Another Gore-basm?
Wonder when Rush will start this one again?
So, lock up the kids and family pets....and be prepared for a riveting hour, or more..of Gore at his best, or worse.
Which phoney accent will he adopt today? Will he bow stiffly? Will he lisp slightly? Will the "package" show?
Will he mention either Clinton by name? Some say that he still harbors WH ambitions. Is this a test..putting forth a toe into liberal waters?
Here's your chance to post your favorite Gore pics, toons, whatever..
And while we wait...
1. Whatever could possess Bob Barr to support this buffoon, to appear on the same stage with him?...One theory..since the Brokeback Moutain allegory is all the rage..is that Barr and Gore are longtime secret lovers...Barr tried his best to get Clinton impeached so that his secret flame Albert ( and come on, Albert is kind of a "pouffey" sounding name, and man, look at Tipper, she has to be a "beard" ) could become President..
2. How's Al's idiot cable TV network doing...is it still around? The buzz appears to have faded, considerably..
To be serious for a moment, this is probably the worst thing ever for the Dem party, right now. Fresh from getting their butts kicked at the Alito hearing, Gore's speech will drive the looney moonbat fringe of the Dem party completely off the cliff...( Imagine what the DUmmies are gonna say?) So it's going to raise the heat in the Dem caucus..which meets Wednesday to decide strategy on the Alito vote..)
So, if you're around..tune in C-span at noon, and join us here..should be good for a few yucks..
Al, this speech is more torture than the so-called Abu Ghraib pranks.
ping for later!
Gore sounds like he is advocating a weak presidency with Congress in an oversight, rather than advise and consent, role.
That is just what we need--executive by committee. We thought the Gorelick wall was bad. An Exec-by-committee would get nothing done.
Wonder when Rush will start this one again?
Gore: . This small group, in turn, claimed that they were not given the full facts, though at least one of the intelligence committee leaders handwrote a letter of concern to VP Cheney [and placed a copy in his own safe].
[Gore omitted the segment about the safe. It was in the printed version.]
Global warning.
lol
He had to get that in.
He truly is a legend in his own mind... it appears to him that the administration is at fault for everything. Global warming... oh and now we must defend our liberties from the administration.... oh yes and that Barr quote.... I hope they will.... yes Al, they will... wire tapping innocent Americans.....now YOU are over and out ... click...
Every time I see Al Gore I think about Mad TV's "Lowered Expectations"
Like opening a box of chocolates you never know what yer gonna git- Albert Gump..
People that are really very weird can get into sensitive positions and have a tremendous impact on history. - Vice President Al Gore
DU is going nuts (as predicted)!
The DUmmies are overcome with delirious joy.
Al is the messiah who will lead the dimmiecrats out of the wilderness!
Gore is nothing but a bottom dwelling scum sucking piece of trash. Like 99.9% of all Dems, lying comes real easy to him.
|
What did you mean, Hillary? Were you referring to my keeping quiet about the assault I had suffered at the hands of your husband only two weeks before? Were you warning me to continue to keep quiet? We both know the answer to that question. Yes, I can answer Brit Hume's question. You are the same Hillary that you were twenty years ago. You are cold, calculating and self-serving. You cannot tolerate the thought that you will soon be without the power you have wielded for the last eight years. Your effort to stay in power will be at the expense of the state of New York. I only hope the voters of New York will wake up in time and realize that Hillary Clinton is not an honorable or an honest person.
DO YOU REMEMBER?
|
Warrantless surveillance on terror suspects not new or illegal
Commentary by Michael Barone
The New York Times' Christmas gift—sorry, holiday gift—to the nation's political dialogue was its Dec. 16 story reporting that the National Security Agency has been intercepting telephone conversations between terrorism suspects abroad and U.S. citizens or legal residents in the United States.
What the Times didn't bother telling its readers is that this practice is far from new and is entirely legal. Instead, the unspoken subtext of the story was that this was likely an illegal and certainly a very scary invasion of Americans' rights.
Let's put the issue very simply. The president has the power as commander in chief under the Constitution to intercept and monitor the communications of America's enemies. Indeed, it would be a very weird interpretation of the Constitution to say that the commander in chief could order U.S. forces to kill America's enemies but not to wiretap—or, more likely these days, electronically intercept—their communications. Presidents have asserted and exercised this power repeatedly and consistently over the last quarter-century.
To be sure, federal courts have ruled that the Fourth Amendment's bar of “unreasonable” searches and seizures limits the president's power to intercept communications without obtaining a warrant. But that doesn't apply to foreign intercepts, as the Supreme Court made clear in a 1972 case, writing, “The instant case requires no judgment on the scope of the president's surveillance power with respect to the activities of foreign powers, within or without this country.” The federal courts of appeals for the 5th, 3rd, 9th and 4th Circuits, in cases decided in 1970, 1974, 1977 and 1980, took the same view. In 2002, the special federal court superintending the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act wrote, “The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the president did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. ... We take for granted that the president does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the president's constitutional power.”
Warrantless intercepts of the communications of foreign powers were undertaken as long ago as 1979, by the Carter administration. In 1994, Bill Clinton's deputy attorney general, Jamie Gorelick, testified to Congress, “The Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes.”
In the Dec. 15 Chicago Tribune, John Schmidt, associate attorney general in the Clinton administration, laid it out cold: “President Bush's post-Sept. 11, 2001, authorization to the National Security Agency to carry out electronic surveillance into private phone calls and e-mails is consistent with court decisions and with the positions of the Justice Department under prior presidents.”
I'm a conservative who follows you guys and gals here at times. I ain't no Gore fan, but this spying shit has got to go. Barr and Gore are doing the right thing. Shame on you "conservatives" who say otherwise. Your willingness to sell our freedoms for protection will lead to the loss of our republic. That's bad, man. It's not right. I think I will get my news elsewhere from now on if this is how this site thinks.
I'm a conservative who follows you guys and gals here at times. I ain't no Gore fan, but this spying shit has got to go. Barr and Gore are doing the right thing. Shame on you "conservatives" who say otherwise. Your willingness to sell our freedoms for protection will lead to the loss of our republic. That's bad, man. It's not right. I think I will get my news elsewhere from now on if this is how this site thinks.
I remember it as though it was yesterday. I only wish that it were yesterday and maybe there would still be time to do something about what your husband, Bill Clinton, did to me. There was a political rally for Mr. Clinton's bid for governor of Arkansas. I had obligated myself to be at this rally prior to my being assaulted by your husband in April, 1978. I had made up my mind to make an appearance and then leave as soon as the two of you arrived. This was a big mistake, but I was still in a state of shock and denial. You had questioned the gentleman who drove you and Mr. Clinton from the airport. You asked him about me and if I would be at the gathering. Do you remember? You told the driver, "Bill has talked so much about Juanita", and that you were so anxious to meet me. Well, you wasted no time. As soon as you entered the room, you came directly to me and grabbed my hand. Do you remember how you thanked me, saying "we want to thank you for everything that you do for Bill". At that point, I was pretty shaken and started to walk off. Remember how you kept a tight grip on my hand and drew closer to me? You repeated your statement, but this time with a coldness and look that I have seen many times on television in the last eight years. You said, "Everything you do for Bill". You then released your grip and I said nothing and left the gathering.
I will end by asking if you believe 