drlogic

For craps and giggles, let's just asume Bush did this with intentions other than protecting America against it's enemies. I mean, if people want him to burn for this, it must be because they believe he's up to no good, right? So, what EXACTLY do the "critics" believe was Bush's intention, if not to protect Ameirca? What EXACTLY are the critics implying? HUMOR ME, PLZ!

You got it right Igloo! Funny part is, God forbid something were to happen, these same "johnny come lately" critics would be squealing like stuck pigs blaming Bush for not doing MORE.........That why I have to laugh when I hear critics jump on the Bush-hating bandwagon. They just don't get it! God bless America...right? LOL

U.S. Senate Fails to Renew Patriot Act, Restores Conditions That Led to 9/11 December 16, 2005 BEGIN TRANSCRIPT HOST: The 16 provisions of the Patriot Act that go by the wayside since the Patriot Act was -- it technically wasn't voted down (story). There was a filibuster attempt. The Patriot Act itself never came up to a vote. They had a cloture vote to try to kill a filibuster. They couldn't get 60. (Vote total) They got 52. So we're not going to vote on the Patriot Act, which is the same thing as voting against it. A lot of really yellow-bellied Republicans joined this effort, aided in no small part by this bogus New York Times story today. Schumer and Durbin cited this story in the New York Times about the NSA spying on Americans as a reason they couldn't vote for this anymore, and we'll look at McCain's definition of torture as spelled out for us by Max Boot. He's a columnist at the Los Angeles Times. But here, let me get started with the Patriot Act just so you know what's up to speed. Sixteen provisions of the USA Patriot Act expire December 31st, now, and I'll just give you some of them: "Section 203( permits the sharing of grand jury information that involves foreign intelligence or counter-intelligence with federal law enforcement intelligence protective immigration, national defense or national security officials." In other words, that is a part of the Patriot Act that goes away. Does that sound familiar? You know what just get's re-erected? The Gorelick wall! The same thing that prevented us from being able to "connect the dots" prior to 9/11 goes back into effect on January 1st, because that provision's dead, the provision that permits the sharing of grand jury information that involves foreign intelligence or counter-intelligence with federal law enforcement, federal intelligence, protective immigration, national defense or national security officials. That's gone. So now anything learned by one agency can't be shared with another. Thanks to the Gorelick wall. It's back. "Section 206 allows federal officials to issue roving John Doe wiretaps for spy and anti-terrorism investigations." That's gone. "Section 207 increases the amount of time that federal officials may watch people they suspect are spies or terrorists." That's gone. "Section 209 permits the seizure of voice mail messages under a warrant." That's gone. "Section 212 permits Internet service providers and other electronic communications and remote computing service providers to hand over records and e-mails to federal officials in emergency situations." That's gone. "Section 215 authorizes federal officials to obtain tangible items like business records, including those from libraries and bookstores, for foreign intelligence and international terrorism investigations." That is gone. "Section 217 makes it lawful to intercept the wire or electronic communication of a computer hacker or intruder in certain circumstances." Computer hackers will now be, once again, protected because that provision is gone. "Section 220 provides for nationwide service of search warrants for electronic evidence." That's gone. "Section 225 amends FISA," this is the court, "to prohibit lawsuits against people or companies that provide information to federal officials for a terrorism investigation." That's gone. So the Patriot Act has essentially been killed and we're going to go back to the same intel conditions that existed prior to 9/11, thanks to the Democrats in the Senate and a few sap Republicans -- and we are taking names and we know who they are and if any of these people think that this is the kind of thing that's going to get them reelected, they have another thing coming. END TRANSCRIPT Read the Background Material... (Reuters: Anti-terror Patriot Act renewal blocked in Senate) (DrudgeReport: NYT 'Spying' Splash Tied to Book Release) (NY Times: Bush Secretly Lifted Some Limits on Spying in U.S. After 9/11, Officials Say) (Los Angeles Times: Hate torture? Consider boot camp - Max Boot) (NRO: Victor Davis Hanson: Lancing the Boil)

I've got some company coming over, so I've gotta run. Chew on this for a bit and I'll check back..... Respect! NY Times Lies to Undermine War on Terror, Bush Didn't "Secretly" Allow Spying on Anyone December 16, 2005 HOST: What has been reported today by the New York Times is outrageous. It is false. It is misleading. It is deceitful -- and it is part of an ongoing effort within our country at the highest levels of the Democratic Party and the American media to destroy our ability to wage war against this enemy. I don't know if you've seen it. You probably have heard about it. Here's the headline of the story: "Bush Secretly Lifted Some Limits on Spying in the United States After 9/11, Officials Say." Bush secretly lifted some limits on spying in the United States after 9/11? The story is about how the National Security Agency was secretly told by George W. Bush to go ahead and start spying on domestic Americans as they made international phone calls and sent and received international e-mails. The only problem with the story is that Bush didn't do anything "secretly." There were all kinds of people in on this, including members of Congress and the special secret court that gets involved in these kinds of things. If you read very carefully, there's a couple of key paragraphs in this story. Here's one of them -- and, by the way, let me say this. By the way, there are a lot of details about this. The writer of the story is James Risen. James Risen has a book coming out! The New York Times in this story claims that the White House asked them not to print this and that they held off for a year. They held off for a year out of concerns for the White House. That's absolute bunk. It is BS. They've been sitting on this story for a year. James Risen, the author of the story, has a book coming out. This is part of his book. The book is published by Simon & Schuster, the same editor that Richard Clarke's books have been published by and edited, Hillary's publisher -- and of course there will be a 60 Minutes appearance by Mr. Risen when his book comes out because Viacom owns both CBS and Simon & Schuster. So we've got the same synergy that we had during the 9/11 Commission hearings and that aftermath. So they haven't been sitting on this because of the White House. They've been sitting on it to promo a book. They've been sitting on it for a year. Why does it come out today? Because they want to cover up the great news that happened in Iraq yesterday. They want this and the Patriot Act and McCain's torture bill to be the subjects on the Sunday shows. They're trying to switch the template here and take the great news happening in Iraq off everybody's mind, off the front page, and instead, focus efforts on the secret dealings of George W. Bush. Well, try this paragraph: "According to those officials and others, reservations about aspects of the program have also been expressed by Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, the West Virginia Democrat who is the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and a judge presiding over a secret court that oversees intelligence matters. Some of the questions about the agency's new powers led the administration to temporarily suspend the operation last year and impose more restrictions, the officials said." Well, how in the world can this be secret if Rockefeller knew about it and if the special court and the judge presiding over it -- it's the FISA court, by the way -- how can it possibly have been secret? It wasn't secret. The lead of this story starts this way: "Months after the September 11th attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the US to search for evidence of terrorist activity without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying." Bush did no such thing. He did nothing secretly. Rockefeller knew about it. The special judge and all kinds of members of Congress knew about it. Try this paragraph: "The officials said the administration had briefed congressional leaders about the program and notified the judge in charge of the foreign intelligence surveillance court, the secret Washington court that deals with national security issues." How in the name of heaven can this be secret when the -- and this is from the story. The story headlined "Bush secretly lifted," and then the opening sentence, "President Bush secretly authorized," and then later on in this story, we learn that Rockefeller knew about it! That means a lot of members of Congress did, and that officials said the administration had briefed congressional leaders about the program. There was nothing secret about this. It was after 9/11, for crying out loud. I am telling you there is an organized effort within our country at the highest levels of the Democratic Party and their media accomplices to destroy our ability to wage war against this enemy. Can I tell you how this story would have been written, had this happened during the Clinton administration, assuming it would have been written at all? Let me tell you how it would have been written: "Months after the September 11th attacks, the government authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the US to search for evidence of terrorist activity in order to ensure that another 9/11 attack doesn't happen," thereby approving the whole thing because the key words would have been "the government authorized the National Security Agency." In this case, the government didn't do diddlysquat, see? According to the New York Times George Bush -- the evil George Bush – secretly, secretly, called the NSA and said, "I want you to start spying on Americans. They're the real problem here." This is so bogus; this is so outrageous; it is so irresponsible, and it is so indicative of the absolute fear that the left finds itself in today. They cannot succeed and triumph in an up-and-up, open-and-honest debate about anything. They have to deceive. They have to lie. They have to twist. They have to turn. They can't even stand the good news that came out of Iraq yesterday. No, no, no, no, no! Not at all! They have to try to cover that up and make it sound like this country, this administration, is spying on you. You're the enemy. Then we got McCain's idiotic, foolish, stupid, dangerous torture bill to deal with, and that will be on the news all weekend long. I'm telling you, folks, this is getting serious. It's not just so much that the left imploding, which is a sure sign of what this is, but the bottom line is this is an all-out effort to tie our hands in dealing with this enemy. It is exactly what this is. I read this last night and I saw it being blurbed all over everywhere and I said, "Ah, jeez! Would people read the story. Stop just reading the headlines and read the story!" (interruption). Well, I know your pot (interruption). Did your pot boil when you (interruption). Livid at what, though? Snerdley's (interruption). Well, I'm going to get to that in a second. I'm going to get to that. Snerdley is upset about the people that leaked this stuff, and you know something? This is putting the silliness and the absolute irrelevance and the childishness of this Valerie Plame/Joe Wilson thing in perspective. If we need a special counsel, if we need an independent prosecutor, we need to find out who in the hell it is that is leaking this rot-gut lying, stinking garbage to the newspaper of the Democrat National Committee, the New York bleeping Times -- and we need to find out where they are and we need to find out who they are and we need to stop this. The CIA needs to call for one of these referrals to the justice department, and we need to find out who's leaking automatic this rot-gut, folks. The Valerie Plame stuff is still in the minds of the media and of the Democrats much bigger than any of this. I have to take a quick break but I want to expand on all of the incestuous, synergistic, maniacal ties that exist between this story, major publishing, a major network, CBS, and the Democratic Party. BREAK HOST: You notice also in this New York Times story, "Bush secretly lifted some limits on spying," and I want to make another point about this. Bush did not "secretly" do anything. All kinds of people knew about it, as this story later on in its content alludes to and mentions. Bush alerted Congressional leaders. Jay Rockefeller knew about it. The special court, the FISA court, the judge there knew. But we're not told who the judge is, and there's no reporting at all on when Rockefeller knew about this or what other members of the Senate knew about it, or who the judge was. There's no curiosity at all about the involvement of others in this program on the part of Mr. Risen at the New York Times. In fact, they gloss over all of that in order to protect those people, to protect members of Congress, to protect Rockefeller, and focus all attention on Bush -- and I can't help but remind you again of this lead. Just to show you the difference and to illustrate it, this lead starts this way: "Months after the September 11th attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop." Had this been written during the Clinton administration, there's some question in my mind whether the story would have been written at all, but had it been, it would have been written in a way as to applaud the Clinton administration. It would have been written this way: "Months after..." "Only months" -- to imply quickness and concern. "Only months after the September 11th attacks, the government secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on potential terror suspects in America." That's how it would have been written, to support the Clinton administration. It wouldn't have said "the Clinton administration," wouldn't have said Bill Clinton personally. It would have said "the government," because the government is good! The government is the be-all-end-all. Government is daddy and mommy and nanny and everybody. The government is Santa Claus. Well, you can't say Santa Claus. They don't like Christmas. So that's how it would have been written, had it been written at all -- and today we had this little conference at the White House. They had McCain up there, President of the Media, and Vice President of the Media Lindsey Graham. All these senators and they were asked about this and McCain's on there, "Well, you know, I'm very troubled by this." Let me tell you what's going to happen here. Bush has led the nation into a great geopolitical victory, and right now John McCain is getting all the attention. The "torture" issue is the top issue. Bush is attacked with this phony story about secretly spying on Americans. The book that is tied to this, James Risen, the same guy that wrote the story has got a book coming out. This is just part of a book. They've been holding it for a year. Why publish it today? They say in the story, "The government asked us to hold it." BS! This is the New York Times. It just recently ran a fake story about forged ballots getting into Iraq prior to the election. It's the same New York Times of Jayson Blair and Maureen Dowd, the same New York Times of Howell Raines, the New York Times of "Pinch" Sulzberger. The New York Times that ran a bogus year-old story on the Monday prior to the election, a week before the election last year, in order to indicate that Bush was incompetent in disarming terrorists in Iraq. So we find out this book has the same editor as Richard Clarke, somebody at Simon & Schuster which is part of Viacom, which is part of CBS. So we know what's coming. We have the usual route. It appears in the New York Times, and then there will be a 60 Minutes interview, and a big focus on the book when it comes out -- and then Congress will pretend that they didn't know anything about it. Then they will demand investigations led by, no doubt, the President of the Media, Senator McCain, even though the story makes it perfectly clear that members of Congress were told by President Bush and the administration about the program. This whole thing is cast as a story with grave, grave concerns about civil liberties and privacy and that's not at all what this story is. This is an assassination. This is a journalistic assassination, the latest of many attempts against George W. Bush and his efforts to win this war against this current enemy. The reference to Rockefeller and the FISA judge and court makes clear that the other branches of the government were in on this. What we need to know is a lot of things that the Times story conceals, that the Times story doesn't say. The Times story doesn't say that this is a chapter in a book. The Times story doesn't admit that it's a year old. The Times story doesn't say that all this is, is an attempt to promote a book. We need to know what kind of book deal Mr. Risen has. We'd like to know how much money he's been paid to write the book. We hear that about every other author, what's the advance? Will he be investigated the way other reporters have for receiving leaks of national security information? Was Senator Rockefeller told, and when, and what was he told, and what were the other senators told, and who were they? Who leaked the information presented to this secret FISA court? Alberto Gonzales, the attorney general, should take this opportunity right now. It's time to fight back against these people instead of bowing over and letting McCain have what he wants and so forth. It's time to fight back on this stuff. Gonzales needs to take this opportunity to expand the jurisdiction of Patrick Fitzgerald, the independent counsel. He's investigating CIA leaks. Well, hey, there's a whole boatload of them that have unfolded here that make the Valerie Plame leak look like Romper Room in a sandbox! So Fitzgerald's jurisdiction needs to be expanded to include this leak, and all the other leaks. The secret prisons, you name it. He is, after all, "a prosecutor's prosecutor." He's beloved by the media -- when he's chasing Rove, anyway, when he's chasing Libby. Well, let him chase some legitimate leaks! Let him chase some legitimate, damaging-to-our-national security leaks. Whatever happened with Valerie Plame there was not a national security concern there. Our national security, folks, has become completely politicized, completely politicized now by Democrats, by Senator McCain, and a handful of gadfly Republicans, too. From the Patriot Act to dumbing down the definitions of "torture" to open borders that allow anybody to pile into this country at any time they want. It's a disgrace what's going on. Any Republican who thinks that he's going to win an election to any office on this agenda is sadly mistaken. If there's any of you Republicans out there thinking that you are going to win a national election or a big election by saying you were for sabotaging the Patriot Act, that you were for McCain's new definitions of torture, that you were for all of these things, open borders that allow any number of people to come into this country, if you think that's a winning agenda, then you go ahead and run on it and you see what's going to happen to you. The Democrats are voting and the New York Times is publishing purely to embarrass Bush, and their purpose is to attempt to derail everything that he is doing, even as commander-in-chief. In my mind, they are loathsome. They are beneath contempt. But the Republicans who help them out are much worse, because we know who the Democrats are. We expect this from them. We expect the Democrats to be lower than low. When they look up, they see the gutter. We know what they're all about now. They've made it clear. We once had higher expectations of the press, but we no longer do. We know who they are, but the Republicans are another story. These gadfly Republicans signing on to all this -- and in some cases, like Senator McCain, leading all this -- need to be sent a message. Look what's happened this week. The greatest election we've had in Iraq after three in a row that have been successful, a stupendous story, and in the midst of all of it Congress passes a Bill of Rights for al-Qaeda: the McCain anti-torture bill, a Bill of Rights for al-Qaeda. Now they're weakening Patriot Act protections, and now we come out with a story that's designed to totally eliminate our ability and destroy our ability to conduct war and national defense against this enemy. BREAK HOST: The Senate Democrats today attempted to filibuster an extension of the Patriot Act. It's sort of a complicated thing. There was an offer to extend the current Patriot Act by three months, since they couldn't come to an agreement on reauthorizing it. That was rejected. There was no filibuster. They didn't succeed with that. The vote was 52 to something to defeat the revision to the Patriot Act, but here's the bottom line. I mean, this is what you need to know. The bottom line is that as of December 31st, the Gorelick wall comes back up as strong as ever. If nothing is done -- and it doesn't look like it will be -- the Patriot Act is dead. The Gorelick wall will come right back up and we're back to where we were before 9/11, and Durbin and Schumer in citing the reason for their votes on the floor of the Senate cited this bogus New York Times story today as the reason why. So we have a multiple-purpose story. Destroy Bush, destroy our ability to wage war against this enemy, and destroy the Patriot Act -- and all of it comes under the umbrella of simply destroying this administration and anything it's done and anything it stands for, and this is what the Democrats think is going to launch them back to power. They have another think coming. All this is doing is making George W. Bush look all the more heroic. It is making it obvious to the people paying attention just who he's up against. He's got foreign enemies and he's got domestic enemies, and the domestic enemies have ties to the foreign enemies. They are invested in our defeat. I know this may sound a little bit harsh to some of you, but they have invested in our defeat. They've been out there for the last three weeks saying, "We can't win. Bring the troops home. It's hopeless. Bush has screwed it up." Don't try to tell me that they're not invested in defeat. So if they're invested in defeat, and so are the terrorists -- the foreign enemies we have -- then there is a congruence there. There is an alignment. I'm not saying that there is an association. I'm saying that there is an alignment on policy and position. The Democrats have chosen sides and it's not their president. The Democrats have chosen sides and it's not their country, and that's where we are today after this successful election yesterday. There's also something out there called the Barrett Report, folks. We've talked to you about the Barrett Report. Independent counsel that started with Henry Cisneros and it blossomed and it apparently contains bombshell after bombshell after bombshell about the Clinton administration's abuse of the IRS in going after political enemies and other things and we know that the release of the Barrett report's being covered up by Senate Democrats, led by Byron Dorgan and others -- and as I say, the information that has been gleaned in whatever ways possible includes details about the Clinton administration's abuse of the IRS. Now, I don't recall once seeing the New York Times express any interest in the Barrett report and I don't recall much of the rest of the media doing so either. Doesn't this involve civil liberties? If an administration is using the IRS to abuse citizens, isn't that the abuse of civil liberties? You're going to sit out there and you're going to be all worried your phone calls and your e-mails that are sent and received internationally are being inspected by the National Security Agency, or monitored and you're going to be all worried about that. "I can't have that!" But you don't care the IRS might be abusing you or an administration might be using it to target its political enemies? That's a civil rights issue as well, but seems like the people who profess to be so concerned about all this have little or no concern about it in truth. We know how the New York Times acts. Patriotic senators could not break the filibuster of the watered down version of the Patriot Act. It's going to lapse on December 31st at midnight, which means we have to hold accountable every senator who voted against allowing an up or down vote on the act, because the Jamie Gorelick wall is back now in full force. This New York Times story, I'm not through with this, because I really believe that Gonzales needs to expand Pat Fitzgerald's jurisdiction to include this leak and find out what has gone on. We have a completely politicized national security now. The Democrats, voting purely to embarrass Bush, are trying to derail everything that he's doing. Republicans -- some Republicans -- are helping out. We have Congress passing the Bill of Rights for al-Qaeda in McCain's torture bill, now weakening the Patriot Act and now putting out this bogus story that led, in part, to this disastrous Patriot Act vote today, but a bogus story! By the way, the James Risen book is due in three months. I just found out the Risen book is due to hit in three months. So this is all part of a synergy here. Of course, the news today is all McCain all the time. Not the election, not Bush's tremendous leadership, but McCain. McCain saving the day here; McCain saving the day there. Speaking of that, there's a story here in the Los Angeles Times: "McCain Held All The Cards so Bush Folded." This is about the torture bill. McCain held all the cards so Bush folded, and the theory behind this is: Well, McCain had the sense to attach this to the defense appropriations bill, and Bush couldn't afford to veto that because that would be de-funding the troops at the end of this year. The troops wouldn't have had any money, and the story says -- and this is a quote from Marshall Whitman, who is a former McCain aide, who is now "a senior fellow at the centrist Democrat Leadership Council." (Choking back laughter) There's nothing centrist about a Democrat today! I don't care who you're talking about. Maybe Lieberman now and then but the rest of them, forget that. But anyway, Marshall Whitman used to work for McCain, and is now at the Democrat Leadership Council and here's what he said: "When John McCain feels passionately about an issue, there are very few forces, if any, that can stop him, including the White House." Well, I'll tell you how he could have been stopped. The president could have stopped him by saying this: "Congress today did something I never thought it would do. It attached an amendment to the defense appropriations bill that weakens our ability to interrogate al-Qaeda terrorists and stop attacks on our homeland, and they told me to either sign this bill with this provision or our armed forces on the battlefield will go without funding. This is utterly irresponsible. I cannot, as president, allow this kind of recklessness, so I will veto this bill and ask Congress to come back and fund our military." Do it and let the chips fall. Put the pressure on these clowns in Congress to come back and fund the military. Don't fall for this kind of stuff. It's absolutely absurd. There was a way to stop this. It's called a veto. My buddy, Andy McCarthy, National Review Online today, wait 'til you hear this. "Politicizing defense appropriations? Why, that's disgusting. Why did Senator McCain have so much leverage as he imposed on the president his al-Qaeda Bill of Rights? Because he succeeded in attaching it to the defense appropriations bill, meaning a veto would have slashed provisions for our troops in wartime. "Well, Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska, who chairs the appropriations committee, obviously sees this as a pretty effective tactic. So Stevens is now attaching to the defense appropriations bill his own amendment to allow oil drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. What does McCain think of this? Well, from today's Washington Post: 'Senator McCain sharply criticized Stevens' effort as "disgusting," but how he would vote on such a bill, McCain said, "That's the dilemma. I'd have to look at the whole bill. I think it's disgraceful I have to be put in that position,"' unquote. It's disgraceful. Poor little John McCain has to be put in this position when that is precisely what he did to George W. Bush. He attached his own personal selfish little amendment, redefining torture to include practically any of you who have gone through a security line and waited for an airplane for over an hour at an airport anywhere in this country. Standing around, being sniffed by dogs. This is how McCain defines torture." Max Boot had a great piece on this in the LA Times this week and I'm going to get to that in mere moments to put this McCain torture bill, the al-Qaeda Bill of Rights, in perspective. So Ted Stevens sees what McCain did. "Hey, I want drilling in my state. I'm going to attach that to this bill. The president just showed me he isn't going to veto this." McCain says, "The position this has put me in, it's disgraceful! It's disgraceful to be put in this position. I -- I -- I don't know what I'm going to do!" It's Twilight Zone time. I mean, it's utterly Twilight Zone time. It's insane asylum time. We are commenting here on people that are nuts or so egomaniacal that they do not realize how absolutely confoundingly selfish and egotistical they sound. It's got to be one or the other. BREAK HOST: I erred. The Risen book was turned in three months ago. It's even better than this. The Risen book comes out in 10 days. This bogus, phony, fraudulent, plastic banana good-time rock n' roller, dope-smoking FM type of a story is a precursor for the guy's book that comes out in 10 days, ladies and gentlemen. Shortly after that, we will have the interview on 60 Minutes, and then all the synergy will be -- and then Congress will demand hearings. Congress has already cited this bogus story as a reason for voting against the Patriot Act today, and now Arlen Specter has called for a probe of spying by the National Security Agency. Well, you better go talk to your buddy Jay Rockefeller and you better go talk to the FISA judge, whoever the hell he is, and the court and find out everybody else who knew about this. The real thing you should do, Senator Specter, is find out who the hell is leaking all of this. Now, it's completely predictable, completely contemptible. Specter is swallowing it all up, reacting to the liberal media, doesn't get any facts, can't resist having his name in print. Press Secretary McClellan is being grilled on the New York Times story today. The entire election yesterday is already old news. Replaced with the media's priorities and it's time to be blunt. If we are hit again, we know now who to hold responsible, folks. The senators who voted against reauthorizing the Patriot Act. The senators who voted to dumb down the definition of torture. We know who you are and you are on record, and we are going to never let anybody forget who you are. This absolute joke of a torture bill, the al-Qaeda Bill of Rights, now this Patriot Act snafu today. Wait 'til you hear. There are 16 provisions, essentially, of the Patriot Act that expire December 31st because they were not renewed today, and when I have time in the next hour I'm going to go through these 16, or some of them. It's welcome back Jamie Gorelick's wall, essentially. So apparently we have reached a point in our country where the routine and continual violation of our national security secrets by the New York Times Corporation, is acceptable to Americans in the middle of a war. Is that what we're to assume here? Are we to assume here that Americans in the middle of a war are fully in compliance and accepting of the routine and continual violation of our national security secrets by the New York Times organization, corporate and occasionally the Washington Post? Is that where we are? I ask this because, my friends, every damned one of these leaks is intended to harm our ability to win. When is the last time you heard of a positive leak? When's the last time you read of or heard a leak that was positive about our effort, about our troops, about our ongoing effort to defeat this enemy? I ask you, is the New York Times really any different from Al-Jazeera at this point? Are they? It's not a propaganda outlet for the enemy, is it? It certainly seems like it is to me. New York Times may as well be called the DNC Times. It has become a propaganda outlet for the enemy. You know, we need to build another prison. I don't think we have enough prisons. I know the Reverend Jackson and all these people say we got too many prisons. We got too many people in them. We got too many CIA prisons. We need to shut these prisons down, shut down Abu Ghraib, shut down Club G'itmo. We need to build another prison and this one doesn't need to be secret, and you know who needs to go in it? Every damned one of the leakers who reveal real national security secrets. I don't care if they are members of Congress. I don't care if they are CIA officials. I don't care if they are officials of the justice department. I don't care if they are members of the administration who have an ax to grind for some stupid reason. We need a prison and we need to name it the serial leakers prison and detention center. We will put the serial leakers who are systematically undermining our war effort in this prison after they are duly convicted, after the ongoing investigation by the prosecutor's prosecutor, Pat Fitzgerald, who is investigating CIA leaks. It's time for another prison, and it's time to demand a federal investigation into all of these leaks now. This is the last straw. This is the bottom line, because this is bogus to begin with. This is a fraudulent story. It's deceitful. It is not published honestly. It's not described honestly. The author is not portrayed honestly. Why would it be? It's the New York Times. The precedent has been set to look into CIA leaks. We have it. It's out there. It's ongoing. The phony little Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson case, a couple of irrelevant schlubs when it comes to all of this stuff that really matters. The Plame leak, cocktail circuit entertainment for the media -- these leaks endanger the country and the New York Times cannot set national security policy for this country. They must not be allowed to do so, and they only are allowed to do so with the incessant disgruntled members of Congress, Justice, CIA, State Department, wherever the hell these people are. The New York Times is a willing receptacle for them. The New York Times is trying to set national security policy and it's time to find out who is leaking to them, and build that prison and put these people in it. END TRANSCRIPT Read the Background Material... (NY Times: Bush Secretly Lifted Some Limits on Spying in U.S. After 9/11, Officials Say) (DrudgeReport: NYT 'Spying' Splash Tied to Book Release) (Chicago Tribune: Bush said to have secretly lifted some spying limits after 9/11) (NB: Buzz-Kill: Well-Timed Spying Charges Let MSM Rain on Iraqi Election Parade) (American Spectator: Who Is Byron Dorgan?) (CNN: Robert Novak: Protecting the IRS) (NewsMax: Report Could Torpedo Hillary Clinton's Prez Plans) (Town Hall: Publish the Barrett report now) (American Thinker: Congressional Omerta Update) (NRO: Victor Davis Hanson: Lancing the Boil)

Damn!!! I almost took my longboard out today to take my daughter to the beach. There was supposed to be a small little swell out there that would have been perfect for her to learn in...........Now, we learn this...... EVERYONE IS DEAD! http://www.local10.com/news/5578717/detail.html

SURVEY SAYS? "X X" FDR imprisoned the Japs JFK secretly wiretapped Martin Luther King (via his brother Robert F. Kennedy). Clinton used it on several occasions, specifically against the white supremasists and others like Koresh, aka. Jesus Christ..LOL (in Waco). Bush has authorized it in a time of war for INTERNATIONAL phone calls related to this war on terror (which we did not start). So, at the end of the day, were all of these famous, powerful American leaders guilty? Were they protecting the citizens and the country they swore allegiance to or were they just plotting a Dr. Evil style take-over of the world? Which camp do you fall under? Protectors or Dr. Evil? Your rights are only worth something if you're ALIVE. They mean nothing to you if you're room temperature. I heard something on the radio today that made a lot of sense. Do you think the 3000 folks who died on 9/11 would have chosen life or their rights on that day? This is yet another pseudo-scandal.....Congress was not left in the dark about this. This isn't some Dr. Evil plot by Bush pulling the rug out from everyone..... C'MON NAW??? NIGGUH PLZ????? FO' REAL DO', LOOKY HEAR : Can you find me one person who's been made to suffer by this patriot act who was not guilty (in one way or the other)? Just one? Hence, PSEUDO-SCANDAL! Yes, I've heard all the liberals and critics squeal like stuck pigs, but that doesn't make what they claim so. And for the record, the PATRIOT ACT (unanimously passed by congress,,,,until now) CLEARLY gives the president the right to authorize what he did w/ those international calls. It's not about listening in on our phone sex or who we cap our $50.00 bags of krippy from, rather about CONNECTING THE DOTS!!!!! All I'm saying is........If the shit hits the fan and America is attacked again and the investigation later uncovers that it could have been prevented if not for this fillisbuster by the minority in D.C., then who else is to blame than those who fillibustered? Should they then be thrown in a jail left to rott? Bombaclath! Release da' chainz and use dem brainz! Respect!

wow! EXCELLENT! Sad that it takes "baby logic" to help cement the point for the critics. Actually, not even baby logic can bring perspective to such a morally bankrupt and intellectually dishonest group. Regardless, good post man!

From: Sanho Tree <stree@igc.org> 60 MINUTES Television Broadcast February 27, 2000 ECHELON; WORLDWIDE CONVERSATIONS BEING RECEIVED BY THE ECHELON SYSTEM MAY FALL INTO THE WRONG HANDS AND INNOCENT PEOPLE MAY BE TAGGED AS SPIES STEVE KROFT, co-host: If you made a phone call today or sent an e-mail to a friend, there's a good chance what you said or wrote was captured and screened by the country's largest intelligence agency. The top-secret Global Surveillance Network is called Echelon, and it's run by the National Security Agency and four English-speaking allies: Canada, Great Britain, Australia and New Zealand. The mission is to eavesdrop on enemies of the state: foreign countries, terrorist groups and drug cartels. But in the process, Echelon's computers capture virtually every electronic conversation around the world. How does it work, and what happens to all the information that's gathered? A lot of people have begun to ask that question, and some suspect that the information is being used for more than just catching bad guys. (Footage of satellite; person talking on cell phone; fax machine; ATM being used; telephone pole and wires; radio towers) KROFT: (Voiceover) We can't see them, but the air around us is filled with invisible electronic signals, everything from cell phone conversations to fax transmissions to ATM transfers. What most people don't realize is that virtually every signal radiated across the electromagnetic spectrum is being collected and analyzed. How much of the world is covered by them? Mr. MIKE FROST (Former Spy): The entire world, the whole planet--covers everything. Echelon covers everything that's radiated worldwide at any given instant. KROFT: Every square inch is covered. Mr. FROST: Every square inch is covered. (Footage of Frost; listening post) KROFT: (Voiceover) Mike Frost spent 20 years as a spy for the CSE, the Canadian equivalent of the National Security Agency, and he is the only high-ranking former intelligence agent to speak publicly about the Echelon program. Frost even showed us one of the installations where he says operators can listen in to just about anything. Mr. FROST: Everything from--from data transfers to cell phones to portable phones to baby monitors to ATMs... KROFT: Baby monitors? Mr. FROST: Oh, yeah. Baby monitors give you a lot of intelligence. (Footage of listening posts) KROFT: (Voiceover) This listening post outside Ottawa is just part of a network of spy stations, which are hidden in the hills of West Virginia, in remote parts of Washington state, even in plain view among the sheep pastures of Europe. This is Menwith Hill Station in the Yorkshire countryside of Northern England. Even though we're on British soil, Menwith Hill is an American base operated by the National Security Agency. It's believed to be the largest spy station in the world. (Footage of Menwith Hill Station; aerial footage of NSA headquarters; supercomputers) KROFT: (Voiceover) Inside each globe are huge dishes which intercept and download satellite communications from around the world. The information is then sent on to NSA headquarters at Fort Meade, Maryland, where acres of supercomputers scan millions of transmissions word by word, looking for key phrases and, some say, specific voices that may be of major significance. Mr. FROST: Everything is looked at. The entire take is looked at. And the computer sorts out what it is told to sort out, be it, say, by key words such as 'bomb' or 'terrorist' or 'blow up,' to telephone numbers or--or a person's name. And people are getting caught, and--and that's great. (Footage of National Security Agency; Carlos the Jackal; two Libyans in court) KROFT: (Voiceover) The National Security Agency won't talk about those successes or even confirm that a program called Echelon exists. But it's believed the international terrorist Carlos the Jackal was captured with the assistance of Echelon, and that it helped identify two Libyans the US believes blew up Pan-Am Flight 103. Is it possible for people like you and I, innocent civilians, to be targeted by Echelon? Mr. FROST: Not only possible, not only probable, but factual. While I was at CSE, a classic example: A lady had been to a school play the night before, and her son was in the school play and she thought he did a--a lousy job. Next morning, she was talking on the telephone to her friend, and she said to her friend something like this, 'Oh, Danny really bombed last night,' just like that. The computer spit that conversation out. The analyst that was looking at it was not too sure about what the conversation w--was referring to, so erring on the side of caution, he listed that lady and her phone number in the database as a possible terrorist. KROFT: This is not urban legend you're talking about. This actually happened? Mr. FROST: Factual. Absolutely fact. No legend here. (Vintage footage of Fonda; Spock; King; congressional hearing; the Capitol building) KROFT: (Voiceover) Back in the 1970s, the NSA was caught red-handed spying on anti-war protesters like Jane Fonda and Dr. Benjamin Spock, and it turns out they had been recording the conversations of civil rights leaders like Martin Luther King in the 1960s. When Congress found out, it drafted strict, new laws prohibiting the NSA from spying on Americans, but today, there's enough renewed concern about potential abuses that Congress is revisiting the issue. Representative BOB BARR (Republican, Georgia): (From C-SPAN) One such project known as Project Echelon engages in the interception of literally millions of communications involving United States citizens. (Footage of Barr; NSA sign; Goss and Kroft) KROFT: (Voiceover) But even members of Congress have trouble getting information about Echelon. Last year, the NSA refused to provide internal memoranda on the program to Porter Goss, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. What exactly was it that you requested? Representative PORTER GOSS (Chairman, House Intelligence Committee): Well, I can't get too specific about it, but there was some information about procedures in how the NSA people would employ some safeguards, and I wanted to see all the correspondence on that to make sure that those safeguards were being completely honored. At that point, one of the counsels of the NSA said, 'Well, we don't think we need to share this information with the Oversight Committee.' And we said, 'Well, we're sorry about that. We do have the oversight, and you will share the information with us,' and they did. (Footage of Goss and Kroft) KROFT: (Voiceover) But only after Goss threatened to cut the NSA's budget. He still believes, though, that the NSA does not eavesdrop on innocent American citizens. If the NSA has capabilities to screen enormous numbers of telephone calls, faxes, e-mails, whatnot, how do you filter out the American conversations, and how do you--how can you be sure that no one is listening to those conversations? Rep. GOSS: We do have methods for that, and I am relatively sure that those procedures are working very well. (Footage of Madsen; epic.org Web site; Amnesty International gathering; Greenpeace members in a boat; Princess Diana) KROFT: (Voiceover) Others aren't so sure. Wayne Madsen works with a group called the Electronic Privacy Information Center, which is suing the NSA to get a copy of the documents that were finally turned over to Congressman Goss. Madsen, a former naval officer who used to work for the NSA, is concerned about reports that Echelon has listened in on groups like Amnesty International and Greenpeace. Last year, the NSA was forced to acknowledge that it had more than 1,000 pages of information on the late Princess Diana. Mr. WAYNE MADSEN (Electronic Privacy Information Center): Princess Diana, in her campaign against land mines, of course, was completely at odds with US policy, so her activities were of tremendous interest to--to the US policy-makers, of course, and--and, therefore, to the National Security Agency eavesdroppers. KROFT: Do you think the--the NSA only monitored her conversations that involved land mines? Mr. MADSEN: Well, when NSA extends the big drift net out there, it's possible that they're picking up more than just her conversations concerning land mines. What they do with that intelligence, who knows? (Footage of newspaper headlines; Menwith Hill Station) KROFT: (Voiceover) In the early 1990s, some of Diana's personal conversations, as well as those of some others associated with the royal family, mysteriously appeared in the British tabloids. Could some of those conversations have been picked up by that US spy station in England? Mr. MADSEN: (Voiceover) There's been some speculation that Menwith Hill may have been involved in the intercepts of those communications as--as well. And how--how could that be legal? Well, British intelligence could say, 'Well, we didn't eavesdrop on members of the British royal family. These happened to be conducted by, you know, one of our strategic partners.' And, therefore, they would skirt the--skirt the British laws against intercepts of communications. (Footage of National Security Agency sign) KROFT: (Voiceover) The US admits it often shares intelligence with its allies, but never to get around the law. Mr. FROST: Never, Steve, will governments admit that they can circumvent legislation by asking another country to do for them what they can't do for themselves. They will never admit that. But that sort of thing is so easy to do. It is so commonplace. KROFT: Do you have any first-hand experience? Mr. FROST: I do have first-hand experience where CSE did some dirty work for Margaret Thatcher when she was prime minister. She... KROFT: What kind of dirty work? Mr. FROST: Well, at the time, she had two ministers that she said, quote, "They weren't on side," unquote, and she wanted to find out, not what these ministers were saying, but what they were thinking. So my boss, as a matter of fact, went to McDonald House in London and did intercept traffic from these two ministers. The British Parliament now have total deniability. They didn't do anything. They know nothing about it. Of course they didn't do anything; we did it for them. (Footage of Newsham and Kroft) KROFT: (Voiceover) One of the few people to acknowledge that they have listened to conversations over the Echelon system is Margaret Newsham, who worked at Menwith Hill in England back in 1979. She had a top secret security clearance. So who--you--you knew that conversations were being pulled off satellites. Ms. MARGARET NEWSHAM: Yes. But to my knowledge, all it was going to be would be like Russian, Chinese or, y--you know, foreign. (Footage of Newsham) KROFT: (Voiceover) But soon, she says, she discovered it wasn't only the Russians and the Chinese who were the targets. Ms. NEWSHAM: I walked into the office building and a friend said, 'Come over here and listen to--to this thing.' And--and he had headphones on, so I took the headphones and I listened to it, and--and I looked at him and I'm going, 'That's an American.' And he said, 'Well, yeah.' KROFT: And it was definitely an American voice? Ms. NEWSHAM: It was definitely an American voice, and it was a voice that was distinct. And I said, 'Well, who is that?' And he said it was Senator Strom Thurmond. And I go, 'What?' KROFT: Do you think this kind of stuff goes on? Mr. FROST: Oh, of course it goes on. Been going on for years. Of course it goes on. KROFT: You mean the National Security Agency spying on politicians in... Mr. FROST: Well, I--I... KROFT: ...in the United States? Mr. FROST: Sounds ludicrous, doesn't it? Sounds like the world of fiction. It's not; not the world of fiction. That's the way it works. I've been there. I was trained by you guys. Rep. GOSS: Certainly possible that something like that could happen. The question is: What happened next? KROFT: What do you mean? Rep. GOSS: It is certainly possible that somebody overheard me in a conversation. I have just been in Europe. I have been talking to people on a telephone and elsewhere. So it's very possible somebody could have heard me. But the question is: What do they do about it? I mean, I cannot stop the dust in the ether; it's there. But what I can make sure is that it's not abused--the capability's not abused, and that's what we do. KROFT: Much of what's known about the Echelon program comes not from enemies of the United States, but from its friends. Last year, the European Parliament, which meets here in Strasbourg, France, issued a report listing many of the Echelon's spy stations around the world and detailing their surveillance capabilities. The report says Echelon is not just being used to track spies and terrorists. It claims the United States is using it for corporate and industrial espionage as well, gathering sensitive information on European corporations, then turning it over to American competitors so they can gain an economic advantage. (Footage of report; plane; report; Raytheon sign; Ford and Kroft) KROFT: (Voiceover) The European Parliament report alleges that the NSA 'lifted all the faxes and phone calls' between the European aircraft manufacturer Airbus and Saudi Arabian Airlines, and that the information helped two American companies, Boeing and McDonnell Douglas, win a $ 6 billion contract. The report also alleges that the French company Thomson-CSF lost a $ 1.3 billion satellite deal to Raytheon the same way. Glen Ford is the member of the European Parliament who commissioned the report. Mr. GLEN FORD (European Parliament Member): It's not the--if you want, the Echelon system that's the problem. It's how it's being used. Now, you know, if we're catching the bad guys, we're completely in favor of that, whether it's you catching the bad guys, us or anybody else. We don't like the bad guys. What we're concerned about is that some of the good guys in my constituency don't have jobs because US corporations got an inside track on--on some global deal. (Footage of encryption machine; Clinton and several men walking; Ford) KROFT: (Voiceover) Increasingly, European governments and corporations are turning to something called encryption, a system of scrambling phone, fax or e-mail transmissions so that the Echelon system won't be able to read them. The US is worried about the technology falling into the hands of terrorists or other enemies. The Clinton administration has been trying to persuade the Europeans to give law enforcement and intelligence agencies a key with which they can unlock the code in matters of national security. Glen Ford, the European parliamentarian, agrees it's a good idea, in principle. Mr. FORD: However, if we are not assured that that is n--not going to be abused, then I'm afraid we may well take the view, 'Sorry, no.' In the United Kingdom, it's traditional for people to leave a key under the doormat if they want the neighbors to come in and--and do something in their house. Well, we're neighbors, and we're not going to leave the electronic key under the doormat if you're going to come in and steal the family silver. KROFT: Y--you said that you think that this is basically a good idea, that we have to do this at some... Mr. FROST: Oh, in a perfect world, we would not need the NSA, we would not need CSE. But, you know, we have to. We have to in the areas of terrorism, drug lords. We--we'd be lost without them. My concern is no accountability and nothing--no safety net in place for the innocent people that fall through the cracks. That's my concern. KROFT: Accountability isn't the only issue that's of interest to Congress. There is growing concern within the intelligence community that encryption and the worldwide move to fiber-optic cables, which Echelon may not be able to penetrate, will erode the NSA's ability to gather the intelligence vital to national security. The agency is looking for more money to develop new technologies. http://cryptome.org/echelon-60min.htm So, I take it this issue is very personal for you? Then, let's hold Clinton and Bush accountable? Both are guilty of authorizing these "invasions of privacy". Let's get 'em both!!! Are you down? LOL LOL Look, no law was broken. Repeating the lie doesn't make it so. Let's use perspective.....I know I might be asking too much, but for shits and giggles, let's do it! Either Bush (and Clinton ) were trying to protect us, or they were pulling a "Dr. Evil" scheme to take over the world.............You're implying the latter which is just, well......................it's silly dude!

Iraqi polls extend hours as turnout high 'It's the beginning of our new life' Thursday, December 15, 2005; Posted: 11:22 a.m. EST (16:22 GMT) Programming Note: CNN's Anderson Cooper will report live from Iraq this week on the country's historic election. His reports will air at 10 p.m. ET (0300 GMT). Iraqi women queue up at a polling station in the town of Az Zubayr, in southern Iraq, Thursday. Image: MyCashNow - $100 - $1,500 Overnight Payday Loan Cash goes in your account overnight. Very low fees. Fast decisions.... www.mycashnow.com Save on All Your Calls with Vonage When looking for local regional and long distance calling, use Vonage to make... www.vonage.com Mortgage Rates Hit Record Lows $160,000 loan as low as $633/month. Compare rates - refinance now. www.lowermybills.com More Useful Links • Online Shopping • Fresh Flowers • Notebook Computers WATCH Browse/Search Iraqi poll worker says it is "a special day" (5:31) Voters hope election helps lead to normalcy (5:36) Baghdad is a virtual ghost town on election eve (2:00) RELATED Gallery: Pre-vote tensions Gallery: Iraqi election overview • Cooper: 'Going to be a good day' • Raman: 'Life or death' vote • Bush on war and elections SPECIAL REPORT • Timeline: A new government • Flash: Government structure • Chart: Iraq's National Assembly • Interactive: Iraq's population • Coalition Casualties • Special ReportQUICKVOTE What is your biggest hope for Iraq's election day? Free of violence No vote rigging Widespread participation or View Results YOUR E-MAIL ALERTS Iraq Government or Create Your Own Manage Alerts | What Is This? BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Vote-counting at polling stations across Iraq is beginning Thursday night, after Iraqis turned out in droves to elect their first full-term parliament since the ouster of Saddam Hussein. Turnout was so heavy across the country that the Independent Electoral Commission of Iraq gave provincial governments the discretion to keep polls open an hour past its 5 p.m. closing time. It was not clear where polling stations exercised this leeway. Polling stations would close after the last person to arrive in line by 6 p.m. votes, IECI spokesman Farid Ayar said. Also streaming to the polls were Sunni Arabs, who had stayed away from the polls in previous elections only to find they barely had a voice in government. The high turnout was remarkable, considering curfews, bulked-up security, border closings, road closures and traffic bans across the country. In some cases, voters had to take long walks to get to polls. Many were seen happily thrusting their purple ink-stained fingers at photographers -- the colored fingers a symbol of Iraq's free elections. Scattered violence was also reported. Nonetheless, one volunteer poll worker in Baquba deemed it "a special day." "It's the beginning of our new life," said Buthana Mehdi, a schoolteacher. (Watch the interview with the poll worker -- 5:31) The White House, under pressure from critics at home for its Iraq strategy, said it was encouraged by the large turnout Thursday. "The Iraqi people are showing the world that all people of all backgrounds want to be able to choose their own leaders and live in freedom," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said. About two-thirds of the 15 million registered voters, or 10 million, were expected to vote. Final results from the 33,000 polling stations around the country probably won't be available for "two weeks or more," said Ayar, the election official. Expected to fare well are the ruling coalitions during the transitional period -- the Shiite-led United Iraqi Alliance and the Kurdish bloc. U.S. and Iraqi officials are hopeful that greater Sunni participation in a post-Hussein government will quell the Sunni-dominated insurgency. U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad said that Sunni Arab participation appears better than during the January election and the constitutional referendum in October. He pointed to Falluja, a hotbed of the insurgency in the Sunni Arab heartland of Anbar province as an example. As of early afternoon there, he said, "Over 120,000 people had voted. So indications are very good with regard to the Sunnis." The Washington Post's Jonathan Finer corroborated a large turnout in Falluja, saying many of the polling places there ran out of ballots and ballot boxes, and election workers were trying to replenish supplies. A strong turnout was also reported in the Sunni Arab-dominated Salaheddin province, where Hussein's hometown of Tikrit is located, CNN's Christiane Amanpour said. (Watch report on high Sunni turnout -- 2:43) She also reported a high Sunni turnout in southern Baghdad, with people saying they made a mistake by shunning the January election and want their voices to be heard. In Ramadi, CNN's Nic Robertson reported that local clerics used mosque sound systems, usually reserved for calls to prayer, to urge people to vote. Local Sunni militias were also providing security at the 23 area polling stations, because the police force remains inadequate. A celebratory atmosphere took hold in some locations. In the eastern Ramadi neighborhood of Sufiya, candy was being handed out, as people came to vote. Khalilzad said that people arrived to polls with families "almost like going to a wedding." He noted that the success in integrating the Sunni Arab community into the political process was a factor that would contribute to the start of a pullout of U.S. forces after the elections. Tight security, minor violence The U.S. military said that voters faced a three-stage inspection system before entering polling sites. "No one with bags, cell phones or packages will be allowed to enter as citizens cast their historic vote," the U.S. military said. The U.S. military said two 127 mm rockets were fired in central Baghdad Thursday morning, one of them landing behind a polling station. Three people were wounded. At four different Sadr City polling stations, three armed terrorists were blamed for harassing voters, election officials said. To the northeast, just south of Baquba, 12 roadside bombs were discovered, two of them detonating. One killed a civilian. North of the city, the controlled detonation of a roadside bomb wounded two civilians. The military reported that a Baquba polling station that was attacked overnight remained open. A bomb killed a Marine in Ramadi on election eve, the Marines said. The Marine was assigned to the 2nd Marine Logistics Group, II Marine Expeditionary Force (Forward). The death brings the number of U.S. soldiers killed in the Iraq war to 2,152. On the lookout Ahead of the ballot, electoral officials said they were on the lookout for big and small election violations, such as illegal campaign practices, the distribution of fake ballots and voter intimidation. Some political entities have violated campaign regulations, like campaigning after the Tuesday deadline and erecting posters too close to polling sites, said Abdul Hussein al-Hindawi of the Independent Electoral Commission of Iraq. However, he expressed confidence that virtually all of the election workers will be fair. He said many election observers were on hand. Safwat Rashid Sidai, a member of the Independent Electoral Commission of Iraq, said at a news conference he would investigate reports that a number of voting stations failed to open in Yusufiya, southwest of Baghdad. 'An historic day' The parliament is called the Council of Representatives. More than 19 political coalitions are running, along with 307 political entities -- either independent parties or individual candidates for the 275 seats. (Find out how system works) On election eve Wednesday, Iraqi transitional President Jalal Talabani called on his nation to make election day "a national celebration and an historic day for national unity and a victory over terrorism." (A gallery of the Iraqi elections) CNN's Kevin Flower, Aneesh Raman, Arwa Damon, Joe Sterling and Mohammed Tawfeeq contributed to this report.

Heavy Turnout Reported in Iraqi Election Email this Story Dec 15, 10:33 AM (ET) By BASSEM MROUE (AP) Members of the Iraqi Electoral Commission assist a woman at a polling station in the Iraqi town of... Full Image Google sponsored links Iraq Withdrawal - Should Bush Give A Timeline? Vote Now To See Survey Results! www.popularq.com Current Events - Get Breaking News, Top Stories, & Headlines on Your Desktop Free! www.StarWare.com BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - Iraqis voted in a historic parliamentary election Thursday, with strong turnout reported in Sunni Arab areas and even a shortage of ballots in some precincts. Several explosions rocked Baghdad throughout the day, but the level of violence was low. The heavy participation by the Sunnis, who had shunned balloting last January, bolstered U.S. hopes of calming the insurgency enough to begin withdrawing its troops next year. Because of the large turnout, the Iraqi election commission extended voting for one hour, until 6 p.m. (10 a.m. EST) as long lines were reported in some precincts, said commission official Munthur Abdelamir. The commission said results will be announced within two weeks. Policemen guarding a polling place in eastern Baghdad's Zayouna neighborhood fired shots in the air to celebrate the end of voting there. (AP) A U.S. Army soldier searches a man for weapons while the man holds his hands in the air, including... Full Image When the polls opened, a mortar shell exploded near the heavily fortified Green Zone, slightly injured two civilians and a U.S. Marine, the U.S. military said. A civilian was killed when a mortar shell hit near a polling station in the northern city of Tal Afar, and a grenade killed a school guard near a voting site in Mosul. A bomb also exploded in Ramadi, a mortar round struck about 200 yards from a polling place in Saddam Hussein's hometown of Tikrit, and a bomb was defused at a voting site in Fallujah, despite promises by major insurgent groups not to attack such places. But violence was light overall and did not appear to discourage Iraqis, some of whom turned out wrapped in their country's flag on a bright, sunny day, and afterward displayed a purple ink-stained index finger - a mark to guard against multiple voting. One jubilant Shiite voter in Baghdad proudly displayed all 10 of his fingers with the purple ink. "The number of people participating is very, very high and we have had very few irregularities," U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad told The Associated Press. "It is a good day so far, good for us, good for Iraq." The Bush administration hopes the new parliament will include more Sunnis to help establish a government that can lure other Sunnis away from the insurgency. Such a development might make it possible for the United States and its partners to start to draw down their troops in 2006. (AP) An Iraqi woman waits to vote at a polling station in the Iraqi town of Fallujah Thursday Dec. 15,... Full Image "The Iraqi people are showing the world that all people - of all backgrounds - want to be able to choose their own leaders and live in freedom," said White House spokesman Scott McClellan. With a nationwide vehicle ban in effect, most Iraqis walked to the polls. Streets were generally empty of cars, except for police, ambulances and a few others with special permits. An alliance of Shiite religious parties, which dominate the government, was expected to win the most seats, but not enough to form a new administration without a coalition with rival groups. That could set the stage for long and possibly bitter negotiations - something the U.S. wants to avoid. The mood among voters varied with the community. Sunnis, both in Baghdad and in provincial towns, were defiant, as if to assert their rights against the Shiites and the Americans. Shiites and Kurds seemed more hopeful that the new government would be more successful than the outgoing one in restoring security and providing basic services. Shiites also appeared confident of retaining their leadership role. Up to 15 million Iraqis were electing 275 members of the first full-term parliament from among 7,655 candidates running on 996 tickets, representing Shiite, Sunni, Kurdish, Turkomen and sectarian interests across a wide political spectrum. Iraqis do not vote for individual candidates, but instead for lists - or tickets - that compete for the seats in each of the 18 provinces. (AP) An Iraqi woman waits to vote at a polling station in the Iraqi town of Fallujah Thursday Dec. 15,... Full Image Sunnis appeared to have turned out in large numbers - even in insurgent bastions like Ramadi and Haqlaniyah - to try to curb the power of Shiite clerical parties now in control. "I came here and voted in order to prove that Sunnis are not a minority in this country," said lawyer Yahya Abdul-Jalil in Ramadi. "We lost a lot during the last elections, but this time we will take our normal and key role in leading this country." Fallujah teacher Khalid Fawaz said he also took part "so that the Sunnis are no longer marginalized." Many others who turned out in Fallujah, which was overrun by U.S. forces in November 2004, saw the election as a way to get rid of the Americans and the Shiite-dominated government. "It's an extremist government. We would like an end to the occupation," said Ahmed Majid, 31. "Really the only true solution is through politics. But there is the occupation and the only way that will end is with weapons." (AP) An Iraqi woman feeds her baby at a polling station in the Iraqi town of Fallujah Thursday Dec. 15,... Full Image The big turnout in Fallujah also caused problems, with voters, election officials and the mayor complaining of a shortage of ballot boxes and ballots. Mayor Dhari Youssef al-Arsan, who put turnout at about 45 percent, said 11 out of 35 polling stations did not get ballot boxes and some ran out of ballots early. "Three sites stopped because they ran out of ballots," he said. "We had an administrative problem opening polling sites in some of the centers." He said some of the voters told him that "they thought it was done purposely." Shiite parties had urged a large turnout, too. Iraq's leading Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, told Shiites to support candidates who defend their principles - a veiled warning against turning toward secular political movements. "They are clerics, and clerics do not steal our money," said Abbasiya Ahmad, 80, of Baghdad, as she voted for the Shiite religious bloc, the United Iraqi Alliance. "We want people who protect our money." In January, insurgent threats and boycott calls kept many Sunnis at home despite a national turnout of nearly 60 percent. That enabled Shiites and Kurds to dominate the legislature, sharpening communal tensions and fueling the insurgency. This time, more Sunnis Arabs were in the race, and changes in the election law all but guaranteed strong Sunni representation. Security was tight. Tens of thousands of Iraqi soldiers and police guarded polling stations, with U.S. and other coalition forces standing by. U.S. troops and bomb-detecting dogs checked thousands of polling stations before handing over control to Iraqi police. "Sometimes it feels like we're beating a dead horse, but maybe this here today will be the culmination of it all," said Staff Sgt. Jason Scapanski, 33, of St. Cloud, Minn., assigned to the 101st Airborne in Salahuddin province north of Baghdad. In the northern cities of Mosul and Kirkuk, turnout also was brisk, especially in Kurdish districts. "This is the day to get our revenge from Saddam," said Kurdish voter Chiman Saleh, a Kirkuk housewife who said two of her brothers were killed by the ousted regime. Ethnic tensions in Kirkuk, claimed by Arabs, Kurds and Turkomen, could be seen. Norjan Adel, a poll watcher for the Turokman Front, complained of irregularities by the Kurds, including multiple voting. The mood was lighter in Mosul, where streets were like a giant playground, with thousands of children playing games and turning major roads into soccer fields. Families strolled together after voting, enjoying the day off. In Baghdad's predominantly Sunni Arab Azamiyah district, the head of one polling station said that by midday, about a third of the 3,500 registered voters had turned out. In January, many polling stations in Azamiyah didn't even open. At Azamiyah's al-Nuaman school, voters had little enthusiasm for the Shiite coalition that has governed since April 28. "We want to choose Sunni candidates. We want them to be in power because they are capable of providing security and they do not kill or beat us," said Khali Ibrahim, 70, as he hobbled up the stairs leaning on a cane. Such comments reflect the sectarian tensions that threaten Iraq's future and the Bush administration strategy. Sunnis have repeatedly complained of abuse at the hands of Shiite-dominated security forces. President Jalal Talabani, a Kurd, highlighted a key looming fight - possible amendments to the constitution - as he voted in the northern city of Sulaimaniyah. "I hope that the Iraqi people will stay united. We hope that the people will vote to keep the constitution that was approved by the Iraqi people," he said. Election of the new parliament, which will serve a four-year term, marks the final step in the U.S. blueprint for democracy. That included the transfer of sovereignty last year, selection of an interim parliament Jan. 30, and ratification of the constitution in October. The new parliament will name a government, including a new prime minister. For the Bush administration, the stakes are nearly as high as for the Iraqis. A successful election would represent a much-needed political victory amid growing doubts about the war among the American public. U.S. officials said a successful election alone will not end the insurgency. Also needed is a government capable of reconciling Iraq's disparate groups. Meanwhile, the U.S. military said a U.S. Marine was killed Wednesday by a roadside bomb near Ramadi, raising to 2,151 the number of members of the military who have died since the beginning of the war in 2003, according to an AP count. --- Associated Press reporters Sameer N. Yacoub, Antonio Castaneda in Diyala province, Marian Fam, Hamza Hendawi and Sinan Salaheddin in Baghdad, Chris Tomlinson in Mosul, and Elena Becatoros in Fallujah contributed to this report.

JOKE FOR DESTRUCTION FROM ME, THE SO-CALLED NAZI...lol HERE GOES NOTHING: What's the only bad thing about oil? It ain't white! LOL

Canada = America-lite

Did you say "WE'RE" ? No wonder you guys...this explains it.... .......HE'S A FRIGG'N FROG!!!!

BOO!

koo-koo-4-coco-puffs?

consider it done... oh shit....I'm late for my vast right wing conspiracy meeting! lol

I hear ya'! I felt the same. Don't hold your breath on destruction.

Only watch American news? Wow, right out of the gate you're gonna come blasting not having the slightest clue who your picking a fight with? STRIKE 1 Before I give you more rope.... You might wanna look at some previous posts from some of us to get a better clue of who exactly you're fitna' start some static with. Maybe some of us have lived there, fought there, lost friends and loved ones there, still have friends and family there, etc...........(consider that last line a freebie...on the house)

Did this guy just say we were "failing" in Iraq? Hold on................

Good post! The last paragraph really stuck out for me. It's as if the critics want to try and position themselves to claim credit for returning troops by their 24/7 bitching. In reality, their return will be dictated by their success, not some opportunistic, pre-calculating politrixta'. What's next, are the critics going to start demanding & predicting more water for dry crops at the beginning of the rainy season? Wow! Brilliant....NOT!!!

What a hate monger...NOT! Loved it! Good read!

Well put Igloo, and that was my point. Not that Repz are all right and Demz are all wrong...NOT AT ALL WHAT I MEANT. Simply put, like you said "TODAY". The critics who privatly disagree w/ their Dem leaders seem to find comfort in implying "Repz are no better and "IF" the script were flipped, they would be doing the same as the Demz currently are doing. Personally, I find that too "convinient" for the critics. From what I've seen as of late, Repz in D.C. DEFINITLEY demand higher standers of themselves than do Demz. Just look @ the self-imposed Rep. rule in the house that the Demz exploited to force Delay to step down. Demz DON'T DARE do that to themselves. I think it's because of arrogance, but that's just me. Bottom line, Demz in DC are definitely doing a diservice to our country. I too agree w/ Igloo about today's Demz claiming all sorts of postitive stuff if this were a Dem. in office rather than a Rep. What's despicable is the timing. The denial that 9/11 changed EVERYTHING! The lack of class and repugnant, unproven rhetoric they spew during this time of war. I think we'd be so much further along in the war had the Demz acted like Americans first and Demz 2nd. They have not and the end result is a country divided. Then as they always do, they blame our prez. for the division when it's they who've gone to extreme measures to bring down a president they despise for their own selfish political gain. Shame on them! If not for talk radio, FoxNews and the internet, these scumbag Democrats would be getting away w/ all of their bullshit, as they always have in the past. Liberal arguments never hold any water. They can NEVER stay on topic. They bring up one argument, it get's nuked on the spot and they morph the argument into a completely different topic. Hence, chronic complainers w/out a plan or vision to better the country. It always takes a Fox News or talk radio host to CHALLENGE Democratic politrixta's when they go off on their tangents. Republican plitrtixta's are ALWAYS challenged, ON THE SPOT, be it CNN, ABC,CBS,NBC, etc.....They NEVER follow that template for their own. Their arrogance and elitism blinds them from even acknowledging their behavior. Just turn on the tv to anything other than FoxNews and tell me if Bush or conservatives have EVER done ANYTHING right? Not one person or group gets EVERYTHING wrong. That is, unless you're a kool-aid drinking liberal analyzing the conservative agenda. I think you get my point. Which is why I say it's a mistake to lump both parties into the same boat. Maybe in the future, but RIGHT NOW, NO WAY! Demz CLEARLY have Repz beat as far as being SCUMBAGS is concerned!

I think the mistake of equating the 2 is just that, A MISTAKE! Only one side has been shrill, and it ain't Repz! I highly doubt that if the script were flipped, Demz would never offer the same "advise & consent" posts which Bush has offered. If today's demz had the power of majority which repz currently have, they would be unapologetically shoving their agenda down Repz throats. No congressional debates. No commission seats, etc.....

TRUE! VERY TRUE! Don't expect them to take the advice.

Racial Violence Shocks Australian City By MIKE CORDER Associated Press Writer Dec 11 10:43 PM US/Eastern SYDNEY, Australia - Thousands of drunken white youths attacked police and people they believed were Arab immigrants at a Sydney beach on Sunday, angered by reports that youths of Lebanese descent had assaulted two lifeguards. Young men of Arab descent retaliated in several Sydney suburbs, fighting with police and smashing 40 cars with sticks and bats, police said. ADVERTISEMENT Thirty-one people were injured and 28 were arrested in hours of violence. Police said they were seeking an Arab man who allegedly stabbed a white man in the back. The city was calm Monday, and police formed a strike force to track down the instigators. Some 5,000 white youths, wrapped in Australian flags and chanting racist slurs, fought with police, attacked people of Arab appearance and assaulted a pair of paramedics at Cronulla beach in southern Sydney, police said. Police fought back with batons and pepper spray. Prime Minister John Howard condemned the violence, but said he did not believe racism was widespread in Australia. "Attacking people on the basis of their race, their appearance, their ethnicity, is totally unacceptable and should be repudiated by all Australians irrespective of their own background and their politics," Howard said. He added, "I'm not going to put a general tag (of) racism on the Australian community." The rioters were reacting to reports that youths of Lebanese descent were responsible for an attack last weekend on two of the beach's lifeguards. Police had increased the number of officers patrolling the beach after mobile phone text messages circulated calling for retaliation for the attack on the guards. One white teenager among the rioters had the words "We grew here, you flew here" painted on his back. On the sand, someone had written "100 percent Aussie pride." Two paramedics in an ambulance were injured as they tried to help youths trying to escape rioters, when members of the mob smashed the vehicle's windows and kicked its doors. TV broadcasts showed a group of young women attacking another woman, whose ethnicity was not immediately clear. The violence shocked this city of 4 million which prides itself on being a cultural melting pot. "Our disgrace," said a front page headline in Sydney's Daily Telegraph. Below was a picture of white youths attacking a man of Arab appearance on a train. "Let's be very clear, the police will be unrelenting in their fight against these thugs and hooligans," said Morris Iemma, the leader of New South Wales state. He said the riots "showed the ugly side of racism in this country." Kevin Schreiber, the mayor of the district where Cronulla is located, said he was devastated by the rampage, but that he believed the rioters came "from far and wide to participate." Cronulla, one of the few beaches in Sydney that is easily accessible by train, is often visited by youngsters from poorer suburbs, many of them of Arab descent. Residents accuse the youths of traveling in gangs and sometimes intimidating other beachgoers. Bruce Baird, a government lawmaker, said anti-Muslim sentiment has risen in Australia since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and the 2002 bombings in Bali, Indonesia, that killed 88 Australians. He noted that six women from Cronulla were killed in the Bali bombings. "Where this riot took place is actually the site of where we've got the Bali memorial for these women," Baird told Australian Broadcasting Corp. radio. Kuranda Seyit, director of the Forum of Australia's Islamic Relations, described Australia as a "pluralist society, with many faiths and traditions all raveled into one." He added: "This is the unique success of this nation, and we cannot let it fall into chaos and lawlessness." Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/12/11/D8EEF3JO0.html