THIS IS NOT ->Delawareliberal


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 administration’s 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 Clinton’s 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 CNN’s “Larry King Live” and Fox News Channel’s “Hannity & Colmes.”

The bottom line is that The White House responded to Gore’s 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 doesn’t have an honest response to criticism of their warrantless domestic wiretapping program.

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 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.
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.
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.
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.
Thanks for the publicity, jackass. Hopefully, people will go over to my site and see what I really said.

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. Al Gore is a hypocrite for bringing it up. I'm not justifying either behavior. I'm just saying if you did it, don't criticize the next guy when he does it.

The ACLU lawsuit will eventually bring a SCOTUS decision on the issue, and it will be settled.

I call 'em how I see 'em. I only made reference to the Ames case in response to someone who was looking for sources. I don't care about the specifics of the Ames case, nor do I care what the White House says. You're the one doing the smearing, jerk.
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?
It may all boils down to this: I'd rather be a jackass and a jerk than a dupe.
How can you say I was duped by the White House when I issued ZERO defense of the White House, Bush, Gonzalez, et al? Not that you and the truth have ever been in the same room, but this is over the line.

My point was and still is that Al Gore is a hypocrite. You can try to make it about me to change the subject, but it won't change the fact that Al Gore is a hypocrite.

And if you don't think you're everything you accuse me of being, you're fooling yourself.
"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.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Okay, I'll try to say this slowly. My post was made BEFORE the White House weighed in on Gore's speech. My post was made based on Al Gore's words and delivery, and on my own prior knowledge of the ECHELON program.

Look, I think you are an upright guy. I enjoy reading your blog and your comments.

Then why try to make me look like a puppet of the Republican Party when I'm clearly not? The top post on my blog as of last night was a criticism of House Republicans and an endorsement of a Democratic bill.

I know you don't think that Bush has a decent bone in his body, and that he is corrupt and is the worst president ever. But not everyone sees it that way. I can not beat down the President for an alleged overreaching in trying to protect Americans. Let's see what comes of the ACLU lawsuit.

Again, the topic of my post was, and remains, Al Gore. That he brought down fire and brimstone and the ghosts of the founders while talking about spying on Americans, which he didn't seem to oppose when his administration did it. That is the definition of hypocrisy in my book, and I will not back down from that.
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.
The disputed Gonzalez/McClellan claim that you reference was concerning warrantless physical searches. I have no idea what the deal is with that, nor did I use it as a justification for outing Al Gore as a hypocrite.

What I'm talking about is the NSA Echelon program, where we recruited other countries to spy on our citizens, and we spied on theirs, and then we exchanged the intel. There is no dispute that this program was used in the Clinton Administration.

As far as Jamie Gorelick and warrantless physical searches, I can't imagine that it was ever legal to do any search without a warrant, but that's above my pay grade. For the purposes of this discussion, I will stipulate that Clinton/Gore did no wrong in this area.

Finally, I am not defending the NSA warrantless wiretap data mining program. I am not condemning it, either. It is not a part of this discussion. I will reserve judgment until the Supreme Court rules on it.
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?
Hey, the Supreme Court PUT him in the White House, they can take him out.
"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.
And what does it say about the Times that they sat on the story? If it was indeed an "heroic whistleblowing" of massive importance, then why wait? Why wait until the story's co-author's book was ready to release? There's your left-wing media, Jason.
Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home


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  

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Subscribe to Posts [Atom]