Can’t believe my ears!
Published by Mike Stark March 15th, 2006 in Podcast, Sean HannityHannity got something right!
Hannity: Ya know what? This guy made the case for weapons of mass destruction - chemical, biological, nuclear - this is…
Me: He believed the President, you mean?
Hannity: Well, I mean, it’s a cute little line, but it’s - it would show how utterly and completely idiotic and incompetent all democrats are if in fact they make their decisions based only on what one person tells them. So if you are saying that they are that inept, then they don’t belong in office anyway…
It came during a call in which I defended Feingold as a man of principal.
Backup for my claims can be found here:
http://www.ameriroots.com/impeachment/senator_lieberman.html
http://www.ameriroots.com/impeachment/senator_feingold.html
62 Responses to “Can’t believe my ears!”
Leave a Reply
Search
Login
Donations Accepted
You can donate through PayPal in two ways:
Make a one-time donation for the amount entered below and you're billed once, that's it.
Make a recurring monthly donation that bills you monthly for the amount entered below.
Subscribe
Posts- Comments
- Podcast
Ha! When he said “that was 1998, this is 2006″.. another possible comeback could have been along the lines of how they keep saying “Clinton said Saddam had WMD!!!” etc..
speechless, priceless, and forever quotable.
Bet Hannity spends some time explaining away how his own words misquote him.
How are his ratings?
Are they dropping like BOR’s?
Hannity is the master of controlling that button that mutes his callers. He obviously holds a very tight leash over his listeners.
Hannity is on over 500 stations now. Second only to Rush Limbaugh.
Great site, great call.
Boring call. Bringing something up from 8 yrs ago and avoiding talking about he obvious political stunt that is Feingold’s censure motion. Guess where the only place is that supports the motion? Dailykos and the far left wing. Thats it.
Does anyone post on this site? Its so boring.
hey chuck have you seen the polls on the censure motion?
How can there be polls on something that happened 2 days ago? And why couldn’t you at least put a link to these “polls”
I think Hannity knows about you Mike (Eric) Stark. He mentioned that you guys sound like a “Broken Record” which is the title of your post on your Laura Ingraham post.
What’s awesome is how People like Hannity will just say things like “Absolutely no laws were broken” when obviosuly he couldn’t even begin to explain to you what the law actually says about this topic. He’d probably just say something like “we have to listen in on terrorist phone calls” or “the President’s job is to protect us all” or some other utter BS.
Let’s see someone with any legal cred and no political agenda site a single Supreme Court decision that even moves us in the direction of what allowing what the President did. These people claim to want a strict consturctionist on the bench, but they’d quickly run out and reject the very explicit words of the 4th Amendment or the Article I clause that gives Congress the authority to legislate regarding all the inherent powers described in the document. HAHA.
It’s blatantly clear that Bush broke the law. And what’s even clearer is that he LIED about it while speaking directly with the American people. Republicans always say that with Clinton, it wasn’t the sex it was the lying. Well with Bush, it’s the lying AND the law-breaking.
Chuck, how can it be a stunt when it’s utterly appropriate?
Just remember re: the nouveau frenchification and framing of Feingold…..they only attack that which they fear most.
.
“Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleii.html#section2
Terrorists are enemies of the United States. If they are from countries other than the United States, then tapping their calls falls under the Presidents power as commander in chief. If they are calling from abroad, or calling from the US to another nation, that is foreign intel and can be tapped by our intel agencies.
The President’s #1 duty is to protect the US. Protecting the US invovles gathering intel on our enemies, in this case terrorists. It is unfornate that you do not consider this worthy of gathering info on
As I recall, it is your side that screamed Bush “didn’t connect the dots” in the 8 months he was in office before 9/11, most of that time spent still forming his administration because the recount delayed the transition. This NSA program is about connecting the dots. Please do not complain that Bush ‘didnt try to connect the dots’ if there is another terrorist attack. He is doing all he can to protect this country. The democrats are doing all they can to try and score political points. Hence they control nothing while the republicans have the White House, House, and Senate.
First, on weapons of mass destruction: The authors say Saddam created the impression he had the weapons to scare his arch enemy, Iran.
“Cobra II’s” co-author is retired Marine Gen. Bernard Trainor. He says Saddam “created what he called ‘deterrence of doubt’ — not against us, but against the Iranians.”
Saddam, says Gordon, didn’t tell his own generals there were no weapons of mass destruction until just before the war.
“He said, ‘I don’t have it,’” Gordon says. “The generals were stunned and rather demoralized.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11828408/from/RSS/
Bush never lied. Saddam did.
chuck 2 said
Mar 15th, 2006 at 6:12 pm
“Does anyone post on this site? Its so boring.”
Actually we wait until we have something worthwhile to past. You might try it.
chuck 2 said
Mar 15th, 2006 at 7:12 pm
“Bush never lied. Saddam did.”
Really, what do you call this??
Speaking in Buffalo, New York last year, Bush said: “Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretaps, it requires—a wiretap requires a court order.”
Bush continued: [b]“Nothing has changed, by the way. When we’re talking about chasing down the terrorists, we’re talking about getting a court order before we do so[/b]…
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/dec2005/bush-d24.shtml
Ever heard of not talking about classified programs? Why should Bush announce to the whole world, so that the terrorists can know “HEY WE ARE TAPPING YOUR CALLS INTO THE US!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”
If you cared about national security, you would know that things have to be done in secret in order to succeed. Its NOOOOOOOOOO accident we have not been attacked here NOR overseas (as in our embassies, consulates, outposts and even American companies abroad since 9/11).
Part of the reason we havent been attacked is the secret programs. I hope you dont think the terrorists have just stopped trying since 9/11. They have and will continue to try and our govt, under George W. Bush is doing everything it can to prevent that from happening. If it happens again, do not yell at Bush for not trying hard enough to stop it. He is doing all he can. Your side is doing all it can to score political points as opposed to supporting the president in defense of the country.
Chuck, chuck, chuck…
Lets put it this way.
2000, Gore wins the election, and has the exact same record as the Bush admin. He lies to congress about intel information regarding Iraq, he leads us into a war against a country that didn’t threaten us, he secretly wire taps people in the US that have dubious ties to ‘terrorism’.
Now, with all of that, would you chuck, a right winged extremist (people on the right smear those on the left, so it’s only proper to trade word usage) go out of your way to defend President Gore’s dismal war record and lies?
I doubt it.
Thats not a relevant example because we all know Gore would never run foreign policy like that. He would have lobbed a few cruise missiles at Afghanistan and thats about it.
Bush/Gore didnt lie about WMD. The new book along with various other evidence shows Saddam lied to everyone and deceived the entire world into thinking he had phyiscal WMD. For whatever reason he seems to have gotten rid of the physical weapons at some point after 1991 but still retained the capacity to make new WMD once the UN sanctions were lifted.
If Gore had run the same foreign policy as GWB, I would support it. TO me national security should not be a partisan issue. Apparently though, to you it is. And thats a real shame.
So the terrorists were smart enough to execute 9/11, but too stupid to figure out that we are doing all that we can to catch them?
I’m not buying that.
The biggest problem with the Bush secret spying program is that there is NO OVERSIGHT!. People would be much more comfortable with it if they knew it was monitored by the FISA court.
Telling a few members of congress, who were then sworn to secrecy, is not my idea of oversight.
The Bush administration had a chance to have the law changed in 2002, when Senator Dewine proposed changes to the FISA law. (S 2659) Dewine proposed lowering the bar from “probable cause” to “reasonable suspicion” for electronic surveillance or physical searches of non-US persons. The standards for US citizens would have remained unchanged.
The Bush Administration DID NOT support the proposed changes, because they feared they could be ruled unconstitutional.
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2002_hr/073102baker.html
So they feared a change would be unconstitutional, but then they went beyond that proposed change, without FISA or congressional oversight. And they lied about it.
Chuckles-
PLEEZE keep on posting - it’s getting really easy to ignore your rants.
Mike - It’s too bad they couldn’t get a smart troll to post here instead of Chuckles - maybe when you get to the point that O’Reilly or Hannity quits from all the scrutiny.
But Chuckles - please don’t stop posting 50 times a day - wouldn’t want to to do anything productive, like read or anything…
The wingnuts are afraid of Feingold….that is why the swiftboating has begun.
The echo machine is amazingly similar in the way they attack him….calling him a left wing nut, saying that he is pandering to the left wing of the party….bringing up his feelings regarding wmd, which was pointed out has nothing to do with the censure vote.
Fact is, Feingold voted against the war in Iraq and (unlike hillary) has stood by his principles even if it costs him a run at the presidency.
Chucky baby….
Gore may very well have sent troups into afghanistan….but he would not have lied us into a war with Iraq..
And you would support Gore in warrantless wiretapping, holding american citizens without charging them, torturing prisoners?
Please.
Fact: Saddam had nerve gas. He used them in the Iraq/Iran war, and on the Kurds. The idiot Reagan administration saw to that.
http://www.counterpunch.org/dixon06172004.html
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0802-01.htm
In 2001, Powell and Rice declare Iraq has no WMD and is not a threat. Then, after 9/11, the Bush administration does a 180 and has no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons.
http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-no-wmd.htm
Why the 180 turn in policy? Were Powell and Rice wrong?
For domestic wire tapping, why the need to bypass the panel? Was it impossible to do his job?
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/253334_nsaspying24.html
National security is an absolute issue for me. When the government is trying to pry into our private lives, for dubious reasons, then I get upset, and I hope that you would too. The constitution is not a door mat, it is the highest law of the land.
We had a previous president on his way to impeachment because of breaking the law.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060130/holtzman
Chuck, you’re pathetic.
You’re saying that the fact that the Pres. is the commander in chief gives him the power to monitor domestic phone calls? That’s a fucking joke. You obviously know nothing about the law. There’s something called the 4th Amendment, and it says that people can not be subject to unreasonable searches. The jurisprudence on this Amendment, whch you’ve clearly never read, says that when an intrusion upon privacy rises to a significant level such as the search of one’s home (which is akin to listening in on personal phone calls according to case law) the standard must be probable cause, and a warrant must be sought when possible. Also, congress, in Article I can legislate to limit and define all of the powers. No one is arguing the Pres does not have inherent authority to conduct foreign intel gatering, but congress has the express, explicit, undeniable authority to define the way the President can do. I defy you to challenge that right. It’s spelled out in the last clause of Article I, the necessary and proper clause.
Oh and that you would flippantly assume that I don’t care about gathering info on terrosits: FUCK YOU. It can be done legally, asshole. It doesn’t give the president the right to bug my phone calls without a court order.
If you think Bush didn’t lie when he sais that when it comes to wiretapping it isn’t being doen without a court order, then you are a partisan hack who is incapable of displaying any ounce of intellectual honesty.
Lastly, Bush was happy to talk about and debate the details of the patriot act, why would thta not have endangered our security by revealing the details of our programs LESS than it does to let terorirsts know we will be buggin their phone calls - just liek we always were expressly allowed to do - just now, without a court order. You’re a moron if you don’t see that as a nother lie by this administration.
the 4th amendment doesnt apply if you are not a citizen of this country and/or are a declared enemy of this country who wishes to kill americans, even you.
The calls tapped by the NSA are considered foreign intelligence, and not domestic spying. Stop using that frame. It is incorrect. The NSA does not monitor calls where both ends are inside the United States.
If we are not allowed to monitor calls where one end is in the US and the other is abroad, that is a huge gap in our intelligence gathering operation and makes it very very hard to “connect the dots” which your side said Bush didnt do in his 8 months in office before 9/11 even though Clinton had 8 years to do something about al-qaueda and did nothing.
Chuck, I’ll agree with you. Yes, the 4th amendment does not apply to non Americans. That isn’t the issue.
According to
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/16/AR2005121600021.html
It states that:
President Bush signed a secret order in 2002 authorizing the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on U.S. citizens and foreign nationals in the United States, despite previous legal prohibitions against such domestic spying, sources with knowledge of the program said last night.
You’re arguing that it is OK to spy on non Americans, and I agree. Go ahead and spy on non Americans. I support it. That isn’t why Bush broke the law, and not what we are talking about.
It has to do with Bush spying on Americans, in the name of national security, just like Nixon did.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/01/08/MNGHGGK8OC1.DTL
In this article, it mentions:
Thirty-five years ago, President Richard Nixon claimed constitutional authority to wiretap Americans’ phone calls to protect national security without asking a judge — the same assertion that President Bush is making today in the name of fighting terrorism.
Nixon broke the law. In 1978 Congress set up a system of oversight with the given secret court system, and Bush felt that he could ignore even that.
Once again, Bush is spying on Americans. He is breaking the law. This is the same as the police going door to door at random, and searching for anything illegal, then using it to charge the people in their home.
When I was in the military, I did NOT have 4th amendment protection, and periodically drug sniffing dogs would go through the barracks and look for anything illegal, and if found, we would be punished. This is OK, because when you join the military, you give up your constitutional rights.
From that same Wash Post article:
“The aim of the program was to rapidly monitor the phone calls and other communications of people in the United States believed to have contact with suspected associates of al Qaeda and other terrorist groups OVERSEAS, according to two former senior administration officials.”
In addition the congressional resolution passed on Sept 14, 2001 instructs the President to:
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) In General.–That the President is authorized to use
all necessary and appropriate force against those nations,
organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized,
committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on
September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or
persons, in order to prevent any further acts of
international terrorism against the United States by such
nations, organizations or persons.
http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/useofforce.htm
Thats the justification needed, in addition to the President’s constitutional duty to defend the United States as commander in chief, needed for the NSA program. As the Wash Post article says, it taps emails, and phones between someone here and someone abroad.
Interesting question…If Al Gore would have been elected president..hmm… 9-11 would be just another day and the Twin Towers would still be standing and the wingnuts would be complaining what a mess the country was in.
Chuck,
I’ll make it very simple for you. Bush has been bypassing FISA, which allows you to tap first and get permission later, for one simple reason; He is tapping calls that would not survive the scrutiny of the court. FISA has only turned down FOUR requests in 27 years. FOUR! How can retroactively getting approval from a secret court jeopardize national security. The only security it would jeopardize it Bush’s job security.
Stop living in conspiracy theory world. You have ZERO evidence for that assertion. ZERO, ZIP, NADA. Why are you so consumed with hate that you believe what you say without any proof at all? Maybe you are just a very religious person who believes in this concept we call God without any physical proof and therefore it is easy for you to believe what you just said above.
Why is Bush afriad of oversight? Why is it so easy for the Bushites to state that only those who have something to hide should fear these invasions of privacy, but they are unwilling to have someone else looking over their shoulders? I would say to them, if there is nothing illegal, let the courts or congrss review it. Otherwise, I assume they are not working in our nation’s best interest, There is nothing they have done to date that warrants my trust. Period.
Right. You know it all and everyone else is stupid. You have access to all the info and we don’t.
Do you know Pat Leahy? Senator from Vermont. He used to be on the Senate Intelligence Committee but he got kicked off. This was in the late 1980s. Want to know why he got kicked off? Because he was leaking classified information to the press. Maybe, just maybe Bush knows that congress is full of leakers and people who will sell out national security for their own political aims and so the less people who know about some of these programs the better.
>>>Bush knows that congress is full of leakers and people who will sell out national security for their own political aims >>>
errr..by that I guess you mean people like Dick Cheney and Karl Rove? Oh sorry…not in congress….my bad.
“Why are you so CONSUMED WITH HATE that you believe what you say without any proof at all?”
I hate it when people parrot right wing talking points. It’s like they’ve been programmed and are incapable of thinking for themselves.
Come to think of it … Carry on, Chuckie, we realize you’re doing the best you can with what you were born with.
So Chuck2, What is the problem with having everything reviewed by FISA? I haven’t heard anything about the FISA court judges leaking classified information?
Awaiting the next excuse.
Interesting. I found paraphrases of Hannity’s remark, unattributed of course, on AOL message boards yesterday.
What’s awesome is how People like Hannity will just say things like “Absolutely no laws were broken”
Hannity is basically illiterate.
The calls tapped by the NSA are considered foreign intelligence, and not domestic spying.
Spying in the U.S. is by definition domestic spying.
CHUCK2 - The AUMF does not authorize the President to break the FISA law.
CHUCK2 - If we are not allowed to monitor calls where one end is in the US and the other is abroad
That’s NOT in question here. The issue is whether the President is allowed break the law by ignoring FISA and the answer is clear: He isn’t.
Little Boy: Look mommy, is that a… a…
Mother: Yes dear? Is that a what?
Little Boy: Is that a troll?
Mother: Why yes, it is. Don’t think about encouraging it though, your father wouldn’t like that. Ignore it and let the zoo administrators deal with trolls.
Little Boy: But it’s changing colors and shapes, and its making mean gestures.
Mother: That’s okay honey, it just doesn’t know any better.
Little Boy: Where do trolls come from mommy?
Mother: Oh *exasperated* Probably from mommies who didn’t love them enough to teach them manners. Now come along dear, we’ll be late to the library reading hour. If you don’t read, you too could become a troll.
Little Boy: I wouldn’t want that mommy. Trolls are ugly. *sticks tongue out*
If and when another terrorist attack occurs in the US or against a US embassy, consulate, etc. abroad, we all know which side is doing all it can to ‘connect the dots’ and prevent that from happening. And we all know which side is more interested in debating, whining, moaning, complaining, and trying to somehow score political points.
Hey Mike,
Good seeing you. If I post here you going to get a posse together and show up at my door? Will they show up with beer? Good beer?
http://www.thepoliticalpitbull.net/blog/_archives/2005/12/13/1448719.html
Listen to what this Iraqi Voter has to say about those who oppose the liberation of her country.
Also, here is what the New York Times thought of Clinton’s ‘domestic spying.’
http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/05/cyber/articles/27network.html
Chuck. You can’t be serious. It says he’s authorized to use FORCE how can listening in on people be using force?
He is spying on people in America, chucky so the 4th Amendment does apply. That’s why FISA was written in the firts place. Remember when John Yoo defended the Patriot Act as being constitutional, he specifically referred to the fact that it stayed within FISA and was therefore consistent with the 4th Amendment.
You’r ethe one lying and using the wrong frame if you think the 4th Amendment only applies to calls where both parties are in the US. That’s obviously incorrect. Simply put: the government can not bug my phone without probably cause and a warrant according to the 4th Amendment, and that is regardless of where I call or receive calls from. This is not debatable.
FISA was written to bridge the gap, to make it easier and more expedient for officials to wrietap when the purpose was related to foreign intelligence but still have the check of a court order. Bush was required to follow this law, and the law is unquestionably constitutional.
You can misinterpret resolutions, you can make up the meaning of the 4th Amendment out of whole clothe, and you can talk about the practical benefits of this program. However, sadly for you, none of that will make what the President did legal.
Chuck, we are talking about the federal government spying on US citizens, not about how Iraqi voters feel about Americans, so what does that have to do with the president breaking the law?
And I was against the Clinton’s domestic spying program, using such systems as the FBI’s ‘Carnivore’. That too was a breaking of the 4th amendment. If the impeachment of Clinton related to the usage of Carnivore, then I would have considered that to be valid.
According to:
http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/2474/
The FBI was conducting spying on American war protestors, people with no terrorist ties. So let’s face it, your argument falls apart.
And if none of that will sway you, then lets take it to the opposite end of the spectrum. Do you really want a democrat president to use FISA to spy on his political enemies?
To recap (again…), the president broke the law because he spied on Americans without a warrent.
Hey Mike-
NO AUTOGRAPH. You said it was an autographed copy.
Waaaaaaaaaaaaa.
As much as I hate feeding trolls, Chuck keeps saying that there have been no terrorist attacks against US interests abroad, could he convientently be forgetting the US owned hotels that were bombed in Jordan? Selective memory seems to work well for trolls and this admin.
Trolls? what is it with this term? Apparently only liked minded people are allowed to speak and post in your world?
How about the American diplomat who was killed in Jordan? And I suppose the 2300 dead US troops don’t count to these rightwing trolls, despite their constant and shrill exclamations that it’s a legitimate front in the war on terror. And how many US allies have been bombed since 9/11? Lost count, didn’t you? Only the inbred Right would think Bush’s “war on terror” was anything other than an abysmal failure.
People, cool it with the troll comments. Name calling is stupid and does nothing on the debate.
Let people comment with out the idiot name calling, you liberal hippy long haired cat kissing idiots.
http://www.galenorn.com/catscorner/tara2.jpg
Look at skeffigton’s post under the Broken Records section. It is very good.
Alright, I’ve had just about enough of you liberal faggots.
Troll: One who purposely and deliberately (that purpose being self amusement) starts and argument in a manner which attacks others on a forum without in any way listening to the arguments proposed by his or her peers. He will spark such an argument via the use of ad hominem attacks with no substance or relevence to back them up as well as straw man arguments, which he uses to simply avoid the essence of the issue.
If the shoe fits and all that.
So were the bombing of US owned hotels in Jordan a terrorist attack against US interests abroad?
Chuck, Chuck, Bo Buck, Banana Bana Bo Buck, Fee Fie Fo Fuck, Chuck!
Nice job, chuck. You completely avoided the substance of any arguments against you, then you called us faggots, and then you rejected the title of “troll.”
I never said ‘faggots’ in my post. Someone must have used my name ‘chuck 2′ or something because I KNOW I never put that entry in.
Yes now i figured it you at. Look at my name. It’s
“chuck 2″ (Notice the space between chuck and 2)
Now look we posted the response that mentions “liberal faggots” It’s ” chuck2 ” without a space between chuck and 2.
One of you people tried to forge my name and make an inflammatory comment. THAT IS LOW. AND VERY VERY CHILDISH.
What a disgrace. Have you people nothing better to do? Can you not have a discussion with someone of the other side? Can you tolerate hearing over points of view? How low of the person that forged my name and made an inflammatory comment.
Mike you have broken Florida law.
Florida (where Rush has his show) law says:
“Fla. Stat. ch. 934.03: All parties must consent to the recording or the disclosure of the contents of any wire, oral or electronic communication in Florida. Recording or disclosing without the consent of all parties is a felony, unless the interception is a first offense committed without any illegal purpose, and not for commercial gain, or the communication is the radio portion of a cellular conversation. Such first offenses and the interception of cellular communications are misdemeanors. State v. News-Press Pub. Co., 338 So. 2d 1313 (1976), State v. Tsavaris, 394 So. 2d 418 (1981).”
“Anyone whose communications have been illegally intercepted may recover actual damages or $100 for each day of violation or $1,000, whichever is greater, along with punitive damages, attorney fees and litigation costs. Fla. Stat. ch. 934.10.”
If I were you, you better get a good lawyer. You are a felon.
chuck2
Sadly, no.
Read Article II of the Constitution:
The Presidents job is to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” I don’t think it’s his job to be the protective authoritarian father figure to all you cowardly right-wing chicken-shit pants pissers. If you want to give up the freedoms our founding fathers fought for, move to North Korea.
Chuck,
I know you’re really bad at understanding the law and how it works, But that Florida law only covers recording that are actually made IN Florida. If Mike is making the recording in a state that does not require consent of both parties then his conduct is legal. It doens’t matter where his calls go to or come from, jurisdiction is based on where the recording is made.
I suppose Florida could write it’s law in such a way that it made the recording illegal regardless of where it took place, but there is a good chance this would go beyond their jurisdiction, and generally speaking, the courts will look at WHERE the recording took place -such as in crminal cases where an informant records his phone calls with a suspect.
The law applies to phone calls. This is the recording of a radio show.
Also, the law is in Florida.