continued to support his longtime friend.

"He still has faith in the attorney general," White House spokesman Scott Stanzel told reporters Tuesday.

On April 27, 2005, while seeking renewal of the broad powers granted law enforcement under the USA Patriot Act, Gonzales told the Senate Intelligence Committee, "There has not been one verified case of civil liberties abuse" from the law enacted after the 9/11 terror attacks.

Six days earlier, the FBI sent Gonzales a copy of a report that said its agents had obtained personal information to which they were not entitled, according to The Washington Post (nyse: WPO - news - people ). Gonzales had received a least half a dozen reports describing such violations in the three months before he made that statement. The newspaper obtained the internal FBI documents under the Freedom of Information Act.

The violations, the Post reported, included unauthorized surveillance and an illegal property search.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a longtime critic of the Patriot Act, called for a special counsel.

"Providing false, misleading or inaccurate statements to Congress is a serious crime, and the man who may have committed those acts cannot be trusted to investigate himself," Nadler, D-N.Y., said in a statement.

Each of the FBI's violations cited in the reports copied to Gonzales was serious enough to require notification of the President's Intelligence Oversight Board, which helps police the government's surveillance activities, the Post reported.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said the inconsistency was troubling and pointed out what he said was another one: the Justice Department's accounting of when Gonzales became aware of the FBI's abuses of so-called National Security Letters - which allow agents to secretly obtain private information on ordinary Americans in terrorism investigations.

According to the department, Gonzales became aware of the abuses "prior" to March 9 this year, when Justice's inspector general released a report documenting them. Gonzales had been receiving reports of FBI abuses in terrorism investigations for months before that, according to the Post.

Leahy said the contradictions warrant further inquiry and said he'd be asking Gonzales about them prior to the attorney general's scheduled testimony before Leahy's committee July 24.

"It appears the attorney General also failed to disclose the truth about when he first knew of widespread abuses by the FBI of National Security Letters (NSLs)," Leahy said in a statement.

Wow, the party of Law and Order better quick put Gonzo in jail!

The 2005 ruling against the NSA's warrantless wiretaps was just set aside earlier this week.

Things are looking up, in the domestic WoT.

I WANT the NSA and the FBI tracking calls made by foreign nationals within the U.S., and I WANT them tracking calls and emails to/from the U.S. to "suspect foreign portals" abroad, etc.

Those are the kinds of things hat have kept America free from attack over the past six years.

SEE: http://workingclassconservative.blogspot.com/2007/07/ok-this-is-good-one-didja-hear-one.html

Moreover, and most of all, I WANT people who know what they're doing to run the WoT - people like Rudy Giuliani, Bill Bratton, even a Mitt Romney, over WoT-deniers like John Edwards, Barack Obama or HRC.

WoT-deniers, a term which includes those who believe diplomacy and police action can replace the military WoT and that domestic law enforcement can be "reined in," are as vile, perhaps even more so, than those vile "Nazi holocaust-deniers," because the WoT is an actual, intended Holocaust that is current - Darfur, Kashmir, the Phillipines, Malaysia, the Mideast, etc.

So, JMK believes that HIS Nanny State can only keep us safe by lying to us, lying to congress, obstructing justice, and illegal spying.

There you go: Fascist.

Indeed Barely, our government has a duty to protect its citizens from all manner of "public health threats."

Terrorism is one of those "public health threats."

Surveillance cams, secretly gathering information on citizens and resident aliens alike, wiretapping suspicious communications, or those "triggered" by the use of certain words, are intrusive, but they are the only means to pro-actively thwarting terror plots before they actually commit those "acts of unconventional warfare."

The primary suspect involved in the shooting of two NYPD Officers, was caught earlier tonight in Eastern PA, because (1) a Day Care's security cam caught their images on film and (2) an NYPD wiretap investigating another, unrelated crime was passed onto the police investigating this shooting - the wiretap apparently snared some frantic calls from Dexter Bostic to various friends trying to get someone to sneak him out of state.

Thank God for that security cam...and thank God for that wiretap!

Catching the likes of Dexter Bostic IS the "greater good."

One prob there, jackass: it's called THE CONSTITUTION.

Even if violating the constitution works out in one case, that doesn't change a damn thing. The founding fathers knew, from great suffering, that the power to endlessly spy, pry, and search citizens without cause invites tyranny.

It cannot work because assholes like Nixon and Bush would use these powers to spy on their POLITICAL enemies: to intimidate them, you know, like rummaging through DNC headquarters or outing the identity of a CIA agent.

And of course, ANY COURT would have given the police a warrant to tap the phone of known associates of someone suspected of killing two police officers. You see, there was SUSPICION, and there could have been OVERSIGHT.

Of course a daycare has a right to have a camera taping their own place of business. Why shouldn't they? If you don't like it, don't use that daycare.

The daycare DOESN'T have a right to put a camera in YOUR house, however.

Can you understand any of this?

You see, there was, and is, NO NEED for warrantless wiretapping. It is unconstitutional, and if you were a patriotic American, you would oppose it.

The court that Chimp just couldn't stand to get permission from had only turned down I think FIVE REQUESTS for wiretaps, EVER. That was before 9/11.

Why does Chimp need to spy without oversight of any kind? Why is Chimp so secretive? Why doesn't Chimp let his people testify before congress? Why did Chimp commute the sentence of a criminal in his administration?

Why did Roberto Gonzales LIE about the abuses, ALREADY so many abuses, of the warrantless wiretap, which has been used on ordinary citizens who had nothing at all to do with "terrorism" in any way.

You would have loved Nazi Germany ... for a while.

One prob there, jackass: it's called THE CONSTITUTION.

Even if violating the constitution works out in one case, that doesn't change a damn thing. The founding fathers knew, from great suffering, that the power to endlessly spy, pry, and search citizens without cause invites tyranny.

It cannot work because assholes like Nixon and Bush would use these powers to spy on their POLITICAL enemies: to intimidate them, you know, like rummaging through DNC headquarters or outing the identity of a CIA agent.

And of course, ANY COURT would have given the police a warrant to tap the phone of known associates of someone suspected of killing two police officers. You see, there was SUSPICION, and there could have been OVERSIGHT.

Of course a daycare has a right to have a camera taping their own place of business. Why shouldn't they? If you don't like it, don't use that daycare.

The daycare DOESN'T have a right to put a camera in YOUR house, however.

Can you understand any of this?

You see, there was, and is, NO NEED for warrantless wiretapping. It is unconstitutional, and if you were a patriotic American, you would oppose it.

The court that Chimp just couldn't stand to get permission from had only turned down I think FIVE REQUESTS for wiretaps, EVER. That was before 9/11.

Why does Chimp need to spy without oversight of any kind? Why is Chimp so secretive? Why doesn't Chimp let his people testify before congress? Why did Chimp commute the sentence of a criminal in his administration?

Why did Roberto Gonzales LIE about the abuses, ALREADY so many abuses, of the warrantless wiretap, which has been used on ordinary citizens who had nothing at all to do with "terrorism" in any way.

You would have loved Nazi Germany ... for a while.

One prob there, jackass: it's called THE CONSTITUTION.

Even if violating the constitution works out in one case, that doesn't change a damn thing. The founding fathers knew, from great suffering, that the power to endlessly spy, pry, and search citizens without cause invites tyranny.

It cannot work because assholes like Nixon and Bush would use these powers to spy on their POLITICAL enemies: to intimidate them, you know, like rummaging through DNC headquarters or outing the identity of a CIA agent.

And of course, ANY COURT would have given the police a warrant to tap the phone of known associates of someone suspected of killing two police officers. You see, there was SUSPICION, and there could have been OVERSIGHT.

Of course a daycare has a right to have a camera taping their own place of business. Why shouldn't they? If you don't like it, don't use that daycare.

The daycare DOESN'T have a right to put a camera in YOUR house, however.

Can you understand any of this?

You see, there was, and is, NO NEED for warrantless wiretapping. It is unconstitutional, and if you were a patriotic American, you would oppose it.

The court that Chimp just couldn't stand to get permission from had only turned down I think FIVE REQUESTS for wiretaps, EVER. That was before 9/11.

Why does Chimp need to spy without oversight of any kind? Why is Chimp so secretive? Why doesn't Chimp let his people testify before congress? Why did Chimp commute the sentence of a criminal in his administration?

Why did Roberto Gonzales LIE about the abuses, ALREADY so many abuses, of the warrantless wiretap, which has been used on ordinary citizens who had nothing at all to do with "terrorism" in any way.

You would have loved Nazi Germany ... for a while.

Again AMERICA'S courts say security and surveillance cams DO NOT violate any 4th Amendment protections.

No one has any "expectation of privacy" on a public street.

What part of that don't you understand dipshit?

AND

Perhaps you didn't see THIS: http://workingclassconservative.blogspot.com/2007/07/nsa-wiretap-ban-overturned.html
BUT that lower court ruling AGAINST the NSA wiretaps was OVERTURNED about a week ago!

The domestic WoT is LOOKING UP!!!