state of the union

[Kathianne]

good speech......loved the line about the irs accepting checks and money orders.....

pity bush found his voice in his last speech....

It was a good speech. Though in my fever induced haze, I feel asleep before the commentary really got going.

Do you think he's the one that stole Hillary's voice, the one she 'found' awhile ago and seems to have lost again? Hmmm

[Sitarro]

good speech......loved the line about the irs accepting checks and money orders.....

pity bush found his voice in his last speech....

I enjoyed it. I was amazed at how childish the kids on the side to the President's right were, refusing to applaud almost anything, pathetic. And the Speaker of the House doing all of that weird lip stuff, what a strange person(said like the line from Monty Python and the Holy Grail).

[red states rule]

I enjoyed it. I was amazed at how childish the kids on the side to the President's right were, refusing to applaud almost anything, pathetic. And the Speaker of the House doing all of that weird lip stuff, what a strange person(said like the line from Monty Python and the Holy Grail).

I had to listen to the speech on the radio - but I knew damn well how the Dems were reacting to what Pres Bush was saying

I was right

I did enjoy hearing Pres Bush getting in the face of Reid and Pelosi and telling them to get off their asses and do their job

I doubt if they will do it. The Dems do not want answers to the nations issues - they want the issues for the next election

[red states rule]

and then we have the coverage of the speech from the liberal media

Always fair and balanced to the left



CBS: 'Bush Redux,' Bad Legacy; CNN's Toobin: No 'Humanity' In GOP
By Brent Baker | January 29, 2008 - 00:53 ET
ABC and NBC pivoted almost immediately from President Bush's State of the Union address to the 2008 presidential campaign, but CBS stuck to Bush's speech in its post-coverage in which Katie Couric complained “a lot of it was Bush redux,” Bob Schieffer kvetched that Bush “did not say what his assessment of the state of the union was until the next to the last sentence” and historian Douglas Brinkley declared: “It's not looking good for his legacy. I mean it's hard to point to any big accomplishments.” Schieffer, however, cautioned it's too soon to assess Bush, noting: “We're only beginning now to understand completely the impact of Ronald Reagan. When he left office, we didn't know that the Soviet Union was going to collapse.”

Meanwhile, on CNN between Bush's address and the Democratic response, Jeffrey Toobin used Bush to condemn all the Republican candidates for lacking “humanity” in their approach to immigration.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-b...o-humanity-gop

[Classact]

Oh yeah, that part where he was begging the congress to approve his unconstitutional spying on otherwise innocent Americans!!!!!! It was hilarious!!!!!!!




I'll bet you he at least gets a 30 day reprieve if not a complete renewal of the abuses he seems to dismiss as executive priveledge without regard to the Constitution and the protections he wants for those companies that have agreed to do his dirty work for him.

I think he even tee(a)red up during that otherwise apology!!!!!!!!!!!!

The FISA bill will be passed that Bush has asked for or the Democratic Party will be headline news every day it isn't passed. Yesterday the senate rejected a 30 day extension leaving the senate with Bush backed bill or nothing. The Republican Party will not allow more than a three day extension to allow the Democrats to eat shit in public just like they did the last time they voted to approve the Protect America Act.

If I lived close enough to you we could put a case of beer on this one because the Dems are going to eat shit once again on this one because they had a whole year to get it done and now the deadline is here and they have no excuse!

[red states rule]

The FISA bill will be passed that Bush has asked for or the Democratic Party will be headline news every day it isn't passed. Yesterday the senate rejected a 30 day extension leaving the senate with Bush backed bill or nothing. The Republican Party will not allow more than a three day extension to allow the Democrats to eat shit in public just like they did the last time they voted to approve the Protect America Act.

If I lived close enough to you we could put a case of beer on this one because the Dems are going to eat shit once again on this one because they had a whole year to get it done and now the deadline is here and they have no excuse!

Here is how the Dems way of fighting terrorists cost a couple of GI's their lives


October 15, 2007
How Many Lawyers Does It Take To Find A Captured GI?
The answer should be "none", but thanks to the FISA hiccup earlier this year, the question became very germane indeed. Charles Hurt reports at the New York Post that the restriction on communications through American telecom switches caused a ten-hour delay in NSA tracking for Corporal Alex Jimenez after his capture by terrorists in Iraq. The attorneys had to decide whether they had enough probable cause to wiretap terrorists talking abroad:

A search to rescue the men was quickly launched. But it soon ground to a halt as lawyers - obeying strict U.S. laws about surveillance - cobbled together the legal grounds for wiretapping the suspected kidnappers.
Starting at 10 a.m. on May 15, according to a timeline provided to Congress by the director of national intelligence, lawyers for the National Security Agency met and determined that special approval from the attorney general would be required first.

For an excruciating nine hours and 38 minutes, searchers in Iraq waited as U.S. lawyers discussed legal issues and hammered out the "probable cause" necessary for the attorney general to grant such "emergency" permission.

Finally, approval was granted and, at 7:38 that night, surveillance began.


The core part of the FISA upgrade focused on just this problem. The old FISA statute specifically referenced the requirement for warrants on anything passing through American switches. The FISA court correctly referred the issue back to Congress for resolution -- correctly, if one believes in judicial restraint -- and Congress punted it until forced to act in August.

Congress eventually eliminated the reliance on switch location as a means to determine the necessity of warrants. However, this points again to a problem that has been evident all along in the war on terror -- the tendency to treat it like CSI: Baghdad. War is not a crime in progress, and one cannot apply the processes of criminal prosecution to it. In war, one must have the ability to access the communications of the enemy if one wants to actually defeat them.

The entire notion that lawyers had to review a statute before military intelligence could pursue the captors of an American soldier in a theater of war is absurd and embarrassing. The proximate embarrassment in this case was Congress' delay in acting on the FISA problem the moment it arose. The larger embarrassment is that some still insist on applying civil court processes like habeas corpus on enemies captured abroad, which never -- never -- applied in any war we ever fought before, and that some use the same system to block intelligence efforts that have always been an accepted feature of war since the very beginning of the Republic.

No one got a lawyer when Washington's men captured the man who carried Benedict Arnold's offer of West Point to the British, and until this war no one seriously suggested that courts needed to issue warrants to listen to foreign enemies of the US talking to each other. It should take zero lawyers to chase down captors of American soldiers abroad in a theater of war, and any laws that add to that total should be immediately stricken from the record by Congress.

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/...ves/014846.php

[retiredman]

How is it unconstitutional when Congress passes the law authorizing it?

so congress has never passed unconstitutional laws?

[Kathianne]

so congress has never passed unconstitutional laws?

and as noted above, SCOTUS so rules.

[Classact]

Here is how the Dems way of fighting terrorists cost a couple of GI's their lives


October 15, 2007
How Many Lawyers Does It Take To Find A Captured GI?
The answer should be "none", but thanks to the FISA hiccup earlier this year, the question became very germane indeed. Charles Hurt reports at the New York Post that the restriction on communications through American telecom switches caused a ten-hour delay in NSA tracking for Corporal Alex Jimenez after his capture by terrorists in Iraq. The attorneys had to decide whether they had enough probable cause to wiretap terrorists talking abroad:

A search to rescue the men was quickly launched. But it soon ground to a halt as lawyers - obeying strict U.S. laws about surveillance - cobbled together the legal grounds for wiretapping the suspected kidnappers.
Starting at 10 a.m. on May 15, according to a timeline provided to Congress by the director of national intelligence, lawyers for the National Security Agency met and determined that special approval from the attorney general would be required first.

For an excruciating nine hours and 38 minutes, searchers in Iraq waited as U.S. lawyers discussed legal issues and hammered out the "probable cause" necessary for the attorney general to grant such "emergency" permission.

Finally, approval was granted and, at 7:38 that night, surveillance began.


The core part of the FISA upgrade focused on just this problem. The old FISA statute specifically referenced the requirement for warrants on anything passing through American switches. The FISA court correctly referred the issue back to Congress for resolution -- correctly, if one believes in judicial restraint -- and Congress punted it until forced to act in August.

Congress eventually eliminated the reliance on switch location as a means to determine the necessity of warrants. However, this points again to a problem that has been evident all along in the war on terror -- the tendency to treat it like CSI: Baghdad. War is not a crime in progress, and one cannot apply the processes of criminal prosecution to it. In war, one must have the ability to access the communications of the enemy if one wants to actually defeat them.

The entire notion that lawyers had to review a statute before military intelligence could pursue the captors of an American soldier in a theater of war is absurd and embarrassing. The proximate embarrassment in this case was Congress' delay in acting on the FISA problem the moment it arose. The larger embarrassment is that some still insist on applying civil court processes like habeas corpus on enemies captured abroad, which never -- never -- applied in any war we ever fought before, and that some use the same system to block intelligence efforts that have always been an accepted feature of war since the very beginning of the Republic.

No one got a lawyer when Washington's men captured the man who carried Benedict Arnold's offer of West Point to the British, and until this war no one seriously suggested that courts needed to issue warrants to listen to foreign enemies of the US talking to each other. It should take zero lawyers to chase down captors of American soldiers abroad in a theater of war, and any laws that add to that total should be immediately stricken from the record by Congress.

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/...ves/014846.php

Hillary and Obama will cry the blues if Bush goes on the Bully Pulpit and tells the American people what the Democrats are desiring in their version of the bill. The Democrats will fold like a house of cards and pass the President's version and they will do it no later than mid week next week. They will turn purple and hold their breath and kick rocks but they will pass his proposed bill and do it fast before he has a chance to show the American people how they love to suck up to terrorists while leaving America defenceless.

[red states rule]

Hillary and Obama will cry the blues if Bush goes on the Bully Pulpit and tells the American people what the Democrats are desiring in their version of the bill. The Democrats will fold like a house of cards and pass the President's version and they will do it no later than mid week next week. They will turn purple and hold their breath and kick rocks but they will pass his proposed bill and do it fast before he has a chance to show the American people how they love to suck up to terrorists while leaving America defenceless.

Dems have lost many fights with Pres Bush, and they will continue to lose. I never thought I would see a political party fight so hard to lose a war like the Dems have for the last 5 years

[theHawk]

The Supreme Court Of The United States Of America has struck down many congressional mandates and legislation, hawk.




How long have you been living in America?

Bush was talking about extending a law that Congress already has passed and has been in use. The Supreme Court hasn't stricken it down.

How long have you been living in a cave?

[bullypulpit]

good speech......loved the line about the irs accepting checks and money orders.....

pity bush found his voice in his last speech....

If you consider his "voice" to be the same tired crap he's been spouting for the last seven years. I downloaded and read the transcript. If I'd been forced to watch it, I probably would have tried to claw my eyes out at some point.

The diminutive doyen of deception, Dana Perino, called his speech "forward looking". And I'm thinking, "Not so much..." Unless you're talking about your eyes fixed rigidly on the road in front of you as you drive away from the group of pre-schoolers you just ran over in the cross-walk. You don't want to be looking in the rear-view mirror for that one. Bush is like that hit-skip driver in the mess he is leaving behind for the next president, Republican or Democrat.

[Sir Evil]

If you consider his "voice" to be the same tired crap he's been spouting for the last seven years. I downloaded and read the transcript. If I'd been forced to watch it, I probably would have tried to claw my eyes out at some point.

The diminutive doyen of deception, Dana Perino, called his speech "forward looking". And I'm thinking, "Not so much..." Unless you're talking about your eyes fixed rigidly on the road in front of you as you drive away from the group of pre-schoolers you just ran over in the cross-walk. You don't want to be looking in the rear-view mirror for that one. Bush is like that hit-skip driver in the mess he is leaving behind for the next president, Republican or Democrat.

Now that sounds like your tour typical post but how about what you thought was wrong with it instead of that mess you piled above?

[LiberalNation]

The I'll veto any bill to raise taxes that comes across my desk was kinda funny. Yeah like anyone is gona vote to raise taxes in the middle of an election year in the first place.

[Dilloduck]

The I'll veto any bill to raise taxes that comes across my desk was kinda funny. Yeah like anyone is gona vote to raise taxes in the middle of an election year in the first place.

Don't laugh--people have ran on that platform.