THIS IS NOT ->Delawareliberal
CHECK US OUT AT: http://delawareliberal.wordpress.com/Wednesday, January 18, 2006
Local blogger DUPED by White House. What else is new?
The White House smear of Al Gore was dutifully picked up here in the Delaware-blogosphere by Delathought. That is how the right-wing smear machine works, everyone plays his or her part. Now it turns out that the AP has updated its story on the Bush administrations smear of Gore to include the facts: charges of hypocrisy leveled against former Vice President Al Gore by Attorney General Gonzales were completely baseless.
McClellan said the Clinton-Gore administration had engaged in warrantless physical searches, and he cited an FBI search of the home of CIA turncoat Aldrich Ames without permission from a judge. He said Clintons deputy attorney general, Jamie Gorelick, had testified before Congress that the president had the inherent authority to engage in physical searches without warrants.
I think his hypocrisy knows no bounds, McClellan said of Gore.
But at the time of the Ames search in 1993 and when Gorelick testified a year later, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act required warrants for electronic surveillance for intelligence purposes, but did not cover physical searches. The law was changed to cover physical searches in 1995 under legislation that Clinton supported and signed.
Bush's attorney general, Alberto Gonzales, made the same arguments as McClellan during interviews Monday on CNNs Larry King Live and Fox News Channels Hannity & Colmes.
The bottom line is that The White House responded to Gores criticism with a dishonest smear. That is not surprising. The surprising part is that they still have a great many dupes and apologists like Delathoughtwho are eager to aid and abet them in their malfeasance.
The larger issue, however, is that the White House doesnt have an honest response to criticism of their warrantless domestic wiretapping program.
McClellan said the Clinton-Gore administration had engaged in warrantless physical searches, and he cited an FBI search of the home of CIA turncoat Aldrich Ames without permission from a judge. He said Clintons deputy attorney general, Jamie Gorelick, had testified before Congress that the president had the inherent authority to engage in physical searches without warrants.
I think his hypocrisy knows no bounds, McClellan said of Gore.
But at the time of the Ames search in 1993 and when Gorelick testified a year later, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act required warrants for electronic surveillance for intelligence purposes, but did not cover physical searches. The law was changed to cover physical searches in 1995 under legislation that Clinton supported and signed.
Bush's attorney general, Alberto Gonzales, made the same arguments as McClellan during interviews Monday on CNNs Larry King Live and Fox News Channels Hannity & Colmes.
The bottom line is that The White House responded to Gores criticism with a dishonest smear. That is not surprising. The surprising part is that they still have a great many dupes and apologists like Delathoughtwho are eager to aid and abet them in their malfeasance.
The larger issue, however, is that the White House doesnt have an honest response to criticism of their warrantless domestic wiretapping program.
posted by jason # 9:15 AM 
Comments:
<< Home
The Administration's response to my speech illustrates perfectly the need for a special counsel to review the legality of the NSA wiretapping program.
The Attorney General is making a political defense of the President without even addressing the substantive legal questions that have so troubled millions of Americans in both political parties.
There are two problems with the Attorney General's effort to focus attention on the past instead of the present Administration's behavior. First, as others have thoroughly documented, his charges are factually wrong. Both before and after the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was amended in 1995, the Clinton/Gore Administration complied fully and completely with the terms of the law.
Second, the Attorney General's attempt to cite a previous administration's activity as precedent for theirs - even though factually wrong - ironically demonstrates another reason why we must be so vigilant about their brazen disregard for the law. If unchecked, their behavior would serve as a precedent to encourage future presidents to claim these same powers, which many legal experts in both parties believe are clearly illegal.
The Attorney General is making a political defense of the President without even addressing the substantive legal questions that have so troubled millions of Americans in both political parties.
There are two problems with the Attorney General's effort to focus attention on the past instead of the present Administration's behavior. First, as others have thoroughly documented, his charges are factually wrong. Both before and after the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was amended in 1995, the Clinton/Gore Administration complied fully and completely with the terms of the law.
Second, the Attorney General's attempt to cite a previous administration's activity as precedent for theirs - even though factually wrong - ironically demonstrates another reason why we must be so vigilant about their brazen disregard for the law. If unchecked, their behavior would serve as a precedent to encourage future presidents to claim these same powers, which many legal experts in both parties believe are clearly illegal.
# posted by 
: 9:40 AM
: 9:40 AM
The blogosphere is a fairly new phenomenon that creates an instantaneous high-velocity spin.
As a part-time anon contributor, I myself have learned the danger of relying on blogs as the starting point for forming my opinion on a given topic.
Google has become polluted by blogs; try searching for some facts on a current issue, and you will get mostly blogs these days. I wish Google had a "no blogs" option (maybe it does).
So how about it guys - on the left and right, let's stick to mainstream sources for news, facts, and quotes, and blogs for opinions.
Better yet, let's get our facts from primary sources when possible, like speeches or legislation.
As a part-time anon contributor, I myself have learned the danger of relying on blogs as the starting point for forming my opinion on a given topic.
Google has become polluted by blogs; try searching for some facts on a current issue, and you will get mostly blogs these days. I wish Google had a "no blogs" option (maybe it does).
So how about it guys - on the left and right, let's stick to mainstream sources for news, facts, and quotes, and blogs for opinions.
Better yet, let's get our facts from primary sources when possible, like speeches or legislation.
# posted by : 10:27 AM
: 10:27 AM
Gonzales is the AG and is supposed to enforce the law; instead he jumped right in to defend the Pres on Day One. With a factually erroneous, politically tinged defense, no less.
Interestingly, Ashcroft was supposedly opposed to warrantless domestic spying. Maybe that's why he's no longer around and Gonzales is. See this Newsweek article.
Interestingly, Ashcroft was supposedly opposed to warrantless domestic spying. Maybe that's why he's no longer around and Gonzales is. See this Newsweek article.
# posted by : 10:36 AM
: 10:36 AM
I think this Gore smear shows how adept BushCo is at using both online and mainstream outlets to broadcast its lies. (They know that nobody tracks on the correction, so they know a that a bold lie will have a powerful effect on creating public perception with very little downside.)
What I'd like to see is more sceptisicm one everyone's part when it comes to taking anything the White House says as factual.
What I'd like to see is more sceptisicm one everyone's part when it comes to taking anything the White House says as factual.
I heard Hannity pushing this talking point last night. "If you are not a terrorist, what is the big deal? "
Astounding. No understanding of our system of government what-so-ever.
Astounding. No understanding of our system of government what-so-ever.
# posted by : 11:01 AM
: 11:01 AM
It all boils down to this: whether you like it or not, the Clinton Administration spied on Americans, and the Bush Administration spied on Americans.
Bush had sex with a woman, Clinton had sex with a woman.
See the distinction now?
Bush had sex with a woman, Clinton had sex with a woman.
See the distinction now?
# posted by : 11:21 AM
: 11:21 AM
"My point was and still is that Al Gore is a hypocrite."
Exactly the point that you were duped into making by BushCo's lies on the topic. They want the focus on Gore and some invented hypocrisy rather than on illegal wire taps. You were only too willing to help them spread that BS.
Look, I think you are an upright guy. I enjoy reading your blog and your comments. At times, (like now) you seem like a moral relativist. I don't get that.
I also don't get that you seem to view Bush as some kind of underdog who requires your defense rather than your clear thinking (and by extension) your contempt. I clearly don't get a great deal about the workings of conservative mind.
Exactly the point that you were duped into making by BushCo's lies on the topic. They want the focus on Gore and some invented hypocrisy rather than on illegal wire taps. You were only too willing to help them spread that BS.
Look, I think you are an upright guy. I enjoy reading your blog and your comments. At times, (like now) you seem like a moral relativist. I don't get that.
I also don't get that you seem to view Bush as some kind of underdog who requires your defense rather than your clear thinking (and by extension) your contempt. I clearly don't get a great deal about the workings of conservative mind.
which he didn't seem to oppose when his administration did it.
Aside from you, only the White House and right-wing dupes are still making this false claim. Now I'm going to take you at your word that you thought of it on your own. However, that does not change the fact that it is still false, and that repeating this false claim you are helping give cover to BushCo's ongoing malfeasance.
As far as Bush not having a decent bone in his body, and him being corrupt and is the worst president ever, I think his record speaks for itself.
Aside from you, only the White House and right-wing dupes are still making this false claim. Now I'm going to take you at your word that you thought of it on your own. However, that does not change the fact that it is still false, and that repeating this false claim you are helping give cover to BushCo's ongoing malfeasance.
As far as Bush not having a decent bone in his body, and him being corrupt and is the worst president ever, I think his record speaks for itself.
I'm also looking forward to the Supreme Court's take on Bush breaking the law to circumvent the FISA court.
I wonder if they will be swayed by the specious, "Clinton did it too!" line of argumentation?
I wonder if they will be swayed by the specious, "Clinton did it too!" line of argumentation?
"I'm also looking forward to the Supreme Court's take on Bush breaking the law to circumvent the FISA court."
Given that the Bush whitehouse knew that NYT was sitting on this story since early in 2005, one must view the Roberts & Alito nomination on the basis of how they would likely vote on Executive Power.
That's 2 plus Scalia & Thomas. They only need 1 more to legalize their "constitutional" coup.
Post a Comment
Given that the Bush whitehouse knew that NYT was sitting on this story since early in 2005, one must view the Roberts & Alito nomination on the basis of how they would likely vote on Executive Power.
That's 2 plus Scalia & Thomas. They only need 1 more to legalize their "constitutional" coup.
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home
Archives
November 2005 December 2005 January 2006 February 2006 March 2006 April 2006 May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 May 2007
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]