Go to An Unfortunate Outburst of Intense Patriotism
- Add a comment
- Go to Al Gore: Law-Breaking Presidents Threaten Very Structure of Government
FW, the Rewriter of History!
(see his blog at http://www.blogit.com/Blogs/Blog.aspx/fwmystic5612/)
Of course, September 11 happened during Bush's "Watch." Had it happened during Gore's watch, we'd still be sitting here with our heads up our rear ends waiting for mroe attacks and doing nothing about the because he'd be more afraid of making someone mad at us than concerned about stopping terrorism.
I have a question for you. During whose watch did the First World Trade Center bombing occur? (Okay, I can't count, twoquestions!) And what did that president do to ensure that it never happened again? Not one stinking thing of any value. That president also refused twice to apprehend Osama bin Ladin when the master terrorist was handed to him on a silver platter.
Your revision of the 2000 election is hysterical. (They really need a ROTFLMAO emoticon!) Think for a minute, FW. Bush wasn't even President when the Supreme Court stopped the illegal retroactive application of election laws in Florida. Gore accepted the decision, and has bitched and whined and pissed and moaned about it ever since.
And if the popular vote determines the outcome of presidential elections, then you should shut up and accept the fact that Bush won in 2004 fair and square. Civics lesson: The Electoral College decides the election.
posted by
WriterofLight
on January 19, 2006 at 5:55 PM
| link to this | reply
Damon, thanks for commenting!
Don't see your wit and wisdom over here very much. Can't stand the heat? Anyway, you asked for the transcript of the Sore Loser's remarks. It took a while for anyone to post the text of the speech, but here's a link to it, at the amazingly named Gore '08 (as in Shrillary vs. Sore Loser?) website: http://www.algore04.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=325&Itemid=78 The quote leads off the 15th paragraph.
You have a huge problem in your argument. If Bush's implementation of FISA was illegal and grounds fo rimpeachment, then was it also not illegal for Bubba to implement it as well? Hence the irony of the Sore Loser's remark.
Your logc also fails you on the nature of war. Enemies don't kill our soldiers, presidents do? Sheesh . . . 
posted by
WriterofLight
on January 19, 2006 at 5:44 PM
| link to this | reply
You do realize that 9-11 happened on the King's watch, don't you?
and that Condi Rice received a intelligence briefing titled "Terrorists are going to hijack planes and fly them into buildings!"
And Gore is hardly a sore loser. He won the popular vote, the King's Supreme Court stopped the recount in Florida, and Gore accepted the Court's decision.
The King has a legal mechaqnism to eavesdrop on Americans. he deliberately chose not to obey the law because he obviously feels (or Cheney does anyway) that he is above the law.
posted by
fwmystic
on January 18, 2006 at 2:49 PM
| link to this | reply
A Very Shallow...
...attempt to deflect the growing push to impeach Dubya on numerous criminal charges, including his abuse of FISA, by focusing on a previous administration in which the President got a blow-job.
A blow-job in the Oval Office is not quite as bad as overseeing torture, breaking virtually every Geneva Convention in the book, being directly responsible for the deaths of over 2,000 US soldiers, the wounding of many more, and the deaths of over 100,000 Iraqi civilians, now is it?
Oh, and you can't even find the relevent text to back up your spurious arguement?
C'mon - you can do better than this.
D
posted by
DamonLeigh
on January 18, 2006 at 2:47 AM
| link to this | reply
Welcome, straightforward!
Yes, it does. I had no luck finding the text of the law itself, but if you do a little searching you will find evidence of this.
posted by
WriterofLight
on January 17, 2006 at 6:41 PM
| link to this | reply
Sorry, I didn't get this. But does the FISA Act give the State the powers
to tap telecommunications?
posted by
Straightforward
on January 17, 2006 at 6:26 PM
| link to this | reply