Barack Obama's Idea of 'Government Transparency' Would Make Dick Cheney Proud
TopBassDog
Loogypicker
> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 01:20:49 -0800 (PST), TopBassDog> >http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/declassified/archive/2009/10/26/barack...
>
> I think the reason Obama is stopping the "wiretap" investigations is
> that there are valid national security issues at stake.
> We stand around and bitch that Bush should have stopped Atta and the
> boys and then criticize the way he could have stopped them.
> NSA has always "wiretapped" and they always will. That is their job.
> If they are not busting you for your affair with the girl in the
> office or that bag of grass you arranged to pick up at the Tastee
> Freeze, why do you care?
> The reality is they were only looking at international calls to
> countries with terrorist ties anyway, if you can believe the official
> line. I have seen the bug Clinton put in every telephone office (at
> least while it was in the box) and I bet they hear more than that if
> they want. It is capable of sniffing every packet that goes in or
> out..
No, no. He's doing it because he's a liberal, hates his country and
doesn't want anything good. Just wait and see. The conservatives here
will go there!
Tosk
d31a17...@a31g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, loogy...@gmail.com
says...
>
> On Nov 3, 10:22ï¿œam, gfretw...@aol.com wrote:
> > On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 01:20:49 -0800 (PST), TopBassDog
> >
> > <topbass...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/declassified/archive/2009/10/26/barack...
> >
> > I think the reason Obama is stopping the "wiretap" investigations is
> > that there are valid national security issues at stake.
> > We stand around and bitch that Bush should have stopped Atta and the
> > boys and then criticize the way he could have stopped them.
> > NSA has always "wiretapped" and they always will. That is their job.
> > If they are not busting you for your affair with the girl in the
> > office or that bag of grass you arranged to pick up at the Tastee
> > Freeze, why do you care?
> > The reality is they were only looking at international calls to
> > countries with terrorist ties anyway, if you can believe the official
> > line. I have seen the bug Clinton put in every telephone office (at
> > least while it was in the box) and I bet they hear more than that if
> > they want. It is capable of sniffing every packet that goes in or
> > out..
>
> No, no. He's doing it because he's a liberal, hates his country and
> doesn't want anything good. Just wait and see. The conservatives here
> will go there!
Nope, wrong again, we love it.. Just wish Pelosi and Reid had spent more
time with jobs and the economy back at the end of the Bush admin,
instead of 245+ investigations trying to put folks like Scooter Libby in
jail and criminalizing politics as usual in Texas...
--
Wafa free again.
nom=de=plume
news:b8i0f5p1psl99cnue...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 01:20:49 -0800 (PST), TopBassDog
> that there are valid national security issues at stake.
> We stand around and bitch that Bush should have stopped Atta and the
> boys and then criticize the way he could have stopped them.
> NSA has always "wiretapped" and they always will. That is their job.
> If they are not busting you for your affair with the girl in the
> office or that bag of grass you arranged to pick up at the Tastee
> Freeze, why do you care?
> The reality is they were only looking at international calls to
> countries with terrorist ties anyway, if you can believe the official
> line. I have seen the bug Clinton put in every telephone office (at
> least while it was in the box) and I bet they hear more than that if
> they want. It is capable of sniffing every packet that goes in or
> out..
Actually, they were listening to far more conversations and many of them
were inside the US. It's pretty well documented. I think Obama made a
mistake by stopping the investigations.
--
Nom=de=Plume
jps
Probably a matter of priority. If they stopped all investigations in
favor of focusing on putting Cheney away, that'd work for me.
Keith Nuttle
Cheney will only irritate you, terrorist will kill you.
nom=de=plume
news:hcq30f$cfk$1...@aioe.org...
Not really. Cheney has been responsible for the deaths of thousand upon
thousands of American, Iraqi, and Afgani lives.
--
Nom=de=Plume
H the K
Cheney is a terrorist.
H the K
> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 10:48:11 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
> <nom=d...@plume.invalid> wrote:
>
> an idiot.
Yours are really dull. :>)
nom=de=plume
news:7lbjmuF...@mid.individual.net...
Don't know... but healthcare reform is worse, apparently.
--
Nom=de=Plume
H the K
In republicanworld, she's mainstream.
nom=de=plume
news:vk71f5lg6a0f4p1pi...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 12:43:21 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
> <nom=d...@plume.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Cheney has been responsible for the deaths of thousand upon
>>thousands of American, Iraqi, and Afgani lives.
>
How's he supposed to do that? Snap his fingers? It takes a while. We're
certainly drawing down in Iraq. A decision is pending in Afg.
--
Nom=de=Plume
nom=de=plume
news:od71f5h1dvt6f1ifj...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 10:48:11 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
> <nom=d...@plume.invalid> wrote:
>
> an idiot.
> Gingrich's cell phone?
No idea. I never heard it, and I think there's a diff. between "operatives"
(fairly nebulous) and the gov't.
--
Nom=de=Plume
nom=de=plume
Well, so are mine.
--
Nom=de=Plume
H the K
Considering what just happened in Afghanistan in regard to the election
re-run, I'm hoping Obama resists the pressure to send in 40,000 more
troops, or any number resembling 40,000. Afghanistan is not a nation, it
is a collection of territories run by warlords, with a central
government run by a crook. Pakistan is also a failed nation. The
geography in that part of the world is pretty impossible.
It's too bad Dubya blew our wad in Iraq. Had our military concentrated
on Afghanistan and the Taliban and al Qaeda these past eight years, we
might be in a much better position now.
What we have is the mess an idiot like Bush leaves behind for others to
clean up.
Loogypicker
> ><gfretw...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >news:b8i0f5p1psl99cnue...@4ax.com...
> >> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 01:20:49 -0800 (PST), TopBassDog
> >> <topbass...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>I can see you, but you cannot see me. Clear as Scotch tape!
>
>
> >> I think the reason Obama is stopping the "wiretap" investigations is
> >> that there are valid national security issues at stake.
> >> We stand around and bitch that Bush should have stopped Atta and the
> >> boys and then criticize the way he could have stopped them.
> >> NSA has always "wiretapped" and they always will. That is their job.
> >> If they are not busting you for your affair with the girl in the
> >> office or that bag of grass you arranged to pick up at the Tastee
> >> Freeze, why do you care?
> >> The reality is they were only looking at international calls to
> >> countries with terrorist ties anyway, if you can believe the official
> >> line. I have seen the bug Clinton put in every telephone office (at
> >> least while it was in the box) and I bet they hear more than that if
> >> they want. It is capable of sniffing every packet that goes in or
> >> out..
>
> >Actually, they were listening to far more conversations and many of them
> >were inside the US. It's pretty well documented. I think Obama made a
> >mistake by stopping the investigations.
>
> an idiot.
>
> - Show quoted text -
Cite?
John H.
<nom=d...@plume.invalid> wrote:
Sure, Harry, along with almost all the Democrats in Congress.
lol lol
nom=de=plume
I don't know what the best course is. I think we should concentrate more on
drones and special operations, but I'm not an expert. Obama is listening to
lots of folks and I'm willing to give him the benefit of my doubt about the
best decision... at least for now.
--
Nom=de=Plume
thunder
>> Anyone who thinks nobody ever listens to their phone conversations is
>> an idiot.
>> BTW where was the outrage when democratic operatives were bugging Newt
>> Gingrich's cell phone?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Cite?
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/231612/mcdermott_must_pay_damages_for_giving.html
wf3h
>
> No, no. He's doing it because he's a liberal, hates his country and
> doesn't want anything good. Just wait and see. The conservatives here
you forgot that he's an arab muslim socialist.
jps
wrote:
In the words of our esteemed opposition... Kill him!!
jps
Cheney has already irritated me and I want him to pay. It's not one
or the other. I want terrorists pursued and Cheney in prison.
All other investigations into corrupt Republican assholes can wait for
history.
BTW, according to Congresswoman Virginia Foxx, the health care plan is
more dangerous to the state of our country than any terrorist.
She's from your side of the aisle.
jps
He seems a lot smarter than those two fellows who just left. The bald
one needs to go to jail, maybe bunk with Scooter for a white.
jps
wrote:
She's a fucking loon. That woman should be bloodied by a troop of
candy-addled girl scouts looking for whomever stole their shipment of
cookies.
Tosk
gfre...@aol.com says...
>
> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 10:48:11 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
> <nom=d...@plume.invalid> wrote:
>
> an idiot.
> BTW where was the outrage when democratic operatives were bugging Newt
> Gingrich's cell phone?
Stuck in partisan politics and bought and paid for minority media...
--
Wafa free again.
Tosk
thunder...@gti.net says...
Jesus Loogie. This is getting pretty bad. Almost everything you have
said today has been proven absolutely wrong, time to take off the
partisan blinders and admit it... Nothing wrong with learning you are
wrong, the problem comes when you are afraid to admit and accept it, and
move on...
--
Wafa free again.
H the K
> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 13:33:20 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
> <nom=d...@plume.invalid> wrote:
>
>>> BTW where was the outrage when democratic operatives were bugging Newt
>>> Gingrich's cell phone?
>>
>>
>> No idea. I never heard it, and I think there's a diff. between "operatives"
>> (fairly nebulous) and the gov't.
>
> the speaker of the house around and secretly recording conversations
> on his cell phone it does have a certain "watergate" quality to it but
> nobody seemed to care.
Was Newt in the process of dumping another wife with cancer?
nom=de=plume
news:nnh1f516h7fu9u2bi...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 13:32:04 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
> <nom=d...@plume.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>>Cheney has been responsible for the deaths of thousand upon
>>>>thousands of American, Iraqi, and Afgani lives.
>>>
>>> That would not ring so hollow if Obama would stop the wars
>>
>>
>>How's he supposed to do that? Snap his fingers? It takes a while. We're
>>certainly drawing down in Iraq. A decision is pending in Afg.
>
> BTDT.
>
Perhaps, but I don't think you can equate the two in any real way. Well,
they were both pretty darn smart.
--
Nom=de=Plume
nom=de=plume
news:gmc1f5568aj8amgsp...@4ax.com...
I posted it not Harry, as you know. Feel like attacking the messenger...
wonder where you got that from....
--
Nom=de=Plume
nom=de=plume
news:sei1f59rdfm4pacn6...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 13:33:20 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
> <nom=d...@plume.invalid> wrote:
>
>>> Gingrich's cell phone?
>>
>>
>>No idea. I never heard it, and I think there's a diff. between
>>"operatives"
>>(fairly nebulous) and the gov't.
>
> the speaker of the house around and secretly recording conversations
> on his cell phone it does have a certain "watergate" quality to it but
> nobody seemed to care.
Seems like more of a Linda Tripp mentality. If it's illegal to do that, they
should be arrested and prosecuted.
--
Nom=de=Plume
nom=de=plume
Only if he was on the way to the hospital to visit her.
--
Nom=de=Plume
H the K
herring is an asshole. Once you accept that, nothing he posts matters.
nom=de=plume
news:MPG.255a90645...@news.eternal-september.org...
The Republicans... definitely.
--
Nom=de=Plume
nom=de=plume
news:5ij1f5ptal3sc6iuv...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 14:51:53 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
> <nom=d...@plume.invalid> wrote:
>
>>on
>>drones and special operations, but I'm not an expert. Obama is listening
>>to
>>lots of folks and I'm willing to give him the benefit of my doubt about
>>the
>>best decision... at least for now.
>
>
> is a flawed strategy
Like I said, I'm willing to let those with greater knowledge make the
decision. That's why I live in a representative democracy.
--
Nom=de=Plume
nom=de=plume
news:0vi1f5dc33m8hs3i8...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 16:45:50 -0500, H the K <naled...@mypacks.net>
> wrote:
>
>>On 11/3/09 4:32 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
>>> news:vk71f5lg6a0f4p1pi...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 12:43:21 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
>>>> <nom=d...@plume.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Cheney has been responsible for the deaths of thousand upon
>>>>> thousands of American, Iraqi, and Afgani lives.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> How's he supposed to do that? Snap his fingers? It takes a while. We're
>>> certainly drawing down in Iraq. A decision is pending in Afg.
>>>
>>
>>
>>re-run, I'm hoping Obama resists the pressure to send in 40,000 more
>>troops, or any number resembling 40,000. Afghanistan is not a nation, it
>>is a collection of territories run by warlords, with a central
>>government run by a crook. Pakistan is also a failed nation. The
>>geography in that part of the world is pretty impossible.
>>
>
>
>>It's too bad Dubya blew our wad in Iraq. Had our military concentrated
>>on Afghanistan and the Taliban and al Qaeda these past eight years, we
>>might be in a much better position now.
>>
We had an early opportunity in Afg. We had world-wide support, and Bush
squandered it. It would have made a difference.
The SU had no such support, and we were actively working against them.
>
> Wasn't anyone paying attention to what happened to the Soviets? They
> spared no expense and gave no quarter, using the most ruthless
> tactics, and still got their ass kicked.
> All "Joe Wilson's war" did was make it a little more costly for them
> and challenged their air superiority but they still never really held
> much ground, even before we gave Bin Laden the stingers.
> At the time, it was their Vietnam. Now it is ours.
> Air power will not will a guerilla war.
>
Wilson's war made it much more costly for them.
It's nothing like VN. Iraq is more like that, but even that is a flawed
analogy.
--
Nom=de=Plume
nom=de=plume
news:k7k1f5tfu20p8qnnn...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 15:42:12 -0800, jps <tr...@thedump.com> wrote:
>
>>Cheney has already irritated me and I want him to pay.
>
> be the focus of his administration or do the other things he wants to
> do.
>
> I am old enough to remember a few of these witch hunts and I can say,
> nothing else happened when they were going on.
> With Nixon, the war dragged on 3 years longer than it needed to
> With Clinton, the corporations and the bankers set up the apparatus to
> loot the country.
Bush institutionalized the looting. Clinton didn't help the situation, but
he had limited control when the Rep. took over Congress. Reagan started it.
--
Nom=de=Plume
John H.
You continue to show what you are, and who you sound like.
In this case, the messenger made up the message. You've nothing but
hot air from others to lend credence to what you said. It's called
'bullshit'.
Enough of you.
nom=de=plume
Then plonk me if that's what you like. I don't understand why you're unable
to have a rational discussion without attacking the messenger. I'm sorry if
you can't think logically (or won't).
--
Nom=de=Plume
nom=de=plume
news:ia52f59ngac1gj4vf...@4ax.com...
> know the enabling legislation was passed while we were all wondering
> about blue dresses, cigars and little white lies. Now that you brought
> it up, some of the other legislation that set the stage for this
> looting happened while we were worried about what Oliver North was up
> to.
>
> There is nothing like a good scandal to divert our attention from what
> is really important and to stop any real business going on that
> benefits the country.
>
> If Obama gets bogged down in some Cheney investigation, that will be
> the only thing he will be doing.
Certainly true... I don't think Obama will get bogged down if the AG decides
to proceed. We need to hold everyone accountable for their acts.
--
Nom=de=Plume
NotNow
> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 13:50:43 -0800, Loogypicker wrote:
>
>
>>> an idiot.
>>> BTW where was the outrage when democratic operatives were bugging Newt
>>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>> Cite?
>
>
> http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/231612/mcdermott_must_pay_damages_for_giving.html
Exactly!!! I was a CONFERENCE call......nothing was "bugged".
NotNow
> In article <NKKdnR3FlJImJW3X...@posted.gtinet>,
> thunder...@gti.net says...
>> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 13:50:43 -0800, Loogypicker wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> Anyone who thinks nobody ever listens to their phone conversations is
>>>> an idiot.
>>>> BTW where was the outrage when democratic operatives were bugging Newt
>>>> Gingrich's cell phone?- Hide quoted text -
>>>>
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>> Cite?
>>
>> http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/231612/mcdermott_must_pay_damages_for_giving.html
>
> said today has been proven absolutely wrong, time to take off the
> partisan blinders and admit it... Nothing wrong with learning you are
> wrong, the problem comes when you are afraid to admit and accept it, and
> move on...
>
>
Uh, if you were to read the article posted, there was NO BUGGING. It was
a friggin' CONFERENCE call. Yes, it IS getting bad.
NotNow
> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 13:50:43 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
> <loogy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> BTW where was the outrage when democratic operatives were bugging Newt
>>> Gingrich's cell phone?- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>> Cite?
>
> Try "Martin" "Gingrich" "Cell phone"
>
> I notice the Huffington report has taken down their article (where
> Ariana was shocked) as has the DoJ
Once again. There was NO "bugging". IT WAS A CONFERENCE CALL.......get it?
Bill McKee
<gfre...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:5bk4f5dirggegm7hf...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 23:12:24 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
> <nom=d...@plume.invalid> wrote:
>
>>> If Obama gets bogged down in some Cheney investigation, that will be
>>> the only thing he will be doing.
>>
>>
>>Certainly true... I don't think Obama will get bogged down if the AG
>>decides
>>to proceed. We need to hold everyone accountable for their acts.
>
> made in office, the whole country will get bogged down.
> Cheney will probably be dead of old age before they ever get out of
> the discovery phase of his trial. There will be requests from both
> sides for documents the government does not want to provide. The court
> fight over that could take years.
And the payback will be the next administration will go after the last if a
different party. May not want to open that Pandora's Box.
nom=de=plume
> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 23:12:24 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
> <nom=d...@plume.invalid> wrote:
>
>>> the only thing he will be doing.
>>
>>
>>Certainly true... I don't think Obama will get bogged down if the AG
>>decides
>>to proceed. We need to hold everyone accountable for their acts.
>
> made in office, the whole country will get bogged down.
> Cheney will probably be dead of old age before they ever get out of
> the discovery phase of his trial. There will be requests from both
> sides for documents the government does not want to provide. The court
> fight over that could take years.
No. We should go after him for criminal behavior. He's a criminal by his own
words.
--
Nom=de=Plume
nom=de=plume
news:vLCdnTDiW7Bvz2_X...@earthlink.com...
If Obama should commit a criminal act while in office, he should be
prosecuted. No one is above the law.
--
Nom=de=Plume
Bill McKee
"nom=de=plume" <nom=d...@plume.invalid> wrote in message
news:hctl9g$d7u$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
He will be impeached if a criminal act. What did Cheney do that is going to
get him jail time? The Pandora's Box will be there will be an investigation
every party change.
nom=de=plume
Yes impeached or after he leaves office, prosecuted.
I'll leave you to your own research to look up Cheney's crimes against this
country.
--
Nom=de=Plume
nom=de=plume
news:mvn4f5lv06r8a11ee...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 20:44:53 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
> <nom=d...@plume.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>>Certainly true... I don't think Obama will get bogged down if the AG
>>>>decides
>>>>to proceed. We need to hold everyone accountable for their acts.
>>>
>>> If they actually go after a former vice president for policy decisions
>>> made in office, the whole country will get bogged down.
>>> Cheney will probably be dead of old age before they ever get out of
>>> the discovery phase of his trial. There will be requests from both
>>> sides for documents the government does not want to provide. The court
>>> fight over that could take years.
>>
>>
>>No. We should go after him for criminal behavior. He's a criminal by his
>>own
>>words.
>
> the ability to subpoena just about anything to aid his defense
Yes, and your point? He needs to be charged first. The evidence doesn't
necessarily have to be in open court. There are many instances of closed
sessions when national security issues are at stake. Typically, the judge
decides, which is what s/he is paid to do.
--
Nom=de=Plume
Bill McKee
"nom=de=plume" <nom=d...@plume.invalid> wrote in message
No, you tell me his crimes. Google will give me all the pseudo crimes that
every leftist states.
nom=de=plume
Sorry. If you can't figure it out, there's no list I can provide of them
that'll satisfy you.
--
Nom=de=Plume
Tosk
bmckee...@ix.netcom.com says...
Nope, Bush didn't go after Clinton, it's not the repub way.
Unfortunately or fortunately, the republicans are not willing to let out
classified info just to make politics as usual, criminal...
--
Wafa free again.
Tosk
bmckee...@ix.netcom.com says...
That would require backing up the talking point, it just won't happen,
she will not list any crimes, only more talking points..
--
Wafa free again.
Bill McKee
"nom=de=plume" <nom=d...@plume.invalid> wrote in message
I guess your list is the same as all the other hopefuls that want Cheney
jailed.
thunder
> I guess your list is the same as all the other hopefuls that want Cheney
> jailed.
Well, if he had any part of our renditions, he won't be vacationing in
Italy, but then, neither will 23 other Americans. Hell, if the Italians
put in for international warrants, those agents won't be able to leave
this country.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/11/04/italy.rendition.verdict/
BAR
thunder...@gti.net says...
Renditions? Isn't that a program that Bill Clinton started?
H the K
It would be a great public service to indict, try, and convict cheney,
and render him to a max security federal prison.
Jim
Harry Krause. What a guy.
Loogypicker
> In article <5_CdnSAPCtWg-G_XnZ2dnUVZ_v6dn...@earthlink.com>,
> bmckeespam...@ix.netcom.com says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "nom=de=plume" <nom...@plume.invalid> wrote in message
> >news:hcto7j$umm$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> > > "Bill McKee" <bmckeespam...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> > >news:4MOdne8wSJW2x2_X...@earthlink.com...
>
> > >> "nom=de=plume" <nom...@plume.invalid> wrote in message
> > >>news:hctl9g$d7u$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> > >>> "Bill McKee" <bmckeespam...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> > >>>news:vLCdnTDiW7Bvz2_X...@earthlink.com...
>
> > >>>> <gfretw...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
This from the person who renders people guilty of crimes even though
they've never been charged nor tried in a court of law.....
Loogypicker
> In article <vLCdnTDiW7Bvz2_XnZ2dnUVZ_rudn...@earthlink.com>,
> bmckeespam...@ix.netcom.com says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > <gfretw...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
Do you mean like blaming the terrorist activity that happened on
Bush's watch on Clinton? No, the Bush administration wouldn't do that,
would they?
Loogypicker
> PUBLIC conference call. They han an expectation of privacy
> If you set up a conference call between several family members to talk
> about a private issue, would you think it was OK if it showed on the
> internet?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yes! If people are stupid enough to think that a phone call is secure,
that's their problem.
thunder
nom=de=plume
news:GL2dnYzwg4lbL2_X...@posted.gtinet...
They've already been told not to do that... along with Rumsfeld.
--
Nom=de=Plume
nom=de=plume
Bummer about facts isn't it...
--
Nom=de=Plume
nom=de=plume
news:MPG.255c36895...@news.eternal-september.org...
Fortunately, thunder has more time than I.
--
Nom=de=Plume
nom=de=plume
That's true. Bush's cronies went after Clinton while he was still in office.
Unfortunately, you're being delusional if you think that people like Cheney
didn't leak classified information for their own purposes.
--
Nom=de=Plume
nom=de=plume
news:7rv5f5lb0r8hsph6m...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 06:47:39 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
> <loogy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> >Once again. There was NO "bugging". IT WAS A CONFERENCE CALL.......get
>>> >it?
>>>
>>> It was a private conference call between a few participants not a
>>> PUBLIC conference call. They han an expectation of privacy
>>> If you set up a conference call between several family members to talk
>>> about a private issue, would you think it was OK if it showed on the
>>> internet?- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>>Yes! If people are stupid enough to think that a phone call is secure,
>>that's their problem.
>
>
> You can't have it both ways.
> At least nobody ever said NASA was tapping your phone and making the
> transcripts public.
>
> Personally I never considered phones secure. I saw transcripts of my
> phone conversations when I was a teenager ... from an illegal RFK/DoJ
> tap.
If they can get a warrant, then they should be able to tap anyone's phone.
The FISA court will and has issued warrants after the fact of the tap.
--
Nom=de=Plume
nom=de=plume
news:76u4f59bv0agg7as6...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 21:37:14 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
> <nom=d...@plume.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>>No. We should go after him for criminal behavior. He's a criminal by his
>>>>own
>>>>words.
>>>
>>> That would require evidence and in a criminal trial the defendant has
>>> the ability to subpoena just about anything to aid his defense
>>
>>
>>Yes, and your point? He needs to be charged first. The evidence doesn't
>>necessarily have to be in open court. There are many instances of closed
>>sessions when national security issues are at stake. Typically, the judge
>>decides, which is what s/he is paid to do.
>
>
> are handled and you know Cheney would subpoena things the government
> won't give him.
> That is one reason it is hard to prosecute former administration
> members for policy decisions. They know where all the bodies are
> buried and some of them have opposition party arrows in their back.
> Obama might pardon him, just to get his agenda back on track.
> He really does not need the distraction of a partisan witch hunt when
> his programs are stalled in congress.
It was not and should not be about "policy" decisions. Torture is torture is
NOT a policy decision.
--
Nom=de=Plume
John H.
I hope you're starting to see through the vaporous nomdeplum.
--
Loogy says:
Conservative = Good
Liberal = Bad
I agree. John H
John H.
>On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 10:02:27 -0500, NotNow <Not...@noway.com> wrote:
>
>>gfre...@aol.com wrote:
>>> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 13:50:43 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
>>> <loogy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> BTW where was the outrage when democratic operatives were bugging Newt
>>>>> Gingrich's cell phone?- Hide quoted text -
>>>>>
>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>> Cite?
>>> Were you in a cave in 1996 or just in denial.
>>>
>>> Try "Martin" "Gingrich" "Cell phone"
>>>
>>> I notice the Huffington report has taken down their article (where
>>> Ariana was shocked) as has the DoJ
>>
>>Once again. There was NO "bugging". IT WAS A CONFERENCE CALL.......get it?
>
>
>It was a private conference call between a few participants not a
>PUBLIC conference call. They han an expectation of privacy
>If you set up a conference call between several family members to talk
>about a private issue, would you think it was OK if it showed on the
>internet?
Maybe real liberals consider any conference call subject to monitoring
by Democrats.
nom=de=plume
news:5oe6f5ht866igs5pg...@4ax.com...
Is that what happens when you look in the mirror?
--
Nom=de=Plume
Tosk
removeths...@gmail.com says...
Knock it off, they are from the "DNC" and they are here to help...
--
Wafa free again.
BAR
gfre...@aol.com says...
>
> On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 06:47:39 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
> <loogy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >Once again. There was NO "bugging". IT WAS A CONFERENCE CALL.......get it?
> >>
> >> It was a private conference call between a few participants not a
> >> PUBLIC conference call. They han an expectation of privacy
> >> If you set up a conference call between several family members to talk
> >> about a private issue, would you think it was OK if it showed on the
> >> internet?- Hide quoted text -
> >>
> >> - Show quoted text -
> >
> >Yes! If people are stupid enough to think that a phone call is secure,
> >that's their problem.
>
>
> You can't have it both ways.
> At least nobody ever said NASA was tapping your phone and making the
> transcripts public.
>
> Personally I never considered phones secure. I saw transcripts of my
> phone conversations when I was a teenager ... from an illegal RFK/DoJ
> tap.
Who were you calling?
jps
>On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 18:54:12 -0500, BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:
>
>>> Personally I never considered phones secure. I saw transcripts of my
>>> phone conversations when I was a teenager ... from an illegal RFK/DoJ
>>> tap.
>>
>>Who were you calling?
>
>My girlfriend. They had our home phone tapped because my mother was on
>Hoffa's legal team. Even if the tap was not egregious enough, how
>about lawyer client privilege?
Awesome!
Bill McKee
<gfre...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:fia7f5h6f814p2alf...@4ax.com...
>>> phone conversations when I was a teenager ... from an illegal RFK/DoJ
>>> tap.
>>
>>Who were you calling?
>
> Hoffa's legal team. Even if the tap was not egregious enough, how
> about lawyer client privilege?
I bet that sucked if sucked was talked about.
nom=de=plume
news:opa7f5psu5rl2ecmp...@4ax.com...
> governments do during wars.
> Do I have to remind you of WWII, the "good" war?
> If the US had lost that war the whole government would have been in
> the Hague on war crimes charges.
> Usually we just sacrifice some subordinate like Calley (in Vietnam)
> but wars encourage atrocities by their very nature.
> If there is another 9-11 size attack the American public will want
> interrogation techniques like the last 10 minutes of Braveheart in the
> hopes of preventing it from happening again.
> Unfortunately for Cheney, he is more unpopular that Atta right now in
> some circles.
Cheney is by almost any definition a criminal. He approved of torture, which
is against US and international law. Same with Rumsfeld.
WWII was about national survival and we did some terrible things, which
probably are unjustifiable. One of the worst was the Japanese internment
camps.
There are no "good" wars. There are wars that must be fought and those that
are opt-out.
--
Nom=de=Plume
nom=de=plume
> On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 18:54:12 -0500, BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:
>
>>> phone conversations when I was a teenager ... from an illegal RFK/DoJ
>>> tap.
>>
>>Who were you calling?
>
> Hoffa's legal team. Even if the tap was not egregious enough, how
> about lawyer client privilege?
That must have been one heck of a conversation! :)
--
Nom=de=Plume