Tim Russert Accuses Senator Dodd Of Using FISA Hold For Political Purposes
By Logan Murphy Saturday Oct 27, 2007 11:03am
Download | play 
Download | play
Democratic presidential candidate Chris Dodd has been front and center in the fight to protect civil liberties by putting a hold on the latest FISA legislation which gives immunity to telecom companies for illegally turning over customer data to our government. This morning on Meet The Press Tim Russert, armed with all the Bush talking points, ambushed Dodd and directly accused him of using the FISA issue for purely political purposes.
Dodd held his own, but when read a quote from Sen. Jay Rockefeller disagreeing with his views on FISA, he failed to mention the massive donations Rockefeller has accepted from the telecom industry which just might have something to do with his desire to give them immunity.
Login or Register to post comments.
And I accuse the founding fathers of blatant use of the Constitutional for political purposes! Back in your court Tim.
Yes, of course. Dodd, in actually trying to enforce the rule of law and uphold the Constitution, is playing politics.
It's the "Tim the Tool" show. I am so tired of these idiots ruining my country.
Rendition for all Bush Tools!
Talk talk talk
Duh. Of course it's political. It's anti-fascist, pro-constitution. Can't have the mainstream media approving that sort of thing, can we?
And Tim asked Dodd about meetings he had with hedge fund managers . . . they were legit questions but some folks get love fests and other folks get real questions.
And accusing Dodd of meeting with lobbyists in Washington is like handing out speeding tickets at the Indy 500.
Tim is a major league tool. I think he has a crush on Tom Friedman which is cool . . . just wish they would be honest about their attraction.
But of course those seeking retroactive immunity for Telecoms couldn't possibly be doing that for "political purposes."
Russert is yet another national disgrace among the dancing clowns who call themselves "pundits."
Just because you have a serious hair cut and a serious suit and a serious expression on your face doesn't mean you're not a clown, Russert.
Dodd shoulda' said:"Tim, Don't BUFFALO me on this BILL, because I know you're more interested in the HEISMAN than FISA."
Dodd is completely overrated, as indicated by his poll rating of 0%.
The question is, who are the 0% fools who support him?
rockefeller is of the rockefellers, and i imagine it would be hard to buy him off with 50 grand.
Even Russert has his limits on objectivity.
roooth @ 2:
I thought you were talking about "Home Improvement" for a minute there.
But that was "Tool Time" with "Tim the-tool-man Taylor," right?
This is just "Timmeh-the-Tool" on "Deadeye Dick's Sit-n-Spin Show"
"my only regret is that I have but nine lives to give for my country!"
Oh wait...that's my cat.
"temeh the tool"... know thy enemy... take a look in the mirror you ass hat.
Is ass hat one word?
Accepting millions from corporations to legislate in their favor is acceptable, but accepting 100,000 from people to protect their rights is politics? oh boo hoo my pet corporation is crying because it can't rape even more profit while these sheep cry over being sheered and left in the snow. What's next, an executive order that the Constitution be deemed a recruiting tool of terrorists? "with the internets and peace rallies these domestic teris's are thinking of ways to hurt the bottom line and we'll be ever vigilanties in our war to put these evil doers to rest."
Russert is a potato (head).
This show should be called "Red State Press". Tim Russert is hip deep in trying to keep the right wing lie machine in business. Wrong host for a show that has missed too many "Meetings".
And that old gray wind is blowing and theres nothing left worth knowing
mike @ 9:
Of course the 50 grand means very little to him. But how many of his plutocrat friends hold large chunk of telecom stocks? What does HE own? Never think he represents you and me. He represents actual Americans... the ones who have as much money as him.
Isn't it amazing that Russert actually takes himself seriously, considers himself important?
What the hell has he ever accomplished? Aside from learning to babble while frowning?
I just wasted a lot of breath on another site over this, not realizing that you picked up on it. What a joke for Russert to attack Dodd for 100 thou in contributions (which are from small donations I would imagine) while Clinton has received millions from corporations and special interests which may be a conflict of interest. Russert really put the screws to Dodd. Did he do that to Clinton too, or did he just throw her softballs? I may be an oddball, but constitutional concerns are a priority on the list of issues I am concerned about, and Dodd is the only candidate to date who has addressed them.
Instead of wasting our time ridiculing fools, like coulter and billO, we should spend our effot and attention on stopping the manipulation that is the mainstream press.
Russert, Blitzer, and Mathews in particular, but also the fundamental organization of news at the NY Times, Wash Post, etc. are deliberately and effectively suppressing any perspective other than a just short of extreme right wing view.
I wonder when we get to ask them 'so how's that brave new world you promised us shaking up?'
So what were being fed by the right-wing noise machine is that unless you are running on a "business as usual" ticket - anything you say is politically motivated and has no substance...however no matter what crime the republicans in power commit or who they try to slime it's never politically motivied and has substance? and there are people that eat this shit and ask "please sir, may I have somemore?"
Oh for god's sake. What a ridiculous conversation. What complete jibberish. The quote from Rockefeller was ridiculous. Russert's was ridiculous. Hell, Dodd sounded ridiculous just responding to it.
More and more I seem to have what I call "crazy talk" conversations with ordinary people. All of the basic assumptions and functions of government and society now can't be agreed upon anymore. Laws don't apply to the President, government has no function whatsoever, all taxes are crazy and unneeded, torture is OK if we call it something else.
Seriously, do we really need to argue that when someone asks you to do something clearly illegal you bear the responsibility if you do it?
Apparently we do in America the Stupid. Thanks Timmy!
Yes, finally a Senator holds a bill.
It only takes one Senator.
Where was he on the other unconstitutional bills?
russert
is being used
for political purposes
heh...
getalife @ 24:
They weren't unconstitutional enough for Dudd to make a stand yet!
Dodd ... failed to mention the massive donations Rockefeller has accepted from the telecom industry which just might have something to do with his desire to give them immunity.
He was smart not to mention the donations to Rockefeller. That's what Timmy was expecting, which is why his next question was about Dodd accepting donations from hedge funds. Dodd was able to fend off that criticism without appearing hypocritical.
Hey, Tim, you fucking asshole, are you familiar with ad hominem fallacies? Attacking someone's motives for taking a stand or making an argument is an ad hominem fallacy! It has nothing to do with whether that argument has merit.
Political purposes? Every fucking politician has political motives behind their actions. It doesn't mean they aren't doing the right thing. Tim Russert should be fired, tarred and feathered.
Dahgrostab'ph-r-i @ 26:
Dodd's been front and center, actually. Where have you guys been?
Preacher Boob @ 8:
Are you being serious or ironic?
Showing somebody actually thinking does not look good on TV.
RUSSERT IS A TOOL... EMAIL CALL him and tell him so... I"m sick of his phony neutrality
he's a good forum for CHENEY if you recall
Notice that Russert framed the question that the Administration went to these companies after 9/11. In truth it was at least six months prior. What a tool Tim has been for the GOP. When did Meet The Press become a one man presser (kiss ass) instead of a panel? Probably after Reagan eliminated the Fairness Doctrine. I wonder if Russert's still wearing his Bush/Cheney button under his lapel.
It seems to me that the immunity can be considered separately from the FISA legislation. Things that should be disclosed is the economic benefits already received by the telecoms for cooperating with the Bush regime.
In particular, was the re-monopolization of the telecoms a quid pro quo for participating in the wiretapping? It will require investigation and hearings, as the Bush regime can hardly be relied upon to tell the truth.
Today on MTP host Tim Russert caught his Republican guests in a number lies after asking the same questions that the Clinton campaign had been voicing lately...
Oh that's right, that would never happen.
That would NEVER happen.
Karen @ 29:
'Are you being serious or ironic?' Yes.
So by definition Russert is now PRO-DICTATORSHIP?
Should have known it all along....Another Cheeeenny dweeb.
I really do not like Tim Russert, who is just a hack in my book.
Ask yourself which is worse: illegally turning over hundreds of thousands of private communications for political gain to an administration which consists mostly of traitors to the United States, or doing the right thing...which just happens to benefit Senator Dodd's campaign?
Russert: just part of the corporate media, which we know now exists solely to gain favor with republican war profiteers and traitors.
Russert: What's your excuse for being part of the problem?
Russert: After September 11th, the government went to many of the private telecom companies in our country, and asked them for information, data. The government said they were legally justified to it. They wanted to see if there was a nexus between some international terrorists and some phone calls made back here to the United States. You have been very outspoken about giving those companies immunity from prosecution, even though they were doing what the government asked them to do.
1. Replace "telecom companies" with "doctors" and "some phone calls" with "your medical records." Still think those companies should just offer up private information?
2. The government asked them to? Shades of the Nuremberg defense? We were only following orders?
when are we going to stop calling PAC contributions and call them what they are...
bribes
Yeah. A hold for political purposes. Deal with it.
Did Timmy ever say this to a Rethuglican?
Preacher Boob @ 35:
'Are you being serious or ironic?' Yes.
You're being both?
Paul is running on the Freedom Act and Dodd is running on restoring the Constitution.
We have come full circle back to king george in this experiment they calll democracy.
Preacher Boob @ 35:
You're being both?
Rockefeller: [We] recognize that private companies who received legal assurances from the highest levels of government should not be dragged through the courts for their help with national security. The onus is on the Administration, not the companies, to ensure that the request is on strong legal footing, and if it is not, is is the Administration that should be held accountable.
Translation: The government should simply be trusted, not questioned.
You know, if indeed, governmental deception or duress played a part in the companies' compliance, that should be PART OF THEIR DEFENSE at their trial. It does not mean they should be granted immunity so that no trial takes place.
Why do people even watch this crap anymore. Hell, everybody knows exactly how it is going to go. Dodd should have mentioned that "front runner" Hillary Clinton has recieved more money from the telecoms than anyone else, and that may be the reason that she hasn't said one word about retroactive immunity. Apparently, criminals get a free pass from Hillary as long as they fill her pockets.
There are some dissues about the Immunity deal I have not had the good fortune to discuss. Until now.
1. Why Didn't Congress, When It Passed the Patriot Act, Include Immunity Going Forward?
Viet Dinh was the author of the Patriot Act. He is with Bancroft Associates. His company has been linked with wiki updates to his wiki profile. Viet Dinh, as author of the Patriot Act, should have known what the FISA permissions would entail. Congress overwhelming approved the Patriot Act change. Why didn't Viet Dinh include in the Patriot Act a provision for Immunity which Congress would then rubber stamp immediately after Sept 2001? It appears the real "immunity" would hope to be applied not to events going forward from Sept 2001, but all events -- even those before Sept 2001 -- that have not been disclosed?
2. New Disclosed Evidence: What Did Telecoms Realize Had Been Disclosed And Was Not Protected; and what other illegal activity connected with the original FISA violations has yet to be disclosed??
Once the FISA Immunity is discussed openly, this casts aside any credible claim that the program is a "state secret". Rather, let's consider the lines of evidence which are likely to be known to have been created, and have been disclosed. Putting aside whether tere is or is not immunity, what is the range of the "now disclosed evidence" which the Administration appears incapable of suppressing, hiding, or explaining away? What specific evidence do the telecoms know exist -- outside their control -- that they have not been able to suppress; and what is the plan to review how this evidence -- of FISA violations related to data capture -- does or does not relate to the next step: Use of that illegally captured information for subsequent crimes, war crimes, prisoner abuse, and other to-be-understood illegal activity. It makes no sense to "grant immunity" for the original violation, when we have yet to understand the subsequent uses of that illegally captured information for other not-yet-known illegal activity.
3. Presidential Liability For FISA Violations: How will Congressional immunity for telecoms relate to the President's alleged illegal FISA violations?
Once the issue of immunity is discussed, we have to consider Viet Dinh's Patriot Act, the President's direction to "approve" the program outside the FISA Court. Immunity isn't about the narrow issue of telecom immunity, but the larger issue: The President's link with that illegal activity, his unlawful orders, and his direction to violate FISA. Does the Congress -- in granting immunity to the telecoms -- plan to apply this "immunity" to individuals like the President? That is irrelevant: The States have the power to enforce state privacy statutes; even if Congress decides not to impeach or enforce FISA, Congressional immunity -- as it would relate to the President's criminal liability -- is not fully resolved: The States still have the power to enforce the law against the President.
A. Is Congress, in granting immunity to the telecoms, also broadly saying the President is also immunized from FISA violations? One3 cannot be "immunized" -- at the Federal level -- unless there were violations.
B. How does the State-level litigation plan to incorporate the evidence related to "known discussions about immunity after FISA violations occurred in the State-level privacy issues being litigated against the telecoms, NSA, President, and US Government.
Preacher Boob @ 19:
Nada...Zip...Bupkis...Not one fuking thing has PumpkinHaid ever accomplished.
Karen
I have a feeling that is exactly why Bush is pushing so hard for the telecoms immunity. Immunity means no testimony to screw the Bush administration. That is also the very reason to take out the retroactive immunity part of the bill. Rockefeller is a bought and paid for whore the same as Hillary. You know and I know that all of these huge corporations have whole legal departments that should have (and probably did) advise these corporations NOT to betray their customers and illegally spy on them for the government.
QUALAR @ 32:
I think you mean his red, white and blue BushCo. Buttplug with electric vibrator action....don'tcha?
Somethings cheneyed about Rim Tussel, he used to have some notion of WTF was going on, but recently he sounds like an analgam of Tush Bimbo and Ayn L. Colder.
Time for Big Russ to woodshed?
foolme1ns @ 48:
Very possible.
Oh, how I just wish I could argue this every time a client gets arrested. But, Your Honor, my client thought he was doing what he was doing for national security purposes. We shouldn't even have a trial here. He should be immune from prosecution altogether.
Here we have Russert, journalist extraordinaire ( ;) ) parroting the telecom PR line.
Russert's bringing up the position that this is for political reasons, and then the website, is laughable on it's face. No, really? Politics? Unheard of! So that was just stupid.
However. This site has a track record of attacking journalists who ask tough questions of their guests to their faces. To me there is a huge difference between raising an unflattering suggestion and actually letting the person address it, and sitting all by yourself in front of a camera and smugly making accusations that can't be defended. Contributors to this site seem to not draw a distinction.
I think Russert did an admirable job for most of that clip because he actually let Dodd talk, uninterrupted, for quite a long stretch. He didn't talk over him, or shout him down like some do. Yes, the "some have suggested ... political reasons" line was dumb. At least he said it to his face and let him respond. So I give Russert good marks for letting Dodd talk, but poor marks for the idiotic premise that a politician doing something for political reasons is shocking. Russert could have a show 24/7 if he wants to call out every politician who is doing something for political gain.
Rockefeller is wrong, by the way. The onus is not solely on the government. That is absurd. Dodd's point that the telecoms have very high-powered legal departments is a good one. Is Rockefeller really so naive to suggest that if government asks you to do something, then they must have already cleared it's legality ... so just trust them and do it?? That's exactly what the Bush administration would like you to believe ... and the right wing pundits ... that is until there is a democrat in office.
I'd like to see a contributor post an example of a journalist asking adversarial questions of a guest without sounding like they are on the offensive. I'm sure examples exist. But my point is that asking adversarial questions doesn't immediately make you one of the bad guys.
If a journalist asks softball questions, they get called out for having their tongues up the pol's ass (as they should). But as soon as they ask a tough question, they get called out for doing that. Russert didn't go on the attack. He raised a dumbass point. Can you imagine how Bill O'Reilley would have handled the exact same interview? Come on. Give a little credit where it's due, and have at least a little objectivity. This post should not have been about Russert. It should have been about how Dodd continues to artfully defends his position on retroactive immunity.
When Timmeh quoted Dodd's website soliciting contributions based on Dodd's actions, Dodd should have fired back at Timmeh: "Politics, when it's working properly in this country, should be about taking right actions based on important principles and beliefs, and then asking like-minded supporters for their contributions and votes. Political news reporting, when it's working properly, should be about finding at least a shred of evidence of wrongdoing, or impropriety or ill-motivation, and when you find that evidence you ask a politician such as me a tough pointed question to explain himself. You obviously don't have a shred of evidence that I am some Machiavellian politician who took this position in a premeditated way for the purpose of winning contributions and votes. So without that evidence you ask me what becomes an insulting question as to my motivation, and you deliver it with your on screen graphics in your famous "gotcha" style. You should apologize to me Tim, or else explain yourself, and you should do so before asking your next question."
I was waiting for someone to say it, and finally at #32, someone did.
Russert's very FIRST sentence is a lie. "After September 11th, the government went to the many of the private telecom companies in our country, and asked them for ...data" LIE. It was before 9/11 that BushCheney went to the Telecoms.
Fact.
Anyway, its worse than a lie, because clearly the pundit's intent and is broadcast and even fully realized in the framing of his question, and yet he goes on with the question anyway, pretends to be some kind of "news" person, awaiting a verbal confirming grunt from his subject before he continues the sentence, as if to check the faulty premise to see how bad it wobbles before stacking his pound of bullshit atop the mess.
So either Tim Russert is
a) a fool, not even knowing the history and news he is reporting
or
b) he is a tool
or
c) he is a tool AND a fool.
Too many people are getting paid good money nowadays to tell lies, and they aren't even fun or inventive or colorful or stylish lies that add up to exciting and enriching stories. They are lies that serve to cement the crumbling structure of our corrupt system. I hope its clear to people at least WHY Russert and all others reliant upon that system purposefully choose to support it, even though (I think) they know full well we are headed off kilter and into deep danger. What other choice do they really have? If they denounce it, they cut off their own lifeline. And they are, almost to the last of them, too small for that kind of courage.
Curious @ 46:
These are all excellent points ... especially pertaining to setting precedent. Unfortunately, nobody in the media, or the campaigns, gives us enough credit to think we could understand these points. But then I don't blame them, I guess. Americans are pretty dumbed down and don't want to hear that many words. If it doesn't fit on a bumper sticker, America doesn't have time.
Tim Russert is a pumpkinheaded repub water carrier. He can go to hell. Pinochetist suburbanite on the march
foolme1ns @ 48:
Right on.
Thank you for this commentary:
foolme1ns @ 48:
1. What evidence is the President unable to suppress?
I hear you on the "no testimony"-benefit; but what about the open evidence -- related to the telecom involvement -- that is openly floating around? That evidence -- whatever it is -- admissible to court; and even the States can use the information. In my view, even if Congress refuses to review the information, others -- us in the blogosphere -- can still raise the issue, openly discuss it, and mobilize voters. One issue is: Even though the RNC deleted WH e-mails, is there evidence -- outside the e-mails that have been destroyed -- that the GOP, telecoms, GOP, and OVP are unable to suppress, destroy, hide or explain away?
2. What other illegal activity is there connected with the original violations?
Stopping some hearings by granting immunity doesn't make the issue go away; forces the public to openly discuss what might have been settled. Congress' decision to not confront the issue is not the final answer. Just because the DNC -- in this case, Rockefeller -- appears to roll over, that is hardly a final resolution, but demands further inquiry: Despite the open evidence of illegal activity, what other illegal acts -- connected with that first illegal access of data in violation of FISA -- have yet to be understood? Rather than focusing on the narrow issue of "telecom immunity for FISA violations", it's appropriate to explore the larger issues: What other illegal activity-- to be understood -- relied on that illegally captured information; and what other illegal acts -- beyond the original illegal violations/data capture -- have yet to be explored, much less discussed openly.
Karen @ 51:
Do it! Force the courts to rule on the absurdity of the notion. Get it on record.
I am so sick of Russert.
Now he asks of Dodd: "...can you prove it?"
Russert has repeated millions of lines that are lies, I.E. "NOT PROVABLE".
Fool/tool, these are the sweetest of labels for this media guy who has sold his soul. A fat man who is so paper thin.
PurplePatriot @ 56:
Thank you for your feedback. My view: Regardless what the media does or does not do, the media cannot stop the public from openly discussing the very things the media is avoiding, not confronting. As with alleged media-complicity with Iraq-WMD-sham, the public finally found the truth. It doesn't matter what the media "thinks the public can understand," the issue is whether the media will accept: The collective public conscience can outmaneuver the media when the media avoids issues, or pretends the public can be manipulated. The framers assumed the public would figure it out; a complicit media is not binding on the public, but grounds for the public to charge the media with being complicit with illegal activity, unreliable, and warranting other sources of information.
There is no precedent in illegal activity.
Sandra Waszak @ 61:
I agree with you. But at least he does it to his face. Russert can be a tool, and was in this interview. But on his worst day, he is better than the "worst persons in the world" on their best days.
Timmmy Russert: Corporate mouthpiece for hire.
What a piece of shit!
Doesn't get any worse WHORE-WISE than Tim Russert. Bend over America.
[Posting the same comment over and over and over again is called 'spam' and it not allowed here. Use your super human powers to find the commenting policy-Sitemonitor]
PurplePatriot @ 63:
mike @ 9:
Who's to say what kickbacks he's received under the table.
I thought Dodd did a great job in pointing out that those telecoms who complied must have known what they were doing was illegal, as they have top-notch legal departments and did not even wait for a court order, and did so most likely because of the lure of lucrative government contracts if they went along with the illegal program.
Dodd covered all points except one. The one he missed, as others pointed out, was that Rockefeller just received a large sum of money from the telcos, and now he supports the telcos.
But despite missing one extra nail in the coffin (let's hope), Dodd did an excellent job.
Curious @ 62:
20% of us are pretty good at that. The other 80% will join us as soon as American Idol crowns it's new winner ... and they're all caught up with Britney's travails ... oh, wait, there is a murder trial where a guy killed a white girl. We need to get that resolved before we can put our attention somewhere else.
nezua limón xolagrafik-jonez @ 55:
Timmy and his spineless, manipulative colleagues are little more than panderers for ratings, Keith Olbermann and Jack Cafferty being exceptions. Their industry has devolved into little more than a circus freak show where one freak tries to outo the other in being the most outrageous and obscene. Journalistic integrity and the truth--inconvenient obstacles to maximizing shareholder return. They don't have the courage to stand for anything worthwhile. What they excel at is shilling for their self centered masters and their love of the bankrupt status quo.
Rob @ 66:
I can see where you get that perception. But, please. Don't you think you give the conservatives a little too much credit? You want a cult? Mention a Clinton to a conservative. Wait until there is a democrat in the presidency. You'll see a cult that will make Jim Jones' Guyana seem like vacation bible school.
I've seen many posts here where the comments are simple, and the persons writing the posts kind of frame how they want the discussion to go. But I've also participated in many posts were there was quite interesting debate and dialog. I was up until 4:30 last night participating in one.
Otay @ 70:
The cynic in me suspects that Dodd didn't miss it, but intentionally didn't bring it up. We can't remember that, even when the pols are saying something we agree with, they are still part of the good ol' boy network.
Rob @ 66:
Rob, it is sad that you interpret defense of our most precious freedoms as hatred for this country. Speaking for myself, if I truly hated this country I would want to see it continue farther and farther down the Bush-Cheney road until all freedoms were lost, all respect thoughout the world were permanently destroyed, its economy were in shambles and it had the income distribution curve of a sick banana republic. I would be rooting the neo-Cons on, and attacking all the good people who post on this site.
Rob @ 66:
That's your contribution to the discussion -- calling people nuts? Maybe you should stick to the wingnut sites.
Rob @ 66:
Who are you trying to kid pal. If you 'make a good living...' you are in the minority in this nation. As for the difference between this site and the 'conservative' blogs.....Nobody is banning comments favoring Ron Paul's candidacy as they did at RedState. I guess you didn't get the memo: There are almost no 'liberal' writers, 'news' reporters or papers in this country. If there were this blog and others in Free Left Blogistan would not exist.
As for 'Live is too short to be miserable all the time....' Click on this pal. And understand that your government with your acquiescence did that and worse. And further understand that no everyone on this planet is as fat, dumb and unaware as you are.
I find your attitude disgusting and shameful.
Good comments and responses, Sen. Dodd. Russert's suggestion that fund-raising on this issue is somehow politicizing the issue is ridiculous. Every single issue out there is politicized right now, including ones that are unbelievably narrow, such as prayer in public schools and intelligent design. I'm GLAD you're fundraising on an issue as important as this one!
I can't rmember: Did Russert question anyone during the outing of Plame about his conerns over their politicization of a covert CIA operative?
Linda @ 78:
He would have had to start with himself if he did that.
Rob @ 66:
This seems funny when all the right wing blogs I sign on to are exactly opposite to what you say. In logging in to some I have been deleted, and unable to post, though posts that I have made have been respectful besides to their opinions. Others I have been told to die and rot. I have put people in check on this site, as there are many angry people over what has become the terrorist states of america. Besides the people that are just sitting behind their computers and complaining, most on this site promote the restoration of American freedoms that to this day, under this administration, are being derailed in fundamental ways.
Let's discuss the lack of knowledge that is being provided to the American populace by MSM. Let's discuss the warmongering of an administration hell bent to occupy two of the largest producers of oil. Let's discuss anything good that Bush has done. From day one of his presidency he has been on vacation and lacks any real accomplishments moving this country in a positive direction. 9/11 has elevated his ability to apply fear to gain his objectives, that have proven to be detrimental to this country.
You must jerk of over Michelle Malkin to think there is dialog on most right wing websites. The majority threaten death, beating, and obtuse steps to promote an argument, not to debate and come to a mutual consensus as most have dont hear. I made statements here that have been debated, and I changed my position after a good discussion. Perhaps you should go through the history of the site, and actually read the lengthy good posts that provide readers an opportunity to learn matters that have been buried and never disclosed by any other site. You may find yourself questioning where it America is, what it's leadership has done (democratic and republican), and the current direction this country is heading.
I would like to debate you. So please provide some examples and back up your comment if you are so struck by the hatred of this site. The displeasure most have on this site are with those that abuse power by any political bloc. If you are given fiduciary duties to represent the people, then the people should look at what you do and provide feedback. Negative or positive.
russert got his tongue out of cheney's anus long enough to talk to dodd? hell, that should be the story here.
The way some here are attacking Russert does qualify for calling them nuts. 65 implies he is a whore. 64 calls him a piece of shit. Do I need to go on? Show some class.
[How is it 'classy' that you come to this blog and tell people how to post, after spamming three threads with a vintage righty whine? Are you the boss of something we don't know about? Sitemonitor]
Yeah, like trying to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution (which is, incidentally, the oath of office) is just a propaganda device.
Rob @ 81:
With all due respect, I happen to believe that it is classless to accuse someone of hating the country they live in because they criticize the behavior of some Americans. Please provide an example of a post where someone says they hate America. There are plenty of examples of behaviors by Americans that I loathe. But that isn't the same as hating America. Do you write for Sean Hannity's show?
By the way, your posts criticizes the Americans participating in this thread. Does that mean you hate America?
Rob @ 81:
Too bad Rob, because these manipulative shills richly deserve what they earned. If you are so concerned about class, write Timmy yourself and ask him to lead by example.
Rob @ 66:
What hate? The part where we HATE how our country's constitution is being violated? The part where we hate the crooks and liars who are stealing our country's future?
Do tell. Well that's rapidly changing for most of us. That it hasn't caught up to you yet is evidence of very little except luck.
Give me a break. On Redstate your disagreement with the party line gets you blammed.
Show me examples of where the site blames America. This line is garbage and you know it and everyone here knows it. You are a troll.
Where is this? Show examples.
Show examples please!
Show examples!
Examples!
I agree. Which is why I stand up for liberty and the rule of law. Do you?
Fucking trolls.
Dead thread. Even Rob has left because he realized his own hypocrisy.
And Russert doesn't think that Tancredo doesn't use his anti illegal immigrants rhetoric as a campaign fundraising devise?
For Russert to question him in terms of, "anything goes as long as the government asks-more specifically that a branch of our government asks as the Bush Adm did without court orders" is repulsive.
Russert, should the Telecoms give up information to me if I am a info systems contractor for the government? Should Blackwater be able to collect private information on you Tim, for there own anti terrorist activites?
Any Democrat or politician(s) that stand up for the rule of law instead of certain men are commendable and deserves our serious considerations for their position and even their presence in a presidential campaign.
But then I completely agree with Sen Dodd in his action on this issue. Oh, And I believe in upholding the Constitution and that Terrorists are not thwarted by me losing my constitutional rights. After all, Capone was brought down legally, Kadafi, Hitler and his henchmen, et al as well. As a nation, we are stronger for it.
"After September 11th ..." If you want respect, Russert, tell the truth.
Also, I'm a supporter of Chris Dodd, but I wish he hadn't been caught flatfooted by Russert's question about punitive measures dealt to telecoms for refusing to cooperate with the bush administration on the requests for records. One problem is that the former CEO (or other high profile official) of Qwest has been indicted or is under investigation for something unrelated to the records requests, IIRC. Perhaps Dodd could simply have countered about Verizon's longstanding very public support of bush and how well it's filled its coffers with contracts.
Never defend, always counterattack. There's so much more material to attack them with.
I watched Dodd this morning. I thought he explained his positions more than adequately. I just wish I didn't have the feeling that all Russert is doing is trying to "get" people. While I do think politicians should be able to explain what they are doing and why they are doing it, I'm not sure what purpose there is in spending a half-hour trying to get them to say something that can be used against them as soon as they leave the studio. I can't help but remember Russert getting up in Howard Dean's face about how many troops were then in Iraq and the next week lobbing obvious softballs at a clueless GWB. By the way, Dean's figure was almost exactly right, no matter what Russert insisted.
In response to the comment from 85 "That it hasn’t caught up to you yet is evidence of very little except luck." No it's not because of luck. It's because I do business with educated, liberals and conservatives, who don't use foul language and aren't always pissed off at the world for their short comings.
Russert had every opportunity to compliment Dodd on his principled stand. Instead, he said nothing of the sort and took the cynic's perspective that Dodd's stand was phony and was a manipulative ruse for Dodd's campaign.
Of course, Timmy and crew know all about manipulation, that's their version of prayer to the god of ratings.
While Russert is hardly the worst offender, this conversation represents what is wrong about the MSM. For more info:
www.mediamatters.org
Rob @ 66:
Priceless! :lol: Wow! Just hilarious.
Err, you'll find nuts on every blog. See, the whole internet thing lets anybody log on from anywhere, and post a comment.
Are you a paid troll? Seriously, your writing is soft-spoken and generic (that is, irrelevant to the thread), and yet you make a comment like that? There's no hatred of our country to understand, and sadly, you understand that.
It is those freedoms we are trying to protect. Funny how pointing out threats to our freedom somehow counts as hating our country and its freedoms.
And by the way, you might have the freedom to do practically anything you want, but there are sick people living under threat of imprisonment for using marijuana as medicine (and frankly, there's no viable justification for recreational drugs like marijuana to be illegal at all); we are not all free to pursue our sex lives as we wish (it was only recently that the Supreme Court overturned sodomy laws, and still, it let the outlawing of vibrators stand); gay people are not free to marry their partners; polygamy is illegal even if one's religion requires the practice......I could go on and on and on and on.
Oh yeah? Then kick back, relax, and let those of us whose lives are affected by the party in charge vote and run the country. Sounds like you've got it made, even if we vote in our candidates to change things!
Heh, I'm pretty well-traveled too. Traveling somewhere for a brief amount of time does not really give you a decent understanding of what it is like to live there. Different countries offer different kinds of freedoms. The Netherlands couldn't care less if you smoke pot or go to a prostitute, and consequently, they are not facing the casualties of the war on such things here in the U.S. We have police using lethal force, being allowed to bust into people's homes, guns ablaze, and tossing people in prison for lengthy terms for such consensual acts, and we have the highest prison population to show for it. But someone traveling here for a bit wouldn't figure that out by vacationing here.
:lol: You're a liar. Yeah, I'll just flat out accuse you. You can find insane comments here (like yours) uncensored. Conservative sites tend to block you instantly for making a cogent progressive argument.
You're lying again. If you've spent any time here at all, you know that's untrue.
Uh, we don't attack people for telling the truth. But see, if a liberal personality says something inappropriate or inaccurate, yeah, we even call the liberal personality on it! See, we don't hold to the double standard that deems it ok to dissemble if you agree with us politically.
Oh, do tell. Give but one example. I dare you. :lol:
True. Vote in some true progressives, and perhaps your misery will be cured. ;)
Rob @ 90:
Yeah. There's no foul language on right wing sites, because you right wing cheneybushco sycophants think war p0rn is a-okay.
:roll:
Rob @ 90:
How condescending of you. So what's the point of being here Rob? Just have to prove how superior you are?
NBC is nothing more than Fox lite
you can email your displeasure....but it's better just to dismantle them in 2008.
miss_kitty @ 93:
Oh yeah and out-and -out hatred of anyone not born in the good ol' US ofA, as straight white and God-fearing is AOK too. Bigotry whatever, Ann Coulter calling Edwards a fag, Michelle Malkin agreeing with the WWII internment of people with Japanese ancestry Billo cutting mics, Rush mocking Parkinson's patients and 12 olds with brain damage-Brilliant! And let's not forget the right's support of torture, no habeas, and all the other human rights violations this country INDULGES in.
Not foul mouthed at all-just plain foul. Worse than any swearing or angst we could express on all the progressive blogs. WHY?
Because, in great part it is the source of this Earth's ills.
Step out of you own ego long enough to enjoy some of the intelligence and wisdom around you. Or don't. It's your choice.
gesellschaft @ 14:
Thought crime, anyone:
http://www.roguegovernment.com/news.php?id=4682
Lighten up! My intent wasn't to upset anyone. I just don't understand some of the anger or the need to use so much vulgar language. That's all. I’m going to go watch some football now so we can continue this discussion later. Sorry for upsetting you people. That was not my intent.
I'll vote for the first candidate who responds to something like "your just using the FISA hold for political purposes" with:
#@%$ yes I am you biatch! What the #@$% is wrong with that? Did you #$%@ing flunk high school civics or what? Our Founding #@$!ing Fathers knew that, while government is necessary and can be quite the force for good, there is a tendancy amongst those with power to try to accumulate more power. For instance, our President has, like a villain from Star Wars, tried to feed off the fear -- understandable fear, given what happened on 9/11 -- that people have about terrorism in order to increase his own power to, e.g., engage in arbitrary searches, seizures and detentions in a manner quite contrary to the plain text of the Constitution he's #@$%ing sworn to de-#@$%ing-fend.
But our Founding #@$!ing Fathers knew this sort of thing would happen. They saw it $#%ing happen in England, they saw it happen in France. And they saw it happen in the under-#@%ing-pants of every #@&$ing country throughout #@$%ing history. So what did they do? Well, you should read up on this James Madison feller. He was one #$%ing smart d00d! He realized that "ambition must be made to challenge ambition". He realized that the only way to prevent this Republic from falling into a dictatorship like the Romans did was for people like me to realize that we could score political points by, e.g., blocking bills for political purposes!
So am I blocking the bill for political purposes? #$%@ yeah! And you should thank your #$%@ing stars I am. 'Cause without this system of "ambition being made to counteract ambition" we would have lasted 1/10th the time as a Republic that the Romans had their Republic.
Of course, the GOP, by sniffing Monica Lewinsky's panties made damn #@%%ing good sure that the notion of Congressional opposition would be completely discredited. And you #$@^&ing panty-sniffing media whores who suddenly get the #@*&ing vapors whenever a Democrat decides to "play politics" are making sure to descredit the political system (and you call yourselves liberal? liberals my #@%$ing ass!). But all your doing is descrediting the very system of checks and balances upon which our American democratic republic is built.
So why Tim? Why the $#^@ do you hate America? And given that you do: why the $#@& do you pretend to be a journalist rather than just #@%& blowing this joint and freeing up the air time for real journalists who didn't #@%$ing flunk high-#@%$ing-school civics!
Rob @ 98:
Excuse me, but, no, I'm not letting you off that easily. You told us we were a cult. You told us we hated our country. You told us we were incapable of debate and discussion.
Now you're saying that you were only registering a minor complaint about our use of vulgarity? Some of us posted serious responses at length, thereby proving willing to debate you despite your inanities, and you're running away now?
I'll count that as a victory for our side, you chicken.
Rob,
Are you going to tell me that ,Britt Hume, Bill Kristol, Ann Coulter, Malkin Hannity, Rush (The darlings of the republicans) are resonable people and provide truth? That Kristol isn't held up as some sort of expert on everything to Iraq to family values? That Republican James Inhofe is a reasonable minded expert on Global Warming?
Rob,
-Woud you put your religion above the Constitution?
-What parts of the Bill of Rights or the Constitution need to be bypassed to effectively twart evil and the terrorists?
-Since I have served and fought for my country and what it once stood for, should I stand by while others are so frightened of terrorists cave dwellers they would become so sheepish and dumbfounded to accept that we could only fight terrorists by dismissing our Constitution?
-That our present President claimed he would hunt down without a permission slip from the U.N., that any country harboring Al Qaeda or any terrorists would be our enemy. So what happened when Osama and crew went into Pakistan and was provided official sanctuary? Where is the big bad Cowboy? He ran into a weak country as Iraq to show strength and set an example?
-When did you becoome so submissive that you feel safer when the U.S. Government misatingly disapears a Canadian, renders him to Syria(who we officially consider terrorists) sends him the for torturing. After a year of torture we let him go. Not even an "excuse me, sory for the inconvenience"?
-I wonder about folks as you that do not cherish that in which the United States has strived to exemplify even during its own failures that history points out? You say you have been to other countries and with your own experience acknowledge the gratefulness of our unique country.
So why are you so willing to let that Country disolve in the hands of one President and a very partisan party line?
Rob @ 90:
Hey, Rob. "Go fuck yourself."
Notice that I put that in quotes. I feel obligated to since, otherwise, I'd be plagerizing Dick Cheney.
You are quite talented that you can look into peoples' souls and see that they are pissed off at the world for their shortcomings. Brilliant. Such insight from a few rants on a blog. You are indeed a truly amazing American. God bless you. I'm getting misty-eyed having the honor to interact with such an extraordinary man.
wilderness wino @ 13:
It can be spelled either way. I prefer asswipe myself; which can also go either way. Or we can compromise and say that timmeh is an asswipe-asshat. lol
Rob @ 90:
So you haven't been either outsourced, downsized, or caught up in a healthcare crisis or natural disaster because YOU'RE SUCH A FUCKING GREAT GUY?
And the looting of our nation's treasury doesn't cause you to lose one seconds' worth of sleep because, hell, you don't have kids and don't concern yourself with their future anyway?
I'm so glad this country can produce self-sufficient people who are just so great they don't have to worry about the consequences of shitty political leadership.
Or is the real truth that you're a bought-and-paid for troll and your statements have no truth whatsoever. I have yet to see an example of "hating america" or "false claims proven wrong." All you've got are LAME talking points.
And give it up with the "I'm so above you I don't use 'foul language'" nonsense. Talk and debate or shut your piehole. Quit throwing out irrelevant nonsense to try and change the subject. All you're doing is demonstrating the lack of substance of your arguments.
Tim Russert is a right wing tool. Its a waste of good time, to even watch such commercial television.
Throw your cable remote in the nearest river and cancel your cable subsciption. Get rid of all big media/telecom devices now and already! It may even be necessary to get rid of Internet service in the not so distant future as well.
Rob @ 98:
Dude. You don't have the power to upset anyone. Don't flatter yourself. Where is the class you so desperately want to see
here in puffing yourself up to Brobdingnagian* proportions that exist only in your mind?
And what's with the foul language obsession you sport? Sheesh. Can you say distraction? If you and all you little pals, objected as strenuously to this administration's obscene behaviour, we might not be down 4,000 soldiers, and looking into a deep dark chasm.
*Not a 'naughty' word, FYI, Rob. I wouldn't want to upset your delicate lingual sensibilities.
Rob @ 98:
Fair enough, but next time, put your brain in gear before engaging your keyboard. Reread your posts, please. If you don't want to provoke anyone, don't be provocative.
You know, I think we should use Rob as the quintessential example of a Republican Troll.
Rob-ublican: Progressive bloggers are just cultists who can't have a serious debate. You hate your country, and I don't understand it! You have no regard for truth or freedom, and it makes me sick! At least conservatives have genuine debate.
Progressive Bloggers: Actually, that's not true. [Proceeds to explain why at length, and in detail.]
Rob-ublican: Waaaahhh!!! Stop saying mean things to me! I was only saying there was no need to use vulgarity. I didn't mean to offend anyone! All I said was that you shouldn't use swear words and get angry.
Progressive Bloggers: You said a lot more than that.
Rob-ublican: La la la la la!!!! Stop talking and let me watch my sports!
Nothing like a bit of troll football on a Sunday morning. And when I sat 'football' I mean Fitbae. Footie. Soccer.
By the way Rob,
Exactly how elegant of the english language do you think our Marines in Iraq are, in expressing their thoughts on "smack the mole" Bush strategy?
And completly agree with comment #102 purplepatriotl
((( Hey, Rob. “Go fuck yourself.”
Notice that I put that in quotes. I feel obligated to since, otherwise, I’d be plagerizing Dick Cheney. ))))
Well siad Purplepatriot, Well said...................................
Rob @ 98:
You merely stated that we all "hated" America and subscribed to falsehoods without providing evidence. So you insulted both our patriotism and our credibility. That's all.
Repeat: nation's credibility destroyed, nation's treasury looted, nation's constitution shat upon, nation's middle class rapidly being eliminated, nation's leadership a joke and unable to provide for a stable infrastructure for nation's growth or continuance to depend on. But what's to be angry about?
Does it burn your widdle ears when we get fucking pissed off at the gawping stupidity of Republicans? I'm so sorry. Maybe you should just shut up and go away if you don't want to hear things that sizzle your little eardrums like FUCK YOU.
Oh, pardon me while I play the grand piano!
That's such a fucking lie. Go troll yourself into oblivion.
I await any effort by you to respond to my requests for examples of America hating or falsehood-perpetuating that you initially claimed. Of course, I also wait for Godot, but we all know how that turned out.
PurplePatriot @ 53:
OK so,We give credit to Russert for doing What's He's supposed to do -'hey he's better than O'Liely'? That still doesn't excuse Him being a tool-which HE IS. Russert shouldn't be lauded for doing His Job. That's the 'accept mediocre' line so prevelent today.
Dodd could have replied to Russert's question about using this for political purposes by sayin: " Well.... for Christ's sake Timmy.. Why do you think people MAKE contributions to an individual? If someone shows leadership on an issue that is important to him or her - would you not expect them to perhaps make a contribution to their campaign?
Should I be talking about supporting the troops and staying the course and the light at the end of the tunnel... when I know that this is complete and utter bullshit?
I am extremely gratified that people found my message and stand on this issue to be strong and compelling enought form them to make contributions to my campaign... in fact. Timmy boy... If you were thinking clearly - you would be making a contribution as well. Do you know where your phones have been?
PurplePatriot @ 53:
It does? Can you point to examples of C&L attacking a journalist merely for asking a tough question? It shouldn't be hard to find examples of this track record merely by searching the archives.
They don't draw that distinction? Again, do you have examples?
That's not an "admirable job" if the questions are ridiculous. I could sit down with Dennis Kucinich and ask him questions like, "Aren't you just playing into terrorist hands by seeking peace?" or, "Explain to me why you don't hate America, Mr. Hitler Kucinich." Would I be doing an admirable job merely by letting Kucinich respond without shouting him down? Hardly. The questions themselves are red meat for the idiots who accept their premises, and the interview contributes little to the public dialogue. In fact, it undermines it.
He's not a journalist, but Jon Stewart does a very good job of this on the Daily Show.
You've now stated this three times. Do you have examples?
So, you want us to acknowledge that Russert is not as bad as O'Reilly? That doesn't mean Russert isn't bad.
In fact, I'm not so sure Russert isn't worse. O'Reilly's rants are transparent propaganda. Russert's Sunday spot and calmer demeanor lend him an air of credibility O'Reilly doesn't have. When Russert asks such nonsensical questions, more people take it seriously, and it more easily becomes part of the public discourse at large. Russert's approach is arguably more pernicious.
Even you acknowledge that the questions he asked were ridiculous. C&L shouldn't call him on it?
John Wison @ 113:
That echoes the message I left on his site when I made my contribution, that I was doing so because I appreciated him taking a stand for the Constitution and our civil liberties.
Russert is such a right wing mouthpiece (of shit) that I can't stand him anymore than I can stomach Lou Dobbs.
Chaotic Modulation
Home of the Blogosapians
www.YabbaDabbaHubbaDo.com
Straight Shooter @ 115:
I think the problem conservatives have with people making "political stands" is that they're showing leadership and representing the interests of the people of America, and there's something wrong with that. They should instead by triangulating furiously and trying to "govern from the center" by appeasing both parties. And That's Just Not How Things Are Done.
I gave money to Dodd because of his fundraising effort about blocking immunity. Then I got on here and leveled the same accusation against Dodd way before timmy did. Where the fuck has Dodd been all along, and NOW he wants to stand up for the Constitution? Defending the Constitution is his fucking job. Why do I have to pay him again to defend it? But, that is the sad case. He is a politician who was at least honest enough to say he needed me to sweeten the deal a little for him. Okay, Dodd. You want my money to do your job that you already got elected and paid to do? Well, I paid MoveOn to say what I wanted said. Of course, they hadn't been paid already by the taxpayer. Their sole purpose is to stick it to politicians who aren't doing their jobs, but, okay, Dodd, you got $50 from me you dirty c&(^sucker. Now go do your fucking job finally.
Heretic @ 118:
What's with the "Where has he been?" comments? When Dodd first announced his campaign, it was all about restoring the Constitution, but most of the world looked at him like he was simply some long-term Senator finally completing his resume with an obligatory run for president. When I had first asked on this site whether anyone was seriously considering supporting him, the responses ranged from, "Who?" to "Are you kidding?" Somehow, his consistent efforts on restoring the Constitution have been overlooked, and are only now garnering attention -- even by the progressive blogs.
My reservation about Dodd has to do with his continued balking at holding the administration accountable for its actions. I don't like the idea that the country should simply "move on" after enduring Bush, and I don't like how he chided Feingold for his attempted censure.
Other than that, though, Dodd has been at the forefront on the Constitutional issues. Dodd made a huge deal about the revocation of habeas corpus, and has been fighting tirelessly to restore it. Dodd has been speaking long before he announced his presidential bid about the importance of maintaining the Constitutional rule of law.
Big Russ' little dumpling is a Beltway bumboy.
G.E. employee Tim Russert is a right wing tool.
Karen @ 43:
No. My post was intended for those who can tell the difference. The 'Yes' meant that I was being one or the other, which I presume your question indicated you had intuited.
bmw 528 @ 91:
I hear that.
Is it asking too much to throw Dodd a scrap of grudging respect for the stand he's taking?
Fascism doesn't take hold suddenly,rather it is an insidious process wherein our rights are slowly steadily eroded until one day you realize you are living under a Tyranny.
Timmy is so fat, he looks like a bullfrog. The beaver had a bullfrog, it jumped down my busoms one day, fell through and busted his little ass, Ward laughed, we told the Beav he committed sideways, Beaver's stupid, he believed it.
[Giuliani] can handle the Squeegie Men of the world and clean up the planet as he did New York after 9/11.
Straight from the website of old Rudy himself, who is exploiting what for fundraising Temmeh...answer that and get back to America. Why don't you invite me or some other "middle class" American, who served in the War on Terror on your show to give you some real answers.
pinkobait @ 123:
I guess not. A basic tenet of Neoconism is that we are right and everybody else is wrong. To concede that your opposition might have a point would compromise their super size egos. And what do people like Russert know about principled leadership anyway? Dodd might as well have been speaking Mandarin Chinese to Russert.
Antoher gem from the Rudy for President website. I thought Rudy et el. have stated that Democrats don't pray, and if they do it is for more taxes and that the troops lose the war. What say you Rudy and the rest of the Republican candidates?? Call me if you need so assistance formulating your responses.
"Like all Americans, Rudy Giuliani prays for the success of our troops in Iraq and their safe return home. But he believes setting an artificial timetable for withdrawal from Iraq now would be a terrible mistake, because it would only embolden our enemies. Iraq is only one front in the larger war on terror, and failure there would lead to a broader and bloodier regional conflict in the near future. Building an accountable Iraq will assist in reducing the threat of terrorism."
Another issue I have with this, among other things, is the fact that I am neither Right or Left or Center. I make every effort to research the candidates, review their past, strengths and weaknesses, and then make an informed decision. If you choose to be labeled, you will, and if you choose to decide on your own, you are still labeled. Wrong, call it what you will and name it however you decide, but I refuse to be held to some artificial standard of politics that they have created.
It is politics. It's about a bill. It's coming out of the judiciary committee in Congress. That's all about politics. So what's the big deal? Dodd is standing against it. That's was principled politicians do; they take stands. So, we all know that Tim Russert is trying to nail Dodd, a political a Senator for 'playing politics.' However, the truth is that Senator Dodd is a politician and if he isn't 'playing politics', he isn't doing his job.
raker @ 121:
OK, we have GE News, Time Warner News, Disney News, Viacom News, News Corporation Murdoch News. Hmm. A right wing corporate tool? No shit!!!
Hey Tim these companies broke the law!
Don't you get it!!! My GOD it's hard to believe!
My post -- a brief 4-letter expletive to Russert -- was deleted.
Site monitor: Classy on my part? No. It's how I feel. Olberman and Cafferty
and perhaps Shuster are the only ones I'll listen to. The others are not journalists
by any stretch. They represent for pay, that's all, and that is
what shapes their commentary and questioning.
...
January 20, 2009. Restore the Constitution! I like those words, backdoor weasel or not. Maybe I'm not voting for the black guy after all! Besides, all this gospel campaign bullshit gives me the creeps! Jesus is not here you idiots, get him/it/mythology out of the political equation already or risk retaliation by voters who want leaders, not gamblers/worshipers/sheeple.
Bit much of an over-reaction to the Rob trolling, no? I mean, I'd hate to think all some "I made my money off your backs, now screw you" troll could come in here and waste that much of your time provoking knee jerks... it's how some folks get their jollies. Of course, there always exists the possibility that Rob really is A-OK with the destruction of the Fourth Estate in this country, and the subversion of check and balances along with the Constitution. But then again, why bother trying to reason with such a person? They aren't going to be capable of understanding.
Judy Paullus @ 89:
Russert has always been far from perfect, but I think much of this new in the last 4-5 years. For what seems like a solid year all he could talk about was that he met the pope! He'd even interrupt his guests to blather on about, "yeah, well... I got my son baptized by the pope! I'm awesome!" (Gee, OK, little Timmy). The downhill slide really kicked in then.
My theory is that he has always been a "daddy" seeker. Everyone is welcome to a hero, of course, but this is different. Russert craves those with authority over him, more so than merit. So he has always been on the right, but like so many others that eat the "after 9/11 EVERYTHING is different OMG WTF! I'm scared!" juju beans, they are even further radicalized to lavish more devotion and cling more tightly to authority figures, especially those with fascist tendencies.
Another factor might be that he is ALWAYS willing to trade access for journalistic integrity. He has often stated that even when ON RECORD, he will still clear things through the military and government like a good little brown shirt.
And that is the REAL problem here. A journalist is on the side of the people, to get them the information that they need. A propagandist is on the side of authority, and serves to prevent the people from accessing the information they need. This includes both intentional disinformation as with the Dean episode, inordinate worship as with Bushie, and framing ANYONE that threatens the further acquisition of power by "the leader" as an enemy of the viewer.
Nice work Tim. This last year has been horrible to watch (well, was. I'm off TV as the Sunday lineup is just pathetic anymore.) "So "Mister" Dodd, have you stopped beating your wife yet? And why not?! Also, why is it that no Democrat is willing to explain why they hate America so much? Oops, I sorry we're out of time, you'll have to
be shot as a traitor, er... come back later. Next week on MTP be sure to watch the Glorious Leader bestow is Mighty Gaze upon this humble person as I quiver in ecstasy."Russert is such a Right Wing TOOL; does anyone think he has any credibility?
The Elephant In The Middle Of The Room
There's something seemingly going on that is never really directly addressed, that I know of, by our representatives. Something not new. Dodd and Leahy are about as good as we have, as far as I can see, and seem to be as candid as they can be. Yet, something seems to be delineated by what they don't or can't say. Things like Blackwater or use of Depleted Uranium still need to be uncovered or become so by events before we hear of them. Our representatives may not be reporters, but what is it that persuades them to be anti-reporters when they come to Washington and learn of things the MSM is mum upon?
There's an appearance of silence upon even this appearance of silence.
It's delineated in the list of issues themselves. It goes to the heart of the difficult nature of security, of classified information, and of discretion itself carried to a point that is itself indiscreet. This was touched upon in the discussion here.
did-the-white-house-miss-a-chance-to-catch-obl-again/
It appears we are proactively protecting OBL and apparently even this appearance doesn't spark discussion of a larger issue of appearances.
The anti-violent_radicals_or_simply_anti-radicals bill does speak of it, albeit indirectly, by suggesting for many, there will be recourses at all for their redress of grievances.
I say there's an elephant in the middle of the room no one will speak of. I recognise though there may (or may not) little to be said after that, but still it ought be said.
For all that we know, and we know a lot, it seems worse than we know.
I say more in the first link. At bottom, I say we must not be like Winston Smith in 1984 and join the forces of hate, but bear in mind it may very soon be hard to leave the country either as that too has been addressed.
It all points to something further still. Let us petition (these good men) Dodd or Leahy upon it to perhaps learn why we cannot.
Bob in PA @ 74:
When Russert asserted Rockefeller position as juxtaposed to Dodd's stance on FISA and immunity.
Did Russert imply that Dodd and Rockefeller are both Democratic Senators and should be playing party line.?
I suggest having Rockefeller on Russert and have Russert ask Rockefeller,
" Sen Rockefeller, you state you do not feel the Telecoms should be held responsible for providing government unauthorized private information on its U.S. citizens. That the Telecoms have more than enough legal resources to take care of themselves if abiding the law. If the Telecoms in fact provided information that requires a court order, they would know. Knowing the law and breaking that law for a President or a average citizen is still breaking the law for what ever reason is it not? "
" Sen. Rockefeller, you say the Telecoms should not be held responsible for the Governments requests of information. Therefore immunity is in order to Telecoms. So if immunity is provided to the Telecoms then the Government can not be held responsible because the crime has been immunized and is muted, is that right"?
correction:
Zuma @ 136:
should have been 'there will no recourses at all for their redress of grievances'.
Jo-Ann @ 16:
i've always referred to it as "press the meat" -- such a self-indulgent circle-jerk of "journalists"...
/snark
Zuma @ 139:
friggit, i give up. there will be no recourses. i have no eraser. there is no spoon. white is black.
I'm interested to know why I'm being moderated ...
Dodd gets my vote!
We have to just stop even referencing Tim (the boob) Russert... He WILL fade away...
Note his advertisers and stop buying... They too WILL fade away...
SO WHAT if Dodd gain politicaly by opposing telecom immunity. He gains because it is the right thing to do! It is a good thing that many American citizens are so happy to see a politician with enough cajones to stand up to Bush and protect the Constitution. He deserves to make political points by doing this. Just because he scores a political home run with this stance doesn't take away from the fact that it is the right thing to do.
Charge On, Dodd!
Donations!!?? You moron, he could BUY a small telco.
Curious, all this discussion that "raising the FISA issue" is poltical. Oh, is someon suggesting that attempting to enforce the law -- by refusing to pass immunity -- is political? I suppose this must be next: Charges that Congress, in daring to assert power, is unconstitutional infringement against the President's right to obstruct Congress from conducting oversight through contempt citations?
More American justice turned on its head. And the US governmenet officials wonder why the world hates the GOP and American tyranny: Because its an abuse of power. Just as inaction -- refusals to impose consequences for that abuse -- is abuse.
Here's something funny: GOP is whining the DNC isn't rubber stamping, but sitting on bills. "Getting their business done" means blockign appropriations for illegal activity; and filing contempt charges: Congress is not required to pass any appropriations, especially when the President refuses to cooperate with fact finding, teh Constitution, or the rule of law
if the President would like to cooperate with the Constitution, there would be no reason for the White House propganda office to issue the following non-sense:
Let's review, and read between the lines:
A. Article II: Duty to Enforce the Law
This President has ignored this legal requirement, no thanks to the shills inside the WH Press Office who remain allegedly complicit with violations of the laws of war. It is a political stunt for the President to ignore the Constitution. It is a waste of precious time for the President to refuse to comply with the rule of law, evidence collection, and Geneve compliance.
B. Geneva
Laws of war shall be enforced, not explained away by the alleged war criminals in the WH Press Office. "Getting it's business done" means engaging in oversight; not rubber stamping, as the GOP war criminals have done.
C. Article I Section 8
Appropriations BIlls Start in the House, not in the WH Press Secy Office. Congress has no legal obligation to make any appropriation. The President is powerless to force the Congress to rubber stamp an approrpration for illegal warfare, war crimes, or continued funding for the arrogant shills inside the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel.
Kudos to Chris Dodd. Finally a Democrat with balls (OK Feingold has them too)
Login or Register to post comments.