Kerry’s Troubled
Not that GOP’ers and righty bloggers didn’t know that already but now the AP is reporting it, too:
Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, the Democratic nominee for president in 2004 and a possible contender in 2008, told a firefighters’ union Monday that he had “serious reservations” about the nomination of Air Force Gen. Michael Hayden to head the CIA. “I’m very troubled by the nomination because he is one of the main supporters representing Donald Rumsfeld who helped to put in place the programs of spying on Americans and has been one of the biggest defenders of it,” Kerry said.
Not only is John Kerry a buffoon but he doesn’t even get his facts straight. Word out of Washington is that Hayden isn’t a big fan of Rumsfeld. Then he knowingly misrepresents the NSA intercept program as “spying on Americans”, infering that it’s similar to J. Edgar Hoover’s spying on MLK, Jr. It’s typical Kerry blather.
“We passed the law that gave them all the ability to protect America, which I obviously want to do, but to protect America and also protect the constitution,” Kerry told reporters after a formal speech to the Professional Fire Fighters of New Hampshire. “We gave them a court that they could go to on the shortest notice necessary. If they need to fix (the law), we’ll help them fix it, but we want to do it in a way that honors America’s respect for our constitution,” he said.
Sen. Kerry, it’s isn’t the least bit obvious that you care a bit about protecting America. That’s why you lost that issue in the presidential election so badly. You weren’t taken seriously on that issue. You talked about “getting back to the days when” terrorism was but a nuisance. As I’ve frequently said, terrorism never was a nuisance. It was just treated that way.
As for respecting “our Constitution”, why don’t you mention that no court has ruled that warrantless searches in these instances? Shame on you for hinting that he isn’t following the Constitution.
Technorati Tags: CIA, Bush, Kerry
Cross-post at LetFreedomRingBlog
May 9th, 2006 at 1:13 pm
[...] Cross-posted at California Conservative Categories: Senate, CIA | [...]
May 9th, 2006 at 7:20 pm
Some times, even most of the time, the lies and mischaracterizations you blog forth don’t make much sense, and don’t matter. But then there’s character assasination, outright lies, and, at best, disingenuous linking of peripheral facts and issues. To whit:
I’ve said it here before, and I’ll say it again: this is the pot calling the kettle black. Let’s examine your blathering for facts.
Says who?
Reality check: Hayden’s arrival at Langley gives Donald Rumsfeld a trusted foothold inside the agency he has sought to bring under the control of his parallel Pentagon intelligence operation run by Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence Stephen Cambone and General William “Jerry” Boykin.
Well, it is similar. You have the Bush administration secretly spying on Americans. The facts haven’t come out yet (sorry, jumping ahead here) because the RepubliCONS in Congress won’t investigate. Gee, I wonder why.
The only blathering here is yours. Of course, you can’t hold back your contempt for anything or anyone more intelligent than you, saying:
Despite that this makes absolutely no sense, it is an outrage that you slight Sen. Kerry’s service to this country. Shame on you. Sir, have you fought in the armed forces? No? Then be quiet. To imitate Bill Maher, New Rule: Men who haven’t spent a single day in combat should be required to never talk about waging war, the troops, or anything even remotely related to sending our troops into harms’ way. Period. Think of how many messes this rule would have prevented!
Badly? Sen. Kerry lost the election by a mere 40,000 votes in Ohio. That’s less than one-tenth of a percent of the voting population. Even on a national scale, the final tally was 51 to 49; the country was pretty evenly split. While this is a discussion from another day, suffice it to say, Sen. Kerry did not “badly” lose to the war-mongering liar.
Now, as to your assertion that Kerry was hinting that Hayden:
one can only assume that you’re talking about Hayden and the warrantless wiretaps/spying on Americans. Let’s review the transcript in which Hayden displays his apalling lack of understanding of one of our most basic rights, in an appearance at the National Press Club on January 23, 2006:
And just to refresh your memory, here’s The Fourth Amendment, emphasis mine:
So, for even the dim-witted, you can see that Hayden is, in fact, not following the Constitution. But not to worry; I’m sure than Hayden’s nomination will being the Domestic Spying scandal back to the front pages, and eventually, a court will rule on this illegal activity.
So, before you go around calling Sen. Kerry a “buffoon” and impuning the character of one of the finest men serving in the Senate, get your facts straight.
May 9th, 2006 at 10:28 pm
“Word out of Washington is that Hayden isn’t a big fan of Rumsfeld.
Says who?”
Says NPR’s Mara Liasson on Fox News Sunday.
The Fourth Amendment argument is stupid but I’ll drill you on it anyway. Teh Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches. The Supreme Court has ruled that intercepts of enemy communications in a time of war is a reasonable search.
That’s why you lost that issue in the presidential election so badly.
Sen. Kerry lost the election by a mere 40,000 votes in Ohio. That’s less than one-tenth of a percent of the voting population. Even on a national scale, the final tally was 51 to 49; the country was pretty evenly split. While this is a discussion from another day, suffice it to say, Sen. Kerry did not “badly†lose to the war-mongering liar.
I didn’t say he lost the election badly. I said he lost that issue badly. He trailed it badly all fall long, in fact. Most polls showed Bush beating Kerry on national security by an almost 3 to 1 margin. That isn’t close.
Well, it is similar. You have the Bush administration secretly spying on Americans. The facts haven’t come out yet (sorry, jumping ahead here) because the RepubliCONS in Congress won’t investigate. Gee, I wonder why.
It isn’t secretly spying on political enemies, which is how J. Edgar Hoover viewed MLK. The NSA intercept program is a data mining operation. There aren’t any similarities.
Despite that this makes absolutely no sense, it is an outrage that you slight Sen. Kerry’s service to this country. Shame on you. Sir, have you fought in the armed forces? No? Then be quiet. To imitate Bill Maher, New Rule: Men who haven’t spent a single day in combat should be required to never talk about waging war, the troops, or anything even remotely related to sending our troops into harms’ way. Period. Think of how many messes this rule would have prevented!
NEW RULE: Citing Bill Maher should be avoided at all costs. He’s got even less credibility than Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy & John Murtha. He’s a loser.
Furthermore, how did I slight Kerry’s service when I didn’t even mention it? You’re a little touchy, aren’t you?
Men who haven’t spent a single day in combat should be required to never talk about waging war, the troops, or anything even remotely related to sending our troops into harms’ way. Period.
Applying the Maher Doctrine, that means that FDR was unfit to command our forces in WWII. It’s an idiotic rule, which stands to reason since Maher’s an idiot.
May 9th, 2006 at 10:45 pm
Sen. Kerry lost the election by a mere 40,000 votes in Ohio.
According to CNN’s website, Bush got 2,859,764 votes to Kerry’s 2,741,165 votes, a margin of 118,599. The margin was 51%-48%.
May 9th, 2006 at 11:31 pm
Regardless, saying anyone ‘badly lost’ the election is more than a bit of wishful thinking, Gary. If Bush’s message was so great, and Kerry’s message was so weak, why didn’t he win more swing voters? Certainly, there’ve been elections in recent memory where the margin was greater and the respective messages were stronger for both sides. Basically, you came down to people picking what they perceived to be the lesser of two evils, or, perhaps, simply the gentleman with whom they’d most likely have a beer with rather than a policy wonk debate with. I wish we’d stop beating some imaginary drum that the Republican message has somehow been immensely coherent, palatable, and successful. What you’ve got is basically Bush stumbling around making bad decision after bad decision, making horrid domestic policy decisions, and is lucky enough to have a Democratic party with it’s head so far up it’s keister that it hasn’t figured out yet how to attack him properly (and for that he should count his lucky stars) and an Republican party willing to kow tow to pretty much anything the man does, regardless of how it hurts the average person or the pary. What Republicans need to do is what some the more ‘net oriented Demo’s are trying to do — taking back their party from the Philistines running the thing.
May 11th, 2006 at 10:14 am
The story begins to unfold:
My query is being answered:
…and if this activity just happens to target opponents of the administration, so be it. It’s just the price we hav to pay for terrorists flying planes into our buildings!
May 11th, 2006 at 2:59 pm
The National Security Agency has been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth, people with direct knowledge of the arrangement told USA TODAY.
This isn’t breaking the law. In fact, AT & T, Verizon & BellSouth are obeying the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, which says in its opening that:
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
the twenty-fifth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and
ninety-four
An Act
To amend title 18, United States Code, to make clear a telecommunications carrier’s duty to cooperate in the interception of communications for law enforcement purposes, and for other purposes.
It seems to me that it’s the law for these companies to assist in the interception of communications.