Perhaps I'm becoming too cynical, but something doesn't feel right.....

[converted_democrat]

Don't you find it odd that * confessed to spying? I mean, they don't admit to anything...Even if there is clear cut proof that they are lying. I don't know why, but the "confession" bothers me. I don't think that he would admit to anything unless there was something in it for him, or his party. So my question is this...What's in it for them? What are they going to gain by making this admission? Many legal beagles have opined that court cases of all stripes could be effected by this info, and that the info gathered would not be able to be used in a court of law. So what's going on here? What benefit are they looking to collect that would outweigh the political damage this has the potential to pose? Nearly everyday that has passed by since the "confession" took place has brought more damaging information. First, they claimed they were only "spying" on communications that were international/domestic, or domestic/international, now there is speculation that it is a huge data mining operation that could effect anyone, and everyone. While the everyone/anyone factor is speculation, I would think that this issue would be hard to spin in a positive light, especially when you factor in the damage it could potentially do to court cases...What benefit are they looking to collect that would outweigh the potential "harm" this could do to them politically? Call me a cynic, but I have a hard time believing he confessed out of the goodness of his heart.

[Uben]

1. By admitting it.....

.....he can't be charged with perjury
!

[Uben]

2. By admitting it.....

.....he can't be charged with perjury
!

[Uben]

3. By admitting it.....

.....he can't be charged with perjury
!

[LeftNYC]

4. I honestly believe

that Shrub doesnt think he is doing anything wrong. Remember he is an insulated person, he only listens to those close to him. If they keep saying, your doing the right thing, then maybe he thinks he is doing what is right. Unfortunately, for him, this time it is not him who gets to set the terms. The constitution is the constitution. Im sure his Dad is pissed at him.

[BOSSHOG]

9. He thought it was okay

to desert his military unit. He thought it was okay to profit from insider trading at Harken. He thought it was okay to lie about going to war. And, his base continues to enable him to do such things. No doubt, he thinks the constitution is just a piece of paper with absolutely no power over him.

[LeftNYC]

13. He thought it was OK

to trade Sammy Sosa too:tinfoilhat: Poor Ranger fans

[converted_democrat]

19. It's hard for me to believe that someone could be that "spoiled."

I mean, I have little doubt that he is a spoiled brat... Getting out of a drug charge, or calling in a favor cause you're a rich brat that does not want to put his ass on the line for his country is one thing... But wiping your ass with the constitution is quite another. I'm not saying you're not correct in your assumption, I just can't believe anyone could have that kind of gall.

[FreedomAngel82]

30. And this is after he swore on the Bible

From someone who is supposed to be a Christian that's a serious thing.

[converted_democrat]

31. I grew up a Protestant, but I'm Non-Denominational now..

Putting your hand on a bible and lying is a ticket straight to hell...Lying, and doing so with the "Lord's authority" does not sit well with me. I believe that the Lord is a forgiving father, but I'd be willing to bet JR. is starting to try even his patience.

[librechik]

17. also, he is a sociopath, so he wouldn't intuitively know it was wrong

he can only think selfishly. It's a horrible disease. He must be taking something for it (BLINK_BLINK_BLINK_HULA-JAW) But that probably just turns everything off.

[LaurenG]

5. "goodness of his heart".

What heart, what goodness? *shakes head*- *sigh*

[converted_democrat]

12. What a brilliant response!!

I was certain that nearly all entities on this board were smart enough to understand sarcasm without the sign explaining it to them. I was clearly wrong on that count.

[LaurenG]

21. I got t that I should have made it more clear

I wasn't sighing at you. It was him. Sorry to cause you any grief. I was in a hurry but wanted to acknowledge your post. That's all.

[rucky]

22. Saver yer sarcasm for the lounge, bucko.

GD is no place for wisenheimers. We're saving the world, here!

























:sarcasm:

[Uben]

6. By admitting it.....

.....he can't be charged with perjury
!

[LeftNYC]

7. So what your saying is

by admitting it he cant be charged with perjury
!

:beer:

[Coyote_Bandit]

10. Unless he lies under oath

it is not perjury regardless of how much he lies.

[Horse with no Name]

16. Doesn't his oath of office

stand as an oath to the people to tell the truth and uphold the Constitution--not circumvent it?

[librechik]

18. yeah, the tradition is the president is always under oath

I don't know how binding it is legally though...

[Coyote_Bandit]

23. The Presidential Oath of Office States

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Perjury is a crime and in criminal law, it is the act of willfully and knowingly stating a falsehood under oath (or affirmation) in a judicial or administrative proceeding. Neither the Presidential Oath of Office nor the Constitution of the United States state an affrmative obligation for the President to tell the truth outside of judicial and administrative proceedings. And there is a very long history of Presidents lying.

I'm not justifying deceit - just pointing out that lying is not the same thing as perjury.

[librechik]

24. so true--and grownups must be prepared: leaders do lie, with impunity

too bad the sheeple don't know and don't care.

[global1]

8. They Are Going To Make A Power Grab......

they will justify all their actions of this on 9/11 & terrorism. They will appeal to the 'merikin people that the pResident should be able to do these things without asking anyone. They will discredit the Dems or anyone else that is saying this is criminal saying that they are not patriots and they are supporting the terrorists. They will push to get the law changed to give * unlimited powers.

Not saying that they will be successful - but they will go on the offense on this and will win even if they get some sort of compromise.

Remember it is easier to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission.

Hey - I just noticed 'riot' is a part of the word 'patriot'.

[LeftNYC]

11. dictators dont care about laws

they make it up as they go...

[SammyWinstonJack]

20. Isn't funny how President Clinton managed to keep us safe after

the first WTC bombing, how he managed to catch those who were involved and prosecute them, how he managed to thwart at least two terrorist plots ie the millennium and LAX plans and all without spying on Americans and with no need for the Patriot Act or limits on our civil liberties? But then again, President Clinton was a REAL Leader unlike the Chimp and his evil henchmen.

[Kota]

14. To keep the American people in check. Its a scare tactic.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

27. You better believe it KOTA

While it infuriates moderates, his announcement is very spooky to those who would in some small way, like email, phones and message boards, speak out against him. King George is obviously a paranoid individual and has induced national paranoia as the fruits of his labor. Here is the lesson for fellow Christians: "Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit." What must Christians do with "corrupt trees?"

[The empressof all]

15. This information was about to be made public

He did an end run and brought it up first to appear as if he wasn't hiding anything. He got the first spin out by claiming secrecy was imperative for national security. It's the only reason he fessed up.

[Peace Patriot]

26. The best answer so far, empressof all. The whole thing has odd edges to

it. WHO were they spying on and why? Why did the NYT sit on this revelation for a year? What transpired between Bush and the NYT with regard to suppressing it? What transpired between them recently with regard to the NYT's decision to publish it at last? I understand there was a NYT eds/Bush meeting about it. What happened at that meeting? And why did the NYT give Bush warning and preememptive strike time (and preemptive shredding time)?

The whole thing is very, very, very, very smelly. Converted_Democrat is right to ask probing questions about it.

These people have never been known to show restraint. They were very likely spying on everybody--

-journalists in Iraq, for instance (many of whom have been targeted and killed by US forces)

-news organizations and individual reporters here at home in order to blackmail and intimidate and do "sting" operations against them (CBS, Mary Mapes, Dan Rather?)

-Democratic opponents (just think about it--why DID Kerry concede so precipitously on Nov.3, 2004? why HAVE Dem leaders been so spookily silent about Bushite corporations controlling vote tabulation with "TRADE SECRET," PROPRIETARY programming code in the new electronic voting systems? how DID they get CA Sec of State Kevin Shelley, who had sued Diebold, to resign? why didn't he fight the false charges against him? why DID Max Cleland, whom they obviously stole a Senate seat from in Georgia, not fight back? etc, etc, etc, etc)

-dissenters of all kinds (Michael Moore? Tim Robbins? Cindy Sheehan? Joe Wilson? Valerie Plame? Scott Ritter? David Kelly (Brit whistleblower on WMD intel, who was old friends with Judith Miller, and who was found dead under highly suspicious circumstances, four days after the Plame outing), United for Peace and Justice and A.N.S.W.E.R. (big peace demos), and any and all whistleblowers and potential whistleblowers (Colleen Rowley, Karen Kwiatakowsky, Sibel Edmonds, Richard Clarke, the few Dems from Congress who were permitted to attend the secret audience with Bush/Cheney re the 9/11 Commission, all investigators of 9/11, Nick Berg and his father (something very odd went on there), etc, etc)

-as well as spying on their own people in the White House, the Pentagon, Congress and the courts, to have blackmail material.

Come to think of it, I have NEVER seen a political establishment that acted so blackmailed.

As for why Bush admitted to the 30 felonies on the FISA warrants, and vowed to continue breaking the law (a law he has no reason whatever to break--it's a secret court; warrants are given out like candy; and they can get warrants AFTER the eavesdropping), I think Converted_Democrat is right to point out that Bush was cornered. The NYT (ostensibly under pressure of a book publication that they had tried and failed to suppress) decided to publish the info they've held for a year (from BEFORE the election), and gave Bush plenty of warning to cover up whatever needed covering up, and to devise a strategy that would likely result in yet more illegitimate power for the executive.

Look what happened on torture. One part of the "defense" bill bans torture; another part permits torture testimony in secret military courts (the first gets big headlines, the latter is ignored).

Look what happened on the election system. Acknowledged vote tampering in Florida with the punchcard voting system; leads to HAVA (the "Help Bush Steal Votes Act"), a $4 billion boondoggle for conversion to electronic voting that permits partisan Bushite corporations to take over the election system with "TRADE SECRET," PROPRIETARY programming code, and no paper trail--in the name of reform.

The old 'bait and switch.' And the same thing may well happen on presidential spying: a hand-slap to the Bush Cartel (if that) for multiple felonies, lots of righteous speeches by both Repubs and Dems, and they slip in language that enhances executive power over the FISA courts, say, a power that permits the president to DISAGREE with a FISA court decision as long as the warrant request was "reviewed" (with the FISA courts already giving near automatic permission on such warrants). (This would effectively disempower FISA court judges.)

The NYT has been SO collusive with the Bush Cartel, that it's possible that THEY have acted in this matter in order to HELP Bush extend executive power into unconstitutional realms. I'm not sure I believe the book publication story (--it's too easy, like the Rovian revenge story about outing Valerie Plame and the entire CIA Brewster-Jennings operation), but, say, the insider who provided the spying info finally got fed up with the NYT sitting on it, and threatened to blow the whistle not just on Bush but on the NYT. So the NYT then takes this info to Bush. Who knows what goes down there? Do they threaten each other? Does the NYT give up the whistleblower? But, seeing as how the NYT is all for torturing and killing Arabs, and Bush is real good at it, they strike a deal to help minimize political damage to Bush (for instance, by backpaging any movement toward impeachment, and other such corporate news monopoly stratagems), and to enhance his power in the end (for instance, by helping to blackhole any stealth language in any new FISA court laws).

Overall, the strategy is for Bush/Cheney to brass it out, as they are doing, with the NYT--as the country's "newspaper of record"--writing and editing and positioning the stories on this in such a way as to legitimize Bush/Cheney's assertion that the president is above the law, and giving more weight to their "talking points" than to the ever-growing number of dissenters.

Just as with torture, it all becomes a "talking point." Multiple felonies by the Bush junta on the FISA court warrants becomes a "technical legal argument." Waterboarding and electrocuting Arab and Muslim prisoners, who have not been charged with any crime, and beating them to death, becomes a matter of the definition of words, and, while the Constitution, the Geneva Conventions, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice are thrown right out the window, the torture not only continues but includes whisking anonymous prisoners away on black flights to torture dungeons in eastern Europe.

And the NYT and their chattering class just goes on chattering. Nothing happens. No one is held accountable. All democratic institutions in the US have been shut down by election rigging, collusion, corruption, pervasive surveillance and blackmail.

----------------------------

Throw Diebold and ES&S election theft machines into 'Boston Harbor' NOW!

[donkeyotay]

28. What Peace Patriot said. Especially these parts because I have the

attention span of a fruit fly:

Come to think of it, I have NEVER seen a political establishment that acted so blackmailed.

and

And the NYT and their chattering class just goes on chattering. Nothing happens. No one is held accountable. All democratic institutions in the US have been shut down by election rigging, collusion, corruption, pervasive surveillance and blackmail.

That seems to sum it up. We are screwed. What do we do?

[LizW]

32. That is one chilling post, Peace Patriot

I truly believe that one day when historians look back on what happened to America in the decade of 2000-2010, it will be recognized that the fall of the American free press allowed the failure of the Republic.

Without a free press, each step on the path toward a fascist, theocratic, imperial state goes almost unnoticed by the masses.

Bush's arrogant declaration of his spying is just another stone placed on a foundation already built. Torture is now acceptable, and the United States is not bound by any treaties or laws to the contrary. Redition, likewise. Secret prisons barely made a blip on the radar of public consciousness. Bush knew he could declare himself above the law because he had already done so on several other issues. The only difference is that this time he went on television and did it himself, rather than having Gonzalez or some other surrogate do it for him.

As you say, there is no accountability. With enough money, and the right connections, any election can be rigged. Polls can certainly be rigged, too. When those can be controlled, the ruling class has no fear of being deposed by the lowly voters.

But they have to be sure no one tells. This is no small operation. LOTS of people know what is happening. And they can't kill EVERY whistleblower, it just wouldn't look good. But with the right intelligence, they CAN stay one step ahead of them, and with complete control of the mainstream press and television, they can marginalize them into oblivion.

:scared:

[catmandu57]

25. Well his brain is a little busy right now

covering his own ass, though I enjoy visions of kkkarl being viciously assraped in prison. So, just as when hwe was on his own after katrina he's alone again and letting his sociopathic personality show.
The thing is this silver spoon motherfucker doesn't believe the law applies to him, any law.

[FreedomAngel82]

29. He knows nobody can do anything

He knows that since the republicans control everything he can get away with it and use the "war on terror" as an excuse and just proclaim it's a different world since 9/11. So does that mean it's a different world after Pearl Harbor too? :eyes: