Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Page::start_lvl() should be compatible with Walker::start_lvl($output) in /home/misha/public_html/2006/wp-includes/classes.php on line 581

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Page::end_lvl() should be compatible with Walker::end_lvl($output) in /home/misha/public_html/2006/wp-includes/classes.php on line 581

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Page::start_el() should be compatible with Walker::start_el($output) in /home/misha/public_html/2006/wp-includes/classes.php on line 581

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Page::end_el() should be compatible with Walker::end_el($output) in /home/misha/public_html/2006/wp-includes/classes.php on line 581

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_PageDropdown::start_el() should be compatible with Walker::start_el($output) in /home/misha/public_html/2006/wp-includes/classes.php on line 600

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Category::start_lvl() should be compatible with Walker::start_lvl($output) in /home/misha/public_html/2006/wp-includes/classes.php on line 699

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Category::end_lvl() should be compatible with Walker::end_lvl($output) in /home/misha/public_html/2006/wp-includes/classes.php on line 699

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Category::start_el() should be compatible with Walker::start_el($output) in /home/misha/public_html/2006/wp-includes/classes.php on line 699

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Category::end_el() should be compatible with Walker::end_el($output) in /home/misha/public_html/2006/wp-includes/classes.php on line 699

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_CategoryDropdown::start_el() should be compatible with Walker::start_el($output) in /home/misha/public_html/2006/wp-includes/classes.php on line 724

Strict Standards: Redefining already defined constructor for class wpdb in /home/misha/public_html/2006/wp-includes/wp-db.php on line 57

Strict Standards: Redefining already defined constructor for class WP_Object_Cache in /home/misha/public_html/2006/wp-includes/cache.php on line 404
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler » Gorebot Mk VII Continues His Long Slide Into Dementia

Lord Spatula takes the Manic Moronic Mannequin™ to the woodshed.

F.E.T.E.

[Addendum: We’d like to say that at least the Goron serves one useful purpose by demonstrating to the rest of us the appropriateness of vigorously opposing inbreeding. — E.M.]

30 Responses to “Gorebot Mk VII Continues His Long Slide Into Dementia”
  1. juandos Comment by juandos UNITED STATES

    Well the SUPREME GORON never fails to entertain… Do you all remember these Goron Gems?…:lol:

    None the less we have the following from the Astute Blogger: FISKING GORE; EXPOSING GORE’S LIES AND DISTORTIONS:lol:

    It only serves to show everyone that being delusional goes a long way when one is a Democrat…

  2. juandos Comment by juandos UNITED STATES

    BTW we all remember which administration the SUPREME GORON belonged to, right?

    Just stroll down this memory lane courtesy of the CATO folks: Dereliction Of Duty:
    The Constitutional Record of President Clinton

  3. Unregistered Comment by cas UNITED STATES

    hi,
    and the question still remains whether or not the president broke the law. whatever you think of al gore, he makes the central issue simply this: at what point will people who support the president and the war on terror draw a line on what the president does in comparison with the constitution with its checks and balances?

    to put it another way: what is your line in the sand for what you would consider evidence of the illegitimate or immoral over-reach of presidential power?

    i only ask this so that i have a bench-mark to think about what folks think here, if and when a democrat–maybe even hilary!!!!–becomes president. for what you allow president bush is also what you would (consistently) allow presdent hilary. the war on terror is going to be fought in near perpetuity, so at some point a democrat as president is a certainty…

  4. B.C., Imperial Torturer™ Comment by B.C., Imperial Torturer™ UNITED STATES

    i only ask this so that i have a bench-mark to think about what folks think here, if and when a democrat–maybe even hilary!!!!–becomes president.

    Sorry. I was about to start a serious response to your questions (Still have that broken “Shift” key, I see.), but I can’t take you seriously when you post something like that. :cuckoo: :whatever: :lol:

  5. LC Beaker Comment by LC Beaker UNITED STATES

    the war on terror is going to be fought in near perpetuity

    Well, maybe it wouldn’t have to be if the Democrats would quit supporting the other side once in a while.

    (Yeah I know, we’re not supposed to question their patriotism because dissent, in time of war, after we’ve been attacked, is patriotic.)

  6. Emperor Darth Misha I Comment by Emperor Darth Misha I UNITED STATES

    Broke what law, cas?

    Data-mining has been S.O.P. since before Echelon became a catchphrase. Just where the fuck do you think intel DOES come from? The Tooth Fairy?

    Return with your concerns once you can show me one single case where some random schmuck was listened into and got into hot water as a result and I just might be interested in hearing about it.

    Monitoring people calling known terrorist phone numbers just isn’t something that bothers me a great deal.

  7. juandos Comment by juandos UNITED STATES

    Gee Cas (#3), let me guess, FISA doesn’t ring a bell, right?… :whatever:

  8. LC Delftsman3 Comment by LC Delftsman3 UNITED STATES

    “..and the question still remains whether or not the president broke the law”

    There IS no question about breaking the law here Cas. The Congress authorized President Bush authority to do “all things necessary to catch/kill/prevent terrorists”

    Remember that EVERY one of these call ORIGINATED from known terrorists or terrorist supporting people…there were only 500 “warrantless” intercepts done, and in most cases, the American side of the converstion was deleted before the information was passed on to the FBI. “Privacy” of American citizens was maintained.

    Left up to such as you, the intelligence agencys would only :whatever: until some terrorist walked into their office and layed out their plans for them to approve. :cuckoo:

  9. caveman82952 Comment by caveman82952 UNITED STATES

    Our enemy is killing our soldiers and civilians with no regard for any sort of law, Geneva or otherwise. My question would be…..what if the British had not broken enigma….or the Americans the Japanese codes. It has not been determined if Bush did break any laws…..I do ponder the selective memory of his critics however. As for me…….I have not seen a single instance, certainly haven’t experienced one, where civil rights were violated. Speaking of consitutional rights…when the demos start expressing similar concerns for freedom of religion and the second amendment……and to be candid, if our intelligence does detect and prevent another nine-eleven…….it’s a dirty, dangerous, thankless job. If some poor bastard is stuck listening in my my phone calls, I’ll send him a sympathy card.

  10. Unregistered Comment by Ron

    show me one single case where some random schmuck was listened into and got into hot water as a result

    Is this the issue at hand, or is it more of a “right to be secure in their papers and effects against unreasonable searches”? Interestingly enough, I ran across an article from 99 that showed Republicans becoming concerned with the uses of ECHELON. So, it looks like the program is a political football. Can’t we all agree that the program simply needs to be reined in, no matter who is using it?

  11. Princess Natasha Comment by Princess Natasha UNITED STATES

    Since when do terrorists enjoy any kind of rights? By practicing things that can only be classified as subhuman– such as terrorism and other kinds of murderous collectivism—they remove themselves from the right to be considered human, and, therefore, from rights humans enjoy by virtue of being such. Therefore, they are fair game for whatever befalls them.
    Oooh, I sound like I have no compassion… Guess what? I don’t. :finger:

  12. Unregistered Comment by Ron

    An interesting question to ponder-if ECHELON type spying is so freaking effective,and we’ve been using it for years before Bush, how did it miss the Sept 11 plot?

  13. maxxdog Comment by maxxdog UNITED STATES

    Cas
    Show me where my rights have been infringed. I’d like to hear how the liberties of Americans have been taken from them.
    The fucking line in the sand had already been crossed when they flew those planes into the Towers and the Pentagon. Hell, it was crossed quite a few times in the 90’s (USS Cole, Khobar Towers, Kenya etc) but Bubba was too busy getting blowjobs in the office to protect the American people. In fact, it was crossed in 79 when the terrorist bastards took over the US Embassy in Iran! That useless Carter was hiding in the same office wringing his hands, unable to make a decision when he should have kicked their asses all over the desert. How different would the world be if he had. Fuck a line in the sand!

  14. jaybear Comment by jaybear UNITED STATES


    to put it another way: what is your line in the sand for what you would consider evidence of the illegitimate or immoral over-reach of presidential power?

    Gee cas, maybe busting in the door of an American citzen to kidnap a child at machine gun point and ship him back to Cuba. Maybe the graves of dissidents (but still American citizens) burned alive at Waco on orders of the Commander in Chief might serve as your “line in the sand”. Or maybe you could use the nuclear technology shipped to North Korea as a trade for campaign money, that is FAR more alarming to me than tapping the phones of people talking to Al Qaeda types.

    Besides, why are you you lefties getting so worked up about tapping these phone calls? who have YOU been calling lately?

    Can you hear me now Osama?

  15. caveman82952 Comment by caveman82952 UNITED STATES

    An interesting question to ponder-if ECHELON type spying is so freaking effective,and we’ve been using it for years before Bush, how did it miss the Sept 11 plot?

    A good point Ron…I’ve asked myself a million times and have no answer. Was it missed or…or was it ignored? I read of many times different government agencies, due to political infighting and such, diverted or suppressed such information. Clinton could have nailed bin Laden. I only wish he had done so. Whatever the truth, it must not be allowed to happen again. So how was it missed? I wish I knew. God, don’t we all….

  16. Alan K. Henderson Comment by Alan K. Henderson UNITED STATES

  17. Unregistered Comment by Lord Spatula I, King & Tyrant UNITED STATES

    An interesting question to ponder-if ECHELON type spying is so freaking effective,and we’ve been using it for years before Bush, how did it miss the Sept 11 plot?

    Maybe ’cause your half-assed excuse-for-a-president was too busy getting his dick sucked by an intern to much care about it? :mad:

  18. B.C., Imperial Torturer™ Comment by B.C., Imperial Torturer™ UNITED STATES

    An interesting question to ponder-if ECHELON type spying is so freaking effective,and we’ve been using it for years before Bush, how did it miss the Sept 11 plot?

    Because they didn’t come out and say things like “Yo, Mohammed, you ready to go on that Kick-ass Hi-jackin’ Jihadi Express Flight™ on September 11th, departing from Boston and ending at the World Trade Center Towers and receive our 72 raisins?!”.

    Put the bong down and walk away slowly…

  19. B.C., Imperial Torturer™ Comment by B.C., Imperial Torturer™ UNITED STATES

    Is this the issue at hand, or is it more of a “right to be secure in their papers and effects against unreasonable searches”?

    The “issue at hand” is having your phone number or name show up on an Al Qaieda PC, laptop, CD or notebook and THEN having your “innocent” conversations listened to when you talk to said Jihadis overseas.

    What part of this is too difficult for you to understand?

    Oooooooooh, that’s right. The Leftist pussy you’re tappin’ has most, if not all, of the Clue™ pushed out and only one head is doing the “thinking” these days.

  20. Emperor Darth Misha I Comment by Emperor Darth Misha I UNITED STATES

    Is this the issue at hand, or is it more of a “right to be secure in their papers and effects against unreasonable searches”? Interestingly enough, I ran across an article from 99 that showed Republicans becoming concerned with the uses of ECHELON. So, it looks like the program is a political football. Can’t we all agree that the program simply needs to be reined in, no matter who is using it?

    No, Ron. The Constitution is not a suicide pact. If there’d been any cases of abuse of the data-mining, I’d be all up in arms and calling for heads on a platter. Bring me one example of such and we’ll talk about reining in and you’ll find me squarely on your side.

    I’d rather have the government fuck up and have to apologize, reimburse and pay with heads rolling than let terrorists have phone sex with al-Zarqawi unimpededly 24/7. We’re at war, remember? Those people want to kill us. Kill us dead.

    Abuses? Find one and I’ll be 100% behind tracking down those responsible and locking them up for a long, long time.

    An interesting question to ponder-if ECHELON type spying is so freaking effective,and we’ve been using it for years before Bush, how did it miss the Sept 11 plot?

    I don’t know, Ron. Do you?

    No, I’m not being flippant here. More about that later, but it just struck me that it might have to do with the fact that ECHELON was common knowledge among everybody all the way down to high school kids, thanks to concerned, well-meaning “whistleblowers” and civil rights advocates. It’s possible that even Osama had caught on to it and that he and his cohorts, as a result, might have started doing what they could to evade it. Kinda like when Leaky Leahy helpfully committed treason and leaked highly classified information to the world that we were listening into and pinpointing “persons of interest” thanks to satellite phones. Shortly after that Osama went offline. See a similarity here?

    So why didn’t we catch on to 9/11 in spite of ECHELON? Does the fact that we didn’t prove that ECHELON and programs like it are useless? I don’t know why it slipped through the cracks, I don’t have the clearance and if I did I wouldn’t be telling you anyway, but I also don’t know how much stuff ECHELON did pick up. You don’t generally advertise your methods when you catch a fish. It tends to empty the pond. As a matter of fact, you try not to advertise that the fish has been caught at all. That much I do know.

    I also know that sifting through a Himalaya of information looking for what’s relevant and trying to rule out what’s not is a huge flippin’ task. Granted, the boys and girls can do shit thanks to modern technology in hours or even minutes that used to take us weeks to do, but something’s bound to slip through the cracks. It’s just the way it works.

    That doesn’t mean that you’d be better off or even as well off without the tool entirely. All it means is that you need to find out why it doesn’t always work and try to fix it, knowing that there’s no such thing as a Perfect System. It doesn’t mean that you throw the thing out the window and start from scratch, re-inventing the wheel as you go along.

    But all of this is speculation because I don’t truly KNOW. I’m glad I don’t. I don’t NEED to know. If I know, it means that there’s one more individual with information that we don’t want disseminated, one more source that the bad guys can squeeze the info out of. That’s bad enough if I NEED to know it, can’t be avoided, but you sure as Hell don’t want more people in the know than absolutely necessary. Heaven knows we’re having enough trouble as it is keeping the mouthes of the ones who DO need to know shut these days. That kind of shit would’ve never flown where I come from, let me tell you that right up front.

    Not that we didn’t have any rotten eggs back then, but they sure as Hell weren’t being protected by Constitutional rights when they were found out or even when the fact that they existed was found out. It wasn’t perfect, but it worked just fine as I recall, by and large. I have no idea how, of course, but leaks tended to stop once they’d been identified.

    The point of all of this being, obviously, that I have no effin’ clue why we didn’t catch 9/11, and neither do you. What I DO know is that the less people who don’t need to know about what we’re doing know, the more likely we are to catch future attempts because apparently people around here are incapable of keeping their big yaps shut and, for some obscure reason, we have great trouble shutting their yaps for them once they’ve been located.

    Is that troubling? Not to me it ain’t.

    What’s troubling to me is the number of people who apparently feel that their curiosity and “right to know” trumps the life and welfare of me and my family.

  21. juandos Comment by juandos UNITED STATES

    what is your line in the sand for what you would consider evidence of the illegitimate or immoral over-reach of presidential power?

    Calling an air strike on a convention of dim-witted Dems, liberal scum, and other assorted seditious swine and NOT sending in a crew to make sure the job was done?

    Just asking… :smirk:

  22. Unregistered Comment by Ron

    Kinda like when Leaky Leahy helpfully committed treason and leaked highly classified information to the world that we were listening into and pinpointing “persons of interest” thanks to satellite phones. Shortly after that Osama went offline. See a similarity here?

    I thought that story turned out to be NG. Unless we are talking about something different.

    President Bush asserted this week that the news media published a U.S. government leak in 1998 about Osama bin Laden’s use of a satellite phone, alerting the al Qaeda leader to government monitoring and prompting him to abandon the device.

    The story of the vicious leak that destroyed a valuable intelligence operation was first reported by a best-selling book, validated by the Sept. 11 commission and then repeated by the president.

    But it appears to be an urban myth.

    The al Qaeda leader’s communication to aides via satellite phone had already been reported in 1996 — and the source of the information was another government, the Taliban, which ruled Afghanistan at the time.

    I don’t know, Ron. Do you?

    I really don’t, but it does call the efficacy of the program into question. You make some good points, but I don’t see how you would be able to keep a multinational data collecting packet sniffer under wraps for long. People were wondering about its existence in the 70s when the government wouldnt even admit such a thing was in the works.

    My mind is not made up on this one yet. BTW, there have been incidents where it has been misused-in Australia once, I think.It has also been misused for economic spying. I will hunt the links down and get back to you. Thanks.

    I don’t like the idea, but if it can be shown useful and not dangerously intrusive or corruptible, I’m for it.

  23. Unregistered Comment by Elephant Man UNITED STATES

    An interesting question to ponder-if ECHELON type spying is so freaking effective,and we’ve been using it for years before Bush, how did it miss the Sept 11 plot?

    I’d imagine that the Jamie Gorelick (so that’s how she got her job.:lol:) “Wall of Seperation” put up between agencies had a lot to do with it.

    I don’t like the idea, but if it can be shown useful and not dangerously intrusive or corruptible, I’m for it.

    And there lies “the rub”. Virtually any surveillance policy can become intrusive or corrupted.

    If you use the criteria that if a policy has a possibility of becoming “dangerously intrusive or corruptable” it cannot be used, you might as well throw all the surveillance techniques out the window.

  24. juandos Comment by juandos UNITED STATES

    Ron whines: “I don’t like the idea, but if it can be shown useful and not dangerously intrusive or corruptible, I’m for it“… :lol:

    Why lie about it? You apparently have no clue what you are babbling about…

    http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pdupont/?id=110007823

    While the Constitution was being ratified in 1787 John Jay (later the first chief justice) in Federalist No. 64 praised the Constitution for giving the president power “to manage the business of intelligence in such manner as prudence may suggest.” And of course Article II of the ratified Constitution gave the president the nation’s “Executive power” and states that “the President shall be the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States.”

  25. Blackiswhite Comment by Blackiswhite UNITED STATES

    An interesting question to ponder-if ECHELON type spying is so freaking effective,and we’ve been using it for years before Bush, how did it miss the Sept 11 plot?

    Putting aside the fact that someone knew something was afoot, and was prevented from doing anything about it, (Able Danger, anyone?), I’ve thought a lot about it, too. Coventry has been on my mind a lot lately, especially in light of the fact that the minute the Dems find out about an intelligence gathering technique, they trample each other to get to the nearest microphone and blab it to the world, and of course, those who want us dead.

  26. Unregistered Comment by cas UNITED STATES

    hi all,
    thanks for the feedback. as far as i can tell, folks answers fell into the following categories:
    1. president hilary: not a serious question.
    2. show me one case of material harm!
    3. broke what law? congress’ resolution allows it!
    4. the clintonistas were bad, as bad, or worse.
    5. they are terrorists and we can do whatever we have to to win.
    6. questioning the good intentions of the president and exposing the program’s existence–whether it is legal or not–is treasonous/giving aid to the enemy
    7. if the program is illegal, than its a necessary evil to protect us from harm from the terrorists.
    8. fisa allows the president to do this.
    9. only those with something to hide have anything to worry about.

    that is a lot. and good arguments/evidence have been raised elsewhere to suggest that the president’s actions are a cause for serious concern that he may have crossed the line–from dems, yes, but also republicans.

    my central concern is this: from the above, since no one actually addressed this point, i surmise that you would be equally at peace if a democrat president (with a dem congressional majority) had the powers that you are allowing president bush to use with such equanimity. that is ok, i think that is consistent. i just want you to picture a president hilary with those powers. if your stomachs can handle that, then so be it…

    and that is what is called–a gut check…

  27. Emperor Darth Misha I Comment by Emperor Darth Misha I UNITED STATES

    my central concern is this: from the above, since no one actually addressed this point, i surmise that you would be equally at peace if a democrat president (with a dem congressional majority) had the powers that you are allowing president bush to use with such equanimity.

    Blech, Cas, you’re loading the question so bad it’s amazing it doesn’t break a hole in the floor.

    Would I have a problem with a Clintoon administration having those powers? That’s a silly question. We had 8 long, infernal years of a Clintoon administration with those powers.

    Of COURSE I have a problem with it.

    I have a problem with ANY administration with that kind of power, but that’s not the issue here. The issue IS that I’d have one heck of a BIGGER problem with an administration NOT having that power, because I’d feel completely fucking defenseless. There’s a big smoking hole in Manhattan reminding me of what happens when an administration has the power and fails to use it fully, after all.

    The reason that I’m so sanguine about it, apart from the fact that we HAVE to be able to listen in to those kinds of comms, is that little thing called “probable cause.”

    If any of the crap in my personal comms is going to be used against me in a court of law, whoever obtained it has to demonstrate probable cause. It’s not like they can just draw my name out of a hat, listen in to my phone calls, hear me casually talking about firing up a joint when I was younger and then prosecute me for it. It wouldn’t be admissible.

  28. Unregistered Comment by cas UNITED STATES

    hi emperor,
    thanks for the reply. i thought that might make you ill! i agree that probable cause is an issue here. but what makes me fairly chilled about things as they stand is that if you or i were picked up in a dragnet, the feds would not have to show probable cause (or be very, very, slow about doing that). that is already the case in terms of the no-fly list. the feds don’t have to explain why they banned you or me, only that doing so is something that will improve domestic security. no appeal, no nothing.

    i think what has many people worried is that there is a clash of two ideals/views of the world in play–the bush administration wants to have a hobbesian foreign policy and a lockean domestic policy. but they have two fundamentally different visions of what rights we are accorded and how–and i think it is a fundamental contradiction that these policies are showing us; e.g., when the domestic and the foreign come together in how to deal with american citizens caught up, rightly or wrongly, in national security concerns. i have to go home and be a caregiver, but i will write some more on this issue if folks are interested.

  29. B.C., Imperial Torturer™ Comment by B.C., Imperial Torturer™ UNITED STATES

    cas, FIX YOUR FUCKING “SHIFT” KEY, FERCHRISSAKES!

    Also, read it and weep. (If you haven’t already.)

    :lol:

  30. Unregistered Comment by cas UNITED STATES

    hi bc, it,
    thanks for the link. did leave my message overthere…