Our Fuhrer has done it again
 

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 14:15:16 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
. ..

The more I think about it, the more I believe the entire article was
written and published to
provide some Democrat Senators a couple lines to quote while arguing
against the Patriot Act on 16
Dec.
--
John H

So? Before the article was published, there were issues in the Patriot Act
which needed revision or removal, and this was going to happen either way.
There were even some Republicans demanding changes, and Rove knew a veto
would've been quickly overridden. He told Bush to roll over.


Doug, you whine about the planting of articles in Iraqi newspapers, but
see nothing wrong with the
planting of articles in our own?

Oh. Now you're saying it was planted? I thought you believed the article
originated via editorial decision, but only the timing was odd.

Our Fuhrer has done it again
 

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 10:05:56 -0500, "P. Fritz" wrote:


"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 21:54:48 -0800, Tamaroak
wrote:

And he admits violating the law

He did not.

If Pres. Bush violated the law, then the US Congress was complicit in
that
law breaking. Are we going ot arrest the Congressmen that new about this
and
kept silent?



This will be the lastest chapter of the liebrals soiling themselves,
just like the past occaasions of the non-leak of plame, and "bush lied" etc
. etc.

Perhaps *some* of the *liberals*. Not fair to generalize that to all of them.
--
John H

**** May your Christmas be Spectacular!****
*****...and your New Year even Better!*****

Our Fuhrer has done it again
 

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...

"P. Fritz" wrote in message
...

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 21:54:48 -0800, Tamaroak
wrote:

And he admits violating the law

He did not.

If Pres. Bush violated the law, then the US Congress was complicit
in
that
law breaking. Are we going ot arrest the Congressmen that new about
this and
kept silent?



This will be the lastest chapter of the liebrals soiling themselves,
just
like the past occaasions of the non-leak of plame, and "bush lied" etc
..
etc.

Did you see Sen. Reid dodging Chris Wallace's direct question about
whether
he was briefed on the this issue. Reid never did answer the question
asked.
Reid was briefed but, he won't admit it.

Also, when Reid asked about disgorging contributions form Abramoff and
friends Reid said that he, Reid, didn't do anything wrong and wasn't
going
to disgorge the contributions.

Reid should be brought up on ethics charges for failing to be honest
with
his constituents and colleagues.

I stopped watching the politcal shows for the most part, got tired of
the inane questions, asking questions that were answered in the previous
question (don't they ever listen to the answers) and then the obvious
softball interviews...on both the left and right.

In the mean time, you don't see the liebrals whining about this
information being kept secret

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...1/120002.shtml

Our Fuhrer has done it again
 

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 14:15:16 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
. ..

The more I think about it, the more I believe the entire article was
written and published to
provide some Democrat Senators a couple lines to quote while arguing
against the Patriot Act on 16
Dec.
--
John H

So? Before the article was published, there were issues in the Patriot Act
which needed revision or removal, and this was going to happen either way.
There were even some Republicans demanding changes, and Rove knew a veto
would've been quickly overridden. He told Bush to roll over.


Doug, you whine about the planting of articles in Iraqi newspapers, but
see nothing wrong with the
planting of articles in our own?

At least we're at war in Iraq!

Here's Nancy Pelosi's comment from today's NYT:

"In a statement, Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the Democratic
leader, said she was
advised of the president's decision shortly after he made it and had "been
provided with updates on
several occasions."

"The Bush administration considered these briefings to be notification,
not a request for approval,"
Ms. Pelosi said. "As is my practice whenever I am notified about such
intelligence activities, I
expressed my strong concerns during these briefings."

Both 'advised' and 'updated', but did nothing. Must have been too legal to
raise a stink about,
wouldn't you say?

And the Democrats had visions of impeachment in their heads until Pelosi
talked. Why couldn't she have deflected the quesiton like Sen. Reid did?

Our Fuhrer has done it again
 

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 10:05:56 -0500, "P. Fritz"
wrote:


"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 21:54:48 -0800, Tamaroak
wrote:

And he admits violating the law

He did not.

If Pres. Bush violated the law, then the US Congress was complicit
in
that
law breaking. Are we going ot arrest the Congressmen that new about
this
and
kept silent?



This will be the lastest chapter of the liebrals soiling themselves,
just like the past occaasions of the non-leak of plame, and "bush lied"
etc
. etc.

Perhaps *some* of the *liberals*. Not fair to generalize that to all of
them.

Just watch the frenzy over the next few days between the talking heads of
the DNC and the MSM............wouldn't be surprised to see Dean Scream III

--
John H

**** May your Christmas be Spectacular!****
*****...and your New Year even Better!*****

Our Fuhrer has done it again
 

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 15:41:17 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote:

"JohnH" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 14:15:16 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
...

The more I think about it, the more I believe the entire article was
written and published to
provide some Democrat Senators a couple lines to quote while arguing
against the Patriot Act on 16
Dec.
--
John H

So? Before the article was published, there were issues in the Patriot Act
which needed revision or removal, and this was going to happen either way.
There were even some Republicans demanding changes, and Rove knew a veto
would've been quickly overridden. He told Bush to roll over.


Doug, you whine about the planting of articles in Iraqi newspapers, but
see nothing wrong with the
planting of articles in our own?

Oh. Now you're saying it was planted? I thought you believed the article
originated via editorial decision, but only the timing was odd.


So the editor planted it!
--
John H

**** May your Christmas be Spectacular!****
*****...and your New Year even Better!*****

Our Fuhrer has done it again
 

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 11:00:03 -0500, "Bert Robbins" wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 14:15:16 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
...

The more I think about it, the more I believe the entire article was
written and published to
provide some Democrat Senators a couple lines to quote while arguing
against the Patriot Act on 16
Dec.
--
John H

So? Before the article was published, there were issues in the Patriot Act
which needed revision or removal, and this was going to happen either way.
There were even some Republicans demanding changes, and Rove knew a veto
would've been quickly overridden. He told Bush to roll over.


Doug, you whine about the planting of articles in Iraqi newspapers, but
see nothing wrong with the
planting of articles in our own?

At least we're at war in Iraq!

Here's Nancy Pelosi's comment from today's NYT:

"In a statement, Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the Democratic
leader, said she was
advised of the president's decision shortly after he made it and had "been
provided with updates on
several occasions."

"The Bush administration considered these briefings to be notification,
not a request for approval,"
Ms. Pelosi said. "As is my practice whenever I am notified about such
intelligence activities, I
expressed my strong concerns during these briefings."

Both 'advised' and 'updated', but did nothing. Must have been too legal to
raise a stink about,
wouldn't you say?

And the Democrats had visions of impeachment in their heads until Pelosi
talked. Why couldn't she have deflected the quesiton like Sen. Reid did?


Good question.

I think the Sunday talk show's should all be under oath. Maybe that would stop some of the crap.
--
John H

**** May your Christmas be Spectacular!****
*****...and your New Year even Better!*****

Our Fuhrer has done it again
 

"Tamaroak" wrote in message

And he admits violating the law

He did not. Learn to read. Learn to listen. Words mean something.

Our Fuhrer has done it again
 

"P. Fritz" wrote in message
...

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...

"P. Fritz" wrote in message
...

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 21:54:48 -0800, Tamaroak
wrote:

And he admits violating the law

He did not.

If Pres. Bush violated the law, then the US Congress was complicit
in
that
law breaking. Are we going ot arrest the Congressmen that new about
this and
kept silent?



This will be the lastest chapter of the liebrals soiling themselves,
just
like the past occaasions of the non-leak of plame, and "bush lied" etc
.
etc.

Did you see Sen. Reid dodging Chris Wallace's direct question about
whether
he was briefed on the this issue. Reid never did answer the question
asked.
Reid was briefed but, he won't admit it.

Also, when Reid asked about disgorging contributions form Abramoff and
friends Reid said that he, Reid, didn't do anything wrong and wasn't
going
to disgorge the contributions.

Reid should be brought up on ethics charges for failing to be honest
with
his constituents and colleagues.

I stopped watching the politcal shows for the most part, got tired of
the inane questions, asking questions that were answered in the previous
question (don't they ever listen to the answers) and then the obvious
softball interviews...on both the left and right.

In the mean time, you don't see the liebrals whining about this
information being kept secret

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...1/120002.shtml

Open your curtains. You'll see that NOBODY likes this type of information
being kept secret.

Our Fuhrer has done it again
 

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 17:36:51 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 08:45:30 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

It is illegal for the government to eavesdrop on a citizen without a
court order.

Exactly - Green Cards and visa holders aren't citizens.

Period. End of discussion.

I wasn't aware you had a list of those on whom the government eavesdropped.

All you have to do is file a request under the Freedom of Information Act to the NSA. I'm sure
that's what the NYT did, right? Surely no Congressman spilled the classified beans.
--
John H

**** May your Christmas be Spectacular!****
*****...and your New Year even Better!*****