The anger in this country is palpable... The video is pretty strong... That really had to suck for Card. Too bad.

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Hundreds_boo_former_Bush_Chief_of_0526.html

Andrew Card, President George W. Bush's former Chief of Staff, was showered with a chorus of boos and catcalls from students and faculty of the University of Massachusetts while receiving an honorary degree Friday. Protesters, who caught the embarrassing scene on video, attached anti-Card signs to their robes and drowned out Provost Charlena Seymour's remarks about Card's "public service." Even faculty sitting on stage joined in on the action, screaming their disapproval while holding signs that read "Card: No Honor, No Degree."

...

The anger in this country is palpable... The video is pretty strong... That really had to suck for Card. Too bad.

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Hundreds_boo_former_Bush_Chief_of_0526.html

Andrew Card, President George W. Bush's former Chief of Staff, was showered with a chorus of boos and catcalls from students and faculty of the University of Massachusetts while receiving an honorary degree Friday. Protesters, who caught the embarrassing scene on video, attached anti-Card signs to their robes and drowned out Provost Charlena Seymour's remarks about Card's "public service." Even faculty sitting on stage joined in on the action, screaming their disapproval while holding signs that read "Card: No Honor, No Degree."

...

How noble.........

How noble.........


Should they have sat silently like good little subjects?



The guy was unelected and likely played a large role in what most people in this country consider a terrible administration. You reap what you sow. Government officials should be afraid to show their faces in public -- especially when receiving an unearned degree in front of hundreds who busted their asses to earn theirs.

Not proper for the faculty to do that, but not surprising either for Umass.

b21
(Umass grad)

Much respect for UMass students and faculty for booing criminals like Card.

Not proper for the faculty to do that,

Why not?

Is not one of the purposes of college to teach independent thought and to challenge authority? Shouldn't the faculty lead by example?

Should they have sat silently like good little subjects?


I find the mob mentality distasteful.

I would rather retain myself.

Why not?

Is not one of the purposes of college to teach independent thought and to challenge authority? Shouldn't the faculty lead by example?


No; conform.

I find the mob mentality distasteful.

I would rather retain myself.


Hey Dov Charney, you're free to express yourself how you wish but if you want to "retain" yourself then you should at least go in the bathroom where we don't have to see it and there's some toilet paper for you to clean up your noble spunk after you finish.

I find the mob mentality distasteful.

I would rather retain myself.


Now we know why Britain has the problem with radcal Islamists that it does.


Again, he's reaping what he's sown. His public service record invited the reaction witnessed.

Now we know why Britain has the problem with radcal Islamists that it does.


Again, he's reaping what he's sown. His public service record invited the reaction witnessed.



I'd be seriously pissed if it were my college graduation... I'd consider the University administration giving any current or past member of the Bush Administration an honorary degree a significant dilution of the one that my fellow alumni and I worked so hard to earn and a very loud and clear F-you.

I'd be seriously pissed if it were my college graduation... I'd consider the University administration giving any current or past member of the Bush Administration an honorary degree a significant dilution of the one that my fellow alumni and I worked so hard to earn and a very loud and clear F-you.

Honorary degrees are BS anyway.


Now we know why Britain has the problem with radcal Islamists that it does.

Radical islam is the unthinking mob mentality in many respects.

Radical islam is the unthinking mob mentality in many respects.


How so?

How so?

In the Genealogy of Morals, Nietzsche identifies something called herd mentality............radical Islam is this in its most rampant and ugly form.

Not proper for the faculty to do that, but not surprising either for Umass.

b21
(Umass grad)

By whose standard?

I for one would be proud if my profs had the balls to do what those people did. It's called leadership.

I was shocked to see how big the signs were on the dais.

In the Genealogy of Morals, Nietzsche identifies something called herd mentality............radical Islam is this in its most rampant and ugly form.


And what was his solution to the herd mentality?

Honorary degrees are BS anyway.

You've got that right but...

Radical islam is the unthinking mob mentality in many respects.

KenB actually made the comment about Britain but I'd expand on that and go with the British Commonwealth.

What happened at UMass was not even close to the unthinking mob/herd mentality... they would have had to lynch Card to have qualified for that status IMO. This was much closer to civil disobedience… perhaps you’re not familiar with Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr.?

Why not?

Is not one of the purposes of college to teach independent thought and to challenge authority? Shouldn't the faculty lead by example?

You call that leading by authority?/ Setting an example for young people? What about the rights of the people there who had a different opinion? They don't count?? Its one thing to express an opinion, another to act like a bunch of morons. So typical--its OK, as long as it jives with your opinion, and that's all it is, your opinion. If it were a bunch of right wing idiots doing the same thing, there would be a huge thread about how outrageous it was...and if anyone pulled that at Umass against Hillary Clinton, the faculty would be "outraged". What goes around comes around. In 1970, Hubert Humphrey was booed off the stage at Umass trying to give a speech. so it goes

b21

Yup its OK as long as you agree with it, and you would be the first one to whine if you didnt....

In the Genealogy of Morals, Nietzsche identifies something called herd mentality............radical Islam is this in its most rampant and ugly form.

Nietzsche's metaphor of 'the herd' at it's nucleus expresses his abhorrence of Christian moralities and from there expands outward forming a gigantic net so vast that it ensnares you and everything you align yourself with.

You call that leading by authority?/ Setting an example for young people? What about the rights of the people there who had a different opinion? They don't count?? Its one thing to express an opinion, another to act like a bunch of morons. So typical--its OK, as long as it jives with your opinion, and that's all it is, your opinion. If it were a bunch of right wing idiots doing the same thing, there would be a huge thread about how outrageous it was...and if anyone pulled that at Umass against Hillary Clinton, the faculty would be "outraged". What goes around comes around. In 1970, Hubert Humphrey was booed off the stage at Umass trying to give a speech. so it goes

b21


It's all freedom of expression and your projecting is BS... but hey, you're free to do it.

The UMass faculty should be lauded for this. I'm sure the Sean Hannity/O'Reilly types will whine that this isn't patriotic, appropriate, and all other sorts of nonsense. It's those exact same people who complain that people in other countries don't stand up and hold their governments accountable for egregious offenses.

Chapeau to UMass.

Yup its OK as long as you agree with it, and you would be the first one to whine if you didnt....


to agree with Barry here, it's one thing for the students to do so, but quite another for the faculty to do it. Embarassing for the school. I am all for teaching students to think with an open mind and to voice and express their opinions, but civility, honor, and tact should be paramount, and the faculty acting in that manner showed that they have none of the above.

You call that leading by authority?/ Setting an example for young people? What about the rights of the people there who had a different opinion? They don't count?? Its one thing to express an opinion, another to act like a bunch of morons. So typical--its OK, as long as it jives with your opinion, and that's all it is, your opinion. If it were a bunch of right wing idiots doing the same thing, there would be a huge thread about how outrageous it was...and if anyone pulled that at Umass against Hillary Clinton, the faculty would be "outraged". What goes around comes around. In 1970, Hubert Humphrey was booed off the stage at Umass trying to give a speech. so it goes

b21


LOL.... Waaaaaaaaaa! Actually, I said "leading by example". Try reading comprehension on for size sometime. The others there who disagreed with the protestors had just as much right to speak up. Shame on them for not doing so. Shame on UMass for picking such a lame-o to give an honorary degree to.

Face it, your side is morally bankrupt and a bunch or morons to boot.

to agree with Barry here, it's one thing for the students to do so, but quite another for the faculty to do it. Embarassing for the school. I am all for teaching students to think with an open mind and to voice and express their opinions, but civility, honor, and tact should be paramount, and the faculty acting in that manner showed that they have none of the above.


There are occasions where approaching an issue with civility and tact fails. Treating Republican party members with civility and tact is what has empowered them to continue along the path of corruption for the past 20 years because they mistakenly considered the general attitude of respect towards their positions as tacit approval of the garbage they've been peddling. For the good of America and the world in general, the time has long since past to shout these idiots, and those who support them, down.

There are occasions where approaching an issue with civility and tact fails. Treating Republican party members with civility and tact is what has empowered them to continue along the path of corruption for the past 20 years because they mistakenly considered the general attitude of respect towards their positions as tacit approval of the garbage they've been peddling. For the good of America and the world in general, the time has long since past to shout these idiots, and those who support them, down.


disagree, as faculty, if you oppose him recieving an honorary degree, than you voice your opposition in the student paper, you have a conversation with the dean or proctor behind closed doors, there are many other ways to do it, to act that way at the ceremony is beyond reproach.

I absolutely applaud the UMass faculty for taking a stand against giving this political hack an "honorary degree". Giving Card a degree demeans the faculty and demeans the student body.

Kudos for standing up and not taking the cowardly route.

I absolutely applaud the UMass faculty for taking a stand against giving this political hack an "honorary degree". Giving Card a degree demeans the faculty and demeans the student body.

Kudos for standing up and not taking the cowardly route.


you say the same if they had done this to Hillary or Obama??:confused:

LOL.... Waaaaaaaaaa! Actually, I said "leading by example". Try reading comprehension on for size sometime. The others there who disagreed with the protestors had just as much right to speak up. Shame on them for not doing so. Shame on UMass for picking such a lame-o to give an honorary degree to.

Face it, your side is morally bankrupt and a bunch or morons to boot.

I DO agree that it was an incredibly lame person, particularly at UMass, to give the award to tho. As for the rest of your comment, no reply necessary, you say quite enough about yourself!!

b21

to agree with Barry here, it's one thing for the students to do so, but quite another for the faculty to do it. Embarassing for the school. I am all for teaching students to think with an open mind and to voice and express their opinions, but civility, honor, and tact should be paramount, and the faculty acting in that manner showed that they have none of the above.

The faculty had plenty of opportunity to express their disgust. They could have boycotted if they were unhappy. IMO they crossed the line. No lesson taught in what they did. Plus its hypocritical, if it were done to a liberal person there, the moral outrage and call for suspensions would be everywhere.

b21

There are occasions where approaching an issue with civility and tact fails. Treating Republican party members with civility and tact is what has empowered them to continue along the path of corruption for the past 20 years because they mistakenly considered the general attitude of respect towards their positions as tacit approval of the garbage they've been peddling. For the good of America and the world in general, the time has long since past to shout these idiots, and those who support them, down.

That's quite a mouthful. Sounds like it could have come right from Hugo Chavez!! It's amazing that any republicans ever get elected at all, what with all the great democratic leadership this country has had.

you say the same if they had done this to Hillary or Obama??:confused:


Most definitely. If you want to make a university commencement a political event by having a political figure speak or be presented with an honorary degree, you invite divergent views to be voiced -- loudly in some cases.

disagree, as faculty, if you oppose him recieving an honorary degree, than you voice your opposition in the student paper, you have a conversation with the dean or proctor behind closed doors, there are many other ways to do it, to act that way at the ceremony is beyond reproach.

It's ok, we can disagree. I still love you. :p

That's quite a mouthful. Sounds like it could have come right from Hugo Chavez!! It's amazing that any republicans ever get elected at all, what with all the great democratic leadership this country has had.


Hugo huh? I've never really listened to him. One of your heroes?

It is amazing that people vote Republican. A testament to the abysmal state of our primary educational system.

There are occasions where approaching an issue with civility and tact fails. Treating Republican party members with civility and tact is what has empowered them to continue along the path of corruption for the past 20 years because they mistakenly considered the general attitude of respect towards their positions as tacit approval of the garbage they've been peddling. For the good of America and the world in general, the time has long since past to shout these idiots, and those who support them, down.

Exactly!

you say the same if they had done this to Hillary or Obama??:confused:

Why is it so difficult to grasp that this isn't a partisan issue but rather an issue with the actions of the administration?

The faculty had plenty of opportunity to express their disgust. They could have boycotted if they were unhappy. IMO they crossed the line. No lesson taught in what they did. Plus its hypocritical, if it were done to a liberal person there, the moral outrage and call for suspensions would be everywhere.

b21

Barry,

Respect is earned. This is not a monarchy. No other administration has screwed the pooch as badly as the Bush admin. Just because the UMass admin. decided to honor Card, it doesn't mean the faculty or the student body have to agree.

What shocks me is that there are still people like you who don't want to hold the Bush admin accountable. Public scorn is the least of what these buffoons deserve. Hundreds of thousands of innocent lives have been lost due to their incompetence/negligence/crimes against humanity/war profiteering...etc. Take your pick, some or all apply.

Just this week, Dick Cheney advocated to our future military leaders that they shouldn't follow the Geneva Conventions. IMO, he should be impeached for not upholding the Constitution that he swore his oath of office. The Geneva Conventions were ratified by Congress and are part of our laws. Where does he get off subverting the will of the people?

Perhaps this Memorial Day we can figure out why our bravest and finest are dying on a daily basis, but I doubt we'll ever truly know why. Perhap we could explain it to the 3,500 families who'd like to know why they've sacrificed so greatly while 'President' Bush tells the rest of us to "Go shopping."

Barry,

Respect is earned. This is not a monarchy. No other administration has screwed the pooch as badly as the Bush admin. Just because the UMass admin. decided to honor Card, it doesn't mean the faculty or the student body have to agree.

What shocks me is that there are still people like you who don't want to hold the Bush admin accountable. Public scorn is the least of what these buffoons deserve. Hundreds of thousands of innocent lives have been lost due to their incompetence/negligence/crimes against humanity/war profiteering...etc. Take your pick, some or all apply.

Just this week, Dick Cheney advocated to our future military leaders that they shouldn't follow the Geneva Conventions. IMO, he should be impeached for not upholding the Constitution that he swore his oath of office. The Geneva Conventions were ratified by Congress and are part of our laws. Where does he get off subverting the will of the people?

Perhaps this Memorial Day we can figure out why our bravest and finest are dying on a daily basis, but I doubt we'll ever truly know why. Perhap we could explain it to the 3,500 families who'd like to know why they've sacrificed so greatly while 'President' Bush tells the rest of us to "Go shopping."

I read the speech you posted and I don't understand how it was advocating throwing out the Conventions. It outlines the differences between us and them, the way you represent it seems to be your choice rather than representative of what he meant by it. Did he, in any other part of the speech, clarify it to mean what you are saying?

disagree, as faculty, if you oppose him recieving an honorary degree, than you voice your opposition in the student paper, you have a conversation with the dean or proctor behind closed doors, there are many other ways to do it, to act that way at the ceremony is beyond reproach.

and if they did all of those things, to no avail in changing the process, then they should just shut up and lump it?

sorry. but the time for politeness toward these people, when they have nothing but contempt and scorn for those who disagree with them, is long past. they should be shamed publicly whenever they decide to come out of their hiding places, not treated with deference and respect, and awarded for their complicity in these despicable crimes against humanity.

I read the speech you posted and I don't understand how it was advocating throwing out the Conventions. It outlines the differences between us and them, the way you represent it seems to be your choice rather than representative of what he meant by it. Did he, in any other part of the speech, clarify it to mean what you are saying?

yes, and his inference was that following the Geneva conventions and our Constitutional processes somehow ties our hands, and might not be such a good thing to have, while our enemies aren't bound by such restrictions, and therefore don't go into battle with their hands tied.

yes, and his inference was that following the Geneva conventions and our Constitutional processes somehow ties our hands, and might not be such a good thing to have, while our enemies aren't bound by such restrictions, and therefore don't go into battle with their hands tied.

I understood him to be inferring that they are the bad guys and we have been trained to be the good guys. Of course, I tend to agree with that idea wheras you don't seem to.

I understood him to be inferring that they are the bad guys and we have been trained to be the good guys. Of course, I tend to agree with that idea wheras you don't seem to.


What training do our guys get that makes them "Good Guys"?

What training do our guys get that makes them "Good Guys"?

This may be the part of Cheney's speech you didn'tr bother to read:

"The standards of this Academy only highlight the deepest and most fundamental difference between the United States and our sworn enemies. A month ago, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Pace, spoke to this class about each officer's duty to follow a moral compass in all of his or her actions. In these four years you have learned the rules of warfare and professional military ethics. You've studied the tenets of morality. You've reflected on the seven Army values: of loyalty, duty, respect, selfless service, honor, integrity, and personal courage. You have lived by a code of honor, and internalized that code as West Point men and women always do."

This may be the part of Cheney's speech you didn'tr bother to read:

"The standards of this Academy only highlight the deepest and most fundamental difference between the United States and our sworn enemies. A month ago, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Pace, spoke to this class about each officer's duty to follow a moral compass in all of his or her actions. In these four years you have learned the rules of warfare and professional military ethics. You've studied the tenets of morality. You've reflected on the seven Army values: of loyalty, duty, respect, selfless service, honor, integrity, and personal courage. You have lived by a code of honor, and internalized that code as West Point men and women always do."


Damn. I was hopeful that you would have pointed out the part in the article about where Brigadier General Patrick Finnegan teaches "not just what is legal but what is right." and to "respect the rule of law and human rights, even when terrorists did not."

Damn. I was hopeful that you would have pointed out the part in the article about where Brigadier General Patrick Finnegan teaches "not just what is legal but what is right." and to "respect the rule of law and human rights, even when terrorists did not."

I thought this was about where Cheney disputed those principles?

I thought this was about where Cheney disputed those principles?


I thought this was about UMass? Am I in the wrong thread again??? :)


Actually, I thought Cheney's speech wasn't bad at all. It'd have been better if he mentioned the rule of law thing himself but I didn't see the speech as a criticism of the GC.


Now, ask me if I think he believed a word he said.....

Barry,

Respect is earned. This is not a monarchy. No other administration has screwed the pooch as badly as the Bush admin. Just because the UMass admin. decided to honor Card, it doesn't mean the faculty or the student body have to agree.

What shocks me is that there are still people like you who don't want to hold the Bush admin accountable. Public scorn is the least of what these buffoons deserve. Hundreds of thousands of innocent lives have been lost due to their incompetence/negligence/crimes against humanity/war profiteering...etc. Take your pick, some or all apply.

Just this week, Dick Cheney advocated to our future military leaders that they shouldn't follow the Geneva Conventions. IMO, he should be impeached for not upholding the Constitution that he swore his oath of office. The Geneva Conventions were ratified by Congress and are part of our laws. Where does he get off subverting the will of the people?

Perhaps this Memorial Day we can figure out why our bravest and finest are dying on a daily basis, but I doubt we'll ever truly know why. Perhap we could explain it to the 3,500 families who'd like to know why they've sacrificed so greatly while 'President' Bush tells the rest of us to "Go shopping."

YOU HAVE NO F***ING IDEA WHAT MY POLITICS ARE!! I didn't vote for him and I don't support him. I was against the move into Iraq and I had access to consultants that predicted exactly what happened, so why didn't they?? You can put the blame on him and all republicans if you want, couldn't care less. All I said was that the faculty was out of bounds and set a bad example. Don't you lecture me!! You can be "shocked" all you want that people don't think like you but hey!! that's life. To me, it looks like a very good thing that people don't think like you.

The two times I ventured into this forum was to discuss the left's harmful, moronic and uninformed view of the US energy industry, which I stand by and will debate with anyone in this forum or in Congress for that matter, and to say that the faculty at Umass crossed the line. If you and YOUR extreme political slant want to interpret that as a right wing view, fine, but it's not!! I was marching against a war before you were probably born, and I have voted for far more democrats in my life than republicans, FWIW.

b21.

Wow! I think someone just blew a gasket. Rightly so, I guess. I certainly wouldn't want to be painted as a neocon sympathizer if I weren't. But if you're gonna appear to defend the neocons, you should expect to be painted with the same brush.

So, if you don't think a little public scorn is appropriate then what is?

There are occasions where approaching an issue with civility and tact fails.

Then let it fail? If the end is all that matters than we can always justify the means....a little violance maybe?

Then let it fail? If the end is all that matters than we can always justify the means....a little violance maybe?


You're really reaching on that one.

You're really reaching on that one.

Not historically.

Barry needs a timeout.

This is the 'civil discourse' we have to look forward too? What an enlightened group. I saw Al Gore on CNN's Larry King yesterday, he talked about how Iraq didn't attack us. He doesn't remember the tens of thousands of U.S. troops who served over Iraq, in Kuwait, and in Saudi Arabia while he was Vice President. He doesn't seem to remember this...
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/pentagon/maps/8.html
"At the same time, there is a build-up of U.S. forces in North Africa, the Middle East and South Asia from 12,400 troops in 1997 to 29,800 troops in 1999 due to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's refusal to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors . The U.S. rushes aircraft carriers to the region and threaten strikes against Iraq. Some 5,500 troops are station in Saudi Arabia, another 4,000 in Kuwait and as many as 16,100 "afloat" in the area. Meanwhile, the U.S. launches a cruise missile attack on Afghanistan and Sudan in response to Osama bin Laden's embassy bombings, though no ground forces are used in the attacks."
The pure lies the left is tieing itself in are staggering and as an American who spent a chunk of his life in the region of the country that didn't 'attack us', if you think these dweebs at uMass are motivated, you haven't seen nothin' yet.

Then let it fail? .... a little violance maybe?


Yes, if necessary.

I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government.

This is the 'civil discourse' we have to look forward too? What an enlightened group. I saw Al Gore on CNN's Larry King yesterday, he talked about how Iraq didn't attack us. He doesn't remember the tens of thousands of U.S. troops who served over Iraq, in Kuwait, and in Saudi Arabia while he was Vice President. He doesn't seem to remember this...
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/pentagon/maps/8.html
"At the same time, there is a build-up of U.S. forces in North Africa, the Middle East and South Asia from 12,400 troops in 1997 to 29,800 troops in 1999 due to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's refusal to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors . The U.S. rushes aircraft carriers to the region and threaten strikes against Iraq. Some 5,500 troops are station in Saudi Arabia, another 4,000 in Kuwait and as many as 16,100 "afloat" in the area. Meanwhile, the U.S. launches a cruise missile attack on Afghanistan and Sudan in response to Osama bin Laden's embassy bombings, though no ground forces are used in the attacks."
The pure lies the left is tieing itself in are staggering and as an American who spent a chunk of his life in the region of the country that didn't 'attack us', if you think these dweebs at uMass are motivated, you haven't seen nothin' yet.


How are those events equivalent to a six year (with no end in sight) ground war in Iraq?

Yes, if necessary.

I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government.

I did not realise your belief in democracy was conditional?

I did not realise your belief in democracy was conditional?

When the government is corrupt and the rule of law fails or when the government oversteps its legal bounds, there are few options for those wishing to preserve democracy. Thus my unwaivering support of the Second Amendment.

When the government is corrupt and the rule of law fails or when the government oversteps its legal bounds, there are few options for those wishing to preserve democracy. Thus my unwaivering support of the Second Amendment.

Is the shouting and heckling of an angry mob consistant with your notion of democracy?

Is the shouting and heckling of an angry mob consistant with your notion of democracy?



Absolutely! In cases like UMass, it's a great example of the People using their First Amendment rights in the way intended. Rebellion against corruption doesn't necessarily require violence. Oft times just volume is enough to get the point across.

You may find speaking out against a corrupt government distasteful but I find it refreshing and invigorating that many people are no longer content to just sit back and let the wholesale corruption of our principles take place unchallenged.

Absolutely! In cases like UMass, it's a great example of the People using their First Amendment rights in the way intended. Rebellion against corruption doesn't necessarily require violence. Oft times just volume is enough to get the point across.

You may find speaking out against a corrupt government distasteful but I find it refreshing and invigorating that many people are no longer content to just sit back and let the wholesale corruption of our principles take place unchallenged.

That you disagree with a governments decision and policies does not make it corrupt.

I thought this was about UMass? Am I in the wrong thread again??? :)


Actually, I thought Cheney's speech wasn't bad at all. It'd have been better if he mentioned the rule of law thing himself but I didn't see the speech as a criticism of the GC.


Now, ask me if I think he believed a word he said.....

I agree that it is a spillover but Spyderman mixed the two threads and he kept pounding the idea that Cheney had subverted the Geneva Conventions without anything to support that idea. I asked him the same question twice and got no answer either time but you expanded the discussion in this thread.

As for your personal feelings about Cheney, I feel differently and yes, I believe he believes in what he says.

That you disagree with a governments decision and policies does not make it corrupt.


I agree. It's the actions of said government regarding the rule of law that matters. This administration's actions in regards to our laws are a matter of record.


/now, I'm off to the beach. :)

And now for a little Phil Donahue...he came to our campus about 5 years ago. Went on a tirade about the Bushies...(he was before his time)...and was thrashed for it. People booed, others walked out...the University had to apologize and have Mr. Donahue ridden out of town on a rail with proper tarr and feathering (a southern tradition)...

It was right then to do what our parents, faculty and students did to Phil...and it is right now for Mr. Card to have it handed him as well.

/now, I'm off to clean a messy house...hey wait.

And now for a little Phil Donahue...he came to our campus about 5 years ago. Went on a tirade about the Bushies...(he was before his time)...and was thrashed for it. People booed, others walked out...the University had to apologize and have Mr. Donahue ridden out of town on a rail with proper tarr and feathering (a southern tradition)...

It was right then to do what our parents, faculty and students did to Phil...and it is right now for Mr. Card to have it handed him as well.

Was Phil invited there for an honorary degree at the time or was he a paid speaker with an unpopular message? I'm not all that familiar with the Card incident but I had the impression that he was invited and it was that invitation and the honor that the students and faculty found objectionable rather than his message. Did he even get to speak?

Barry needs a timeout.

to just talk bikes.

b21

How are those events equivalent to a six year (with no end in sight) ground war in Iraq?

The war he is referring to never actually concluded. The end of hostilities depended on Saddam fully complying with the demands and requirements set forth and he never did. There is a lot of BS about that fact but it remains the truth. The issue of WMD's was never concluded until after the invasion in spite of the propaganda to the contrary.

This is the 'civil discourse' we have to look forward too? What an enlightened group. I saw Al Gore on CNN's Larry King yesterday, he talked about how Iraq didn't attack us. He doesn't remember the tens of thousands of U.S. troops who served over Iraq, in Kuwait, and in Saudi Arabia while he was Vice President. He doesn't seem to remember this...
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/pentagon/maps/8.html
"At the same time, there is a build-up of U.S. forces in North Africa, the Middle East and South Asia from 12,400 troops in 1997 to 29,800 troops in 1999 due to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's refusal to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors . The U.S. rushes aircraft carriers to the region and threaten strikes against Iraq. Some 5,500 troops are station in Saudi Arabia, another 4,000 in Kuwait and as many as 16,100 "afloat" in the area. Meanwhile, the U.S. launches a cruise missile attack on Afghanistan and Sudan in response to Osama bin Laden's embassy bombings, though no ground forces are used in the attacks."
The pure lies the left is tieing itself in are staggering and as an American who spent a chunk of his life in the region of the country that didn't 'attack us', if you think these dweebs at uMass are motivated, you haven't seen nothin' yet.

and where in all that was the point where Iraq attacked us?

That you disagree with a governments decision and policies does not make it corrupt.

No, that those decisions were iillegal and criminal makes it corrupt.

The war he is referring to never actually concluded. The end of hostilities depended on Saddam fully complying with the demands and requirements set forth and he never did. There is a lot of BS about that fact but it remains the truth. The issue of WMD's was never concluded until after the invasion in spite of the propaganda to the contrary.

let's see, Saddam turned over 12,000 pages of reports detailing that he had no WMD's. administration said that wasn't good enough. We had weapons inspectors on the ground in Iraq, not finding any WMD's. administration said that ain't good enough.

Invaded his country, didn't find any WMD's. looks like the burden of proof is on the administration at this point. either put up or shut up. If you know where they are, gladly point them out so we can go get 'em.

"we know exactly where they are, they're in the areas of Baghdad and Tikrit, and north and east somewhat".

Booing Card before he gave his speach was rude. The booing should have been done after his speach.

Intelligence and the Bush administration have been at odds from the beginning. Bush showed he wants to part of intelligence. The video showed intelligence making it known it wants no part of the Bush administration.
Silence from Congress, silence from the media, silence from the American people. These got us into the mess. But it's no too late to protest rewarding and honoring those responsible.
The administration made it clear they despised academia, mainly because it involves too many curious people constantly asking questions about the world and insisting things be thought out and talked about, possibly debated!!
Bush still has a few months in office to hand out Congressional Medals of Freedom to all his staff. If they want to be so excluding, secretive, and ignore the will of the people, they can hold their own commencement in the White House in January 2008. Pat each other on the back, shake Dean George's hand as he sends them off into the real world, totally unprepared to deal with reality.

If they want to be so excluding, secretive, and ignore the will of the people, they can hold their own commencement in the White House in January 2008. Pat each other on the back, shake Dean George's hand as he sends them off into the real world, totally unprepared to deal with reality.


It's too bad that they won't be moving on quite that soon

and where in all that was the point where Iraq attacked us?
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=42488
Iraq Fires on Northern Watch Pilots

By Kathleen T. Rhem
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, Nov. 18, 2002 – Iraqi forces fired anti-aircraft artillery Nov. 17 and today at coalition airplanes enforcing the Northern No-fly Zone over Iraq.
Both attacks came from positions northeast of Mosul, defense officials said. In both instances, coalition aircraft responded by dropping precision-guided munitions on Iraqi air defense elements.

The exchanges of fire don't differ much from hundreds of others over the past 11 years. But these strikes and others in the past week are of particular interest to world leaders because they come after the signing of a new U.N. Security Council resolution that authorizes strong repercussions for such aggression.

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/meast/02/16/no.fly.zones/
February 16, 2001
Web posted at: 9:43 p.m. EST (0243 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Although Friday's strikes against Iraq was the first time targets outside the two "no-fly" zones have been hit in the last two years, provocations and responses between Iraqi military forces and U.S. and British aircraft in the Persian Gulf happen almost daily, Pentagon sources say.

Last year, the Pentagon recorded 366 violations or provocations by the Iraqis in the two no-fly zones -- 221 in the south and 145 in the north.

U.S. and British forces track attacks against Iraqi targets in the zones as "strike days" and count them separately in the two zones. In 2000, they recorded 80 strike days -- 32 in the south and 48 in the north.

In 1999, 557 violations and provocations were recorded in the south and 143 in the north. Coalition warplanes struck on 61 days in the south and 102 days in the north.

Pentagon officials say Iraqis have already committed 80 provocative acts this year and U.S. and British warplanes have struck targets twice.

The no-fly zones were established by the anti-Iraq coalition forces to protect Kurds in the north and Shiite Muslims in the south who were trying to overthrow Saddam Hussein's government in the aftermath of the war.

The United States and Britain claim they have been granted authority to enforce the no-fly zones by the United Nations. Iraq does not recognize the no-fly zones and has been actively, but unsuccessfully, trying to shoot down allied planes.

Pentagon officials consider violations or provocations:

• Firing anti-aircraft missiles or guns at allied aircraft

• "Illuminating" or "locking-on" allied aircraft with anti-aircraft radar

• Flying military aircraft in the no-fly zone

• Moving or repositioning anti-aircraft weapons in a fashioned considered hostile

In the most recent attacks before Friday's, Iraq said that U.S. and British warplanes injured seven people and destroyed 17 houses in airstrikes on Sunday in the southern part of the country.

Bombs hit civilian buildings and military installations in the provinces of Basra and Maisan, an unidentified military spokesman said in comments carried by the official Iraqi News Agency. He said the houses were destroyed in Basra, about 330 miles (550 kilometers) south of Baghdad.

Iraq last month said U.S.- British warplanes killed six of its citizens in strikes on southern Iraq and that its air defense units hit one of the planes.

The U.S. military denied any aircraft was hit, saying all planes returned safely after a raid conducted in response to Iraqi anti-aircraft fire.

The official Iraqi News Agency said allied aircraft attacked civilian targets in two districts in the southern province of al-Muthana, 200 miles (350 kilometers) south of Baghdad.

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=42488


http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/meast/02/16/no.fly.zones/


Oh dear... :rolleyes:

Oh dear... :rolleyes:

Well it's not like Germany bombed Chicago. The 'Iraq didn't attack us' mantra is a giant strawman and you'd think Al Gore could do better than use Rosie O'Donnell's lines.

To make a slight attempt to be on topic. UMass should not graduate the protesters as they have proven beyond all doubt they are not capable of civil discourse, but they are capable of acting as a lynch mob, nice. You don't like the administration, win the Presidential election, it's as simple as that.

Well it's not like Germany bombed Chicago. The 'Iraq didn't attack us' mantra is a giant strawman and you'd think Al Gore could do better than use Rosie O'Donnell's lines.

To make a slight attempt to be on topic. UMass should not graduate the protesters as they have proven beyond all doubt they are not capable of civil discourse, but they are capable of acting as a lynch mob, nice. You don't like the administration, win the Presidential election, it's as simple as that.


Try checking the facts,,, there was no lynching and only non-violent civil disobedience. If you think UMass shouldn't have issued diplomas to the protesters then you should try to be appointed as provost of UMass, it's as simple as that. Good luck... I'm sure the courts will rule in your favor.

Well it's not like Germany bombed Chicago. The 'Iraq didn't attack us' mantra is a giant strawman and you'd think Al Gore could do better than use Rosie O'Donnell's lines.

To make a slight attempt to be on topic. UMass should not graduate the protesters as they have proven beyond all doubt they are not capable of civil discourse, but they are capable of acting as a lynch mob, nice. You don't like the administration, win the Presidential election, it's as simple as that.

So, it doesn't matter that Iraq didn't attack us? It doesn't matter that we were lied into an unnecessary war?

I believe the Nazi party is starting a new youth movement... you might wanna check it out.

So, you're back to "We won the election so STFU?" Gawd the level of discourse you offer is worse than how po lil Andy was treated by those meanies at UMass... :rolleyes:

you say the same if they had done this to Hillary or Obama??:confused:
Hillary spoke at my graduation a couple years ago, as the Senator from our state.

One goofball stood up on his chair with an Abu Gharib hood on and screamed that she is responsible and needs to end the war.

I don't remember any discussion of this incident on PO or anywhere else, especially by those attacking the student's freedom to do such a thing.

there was no lynching and only non-violent civil disobedience.

Were they even guilty of civil disobedience? That would imply breaking the law.

Were they even guilty of civil disobedience? That would imply breaking the law.


Well that's a good point you have there... not even, really... but if folks like stealthman_1 were the ruling authority I bet they would have been.

Well it's not like Germany bombed Chicago. The 'Iraq didn't attack us' mantra is a giant strawman and you'd think Al Gore could do better than use Rosie O'Donnell's lines.

To make a slight attempt to be on topic. UMass should not graduate the protesters as they have proven beyond all doubt they are not capable of civil discourse, but they are capable of acting as a lynch mob, nice. You don't like the administration, win the Presidential election, it's as simple as that.

ummmm, Germany declared war on us. as in, an open announcement that they were at war with us. Something the US has yet to do re: Iraq.

Gee, the Iraqis shot at American planes flying missions over their sovereign airspace. you still haven't shown where they attacked us.

ummmm, Germany declared war on us. as in, an open announcement that they were at war with us. Something the US has yet to do re: Iraq.

Gee, the Iraqis shot at American planes flying missions over their sovereign airspace. you still haven't shown where they attacked us.


nit picker. :)

In the Genealogy of Morals, Nietzsche identifies something called herd mentality............radical Islam is this in its most rampant and ugly form.
Nietzsche was talking about Christians you moreon--or really any type of religion that attempts to instill it's own morality in its members. Think for yourself.

Hillary spoke at my graduation a couple years ago, as the Senator from our state.

One goofball stood up on his chair with an Abu Gharib hood on and screamed that she is responsible and needs to end the war.

I don't remember any discussion of this incident on PO or anywhere else, especially by those attacking the student's freedom to do such a thing.

The goofball should have been escorted out. Students have no 'freedom' to disrupt an event they are invitees too, what about the rights of the students who disagree? Why should their day be marred? These students know nothing of personal responsibility, is this what we can expect from our 'brightest' any time they don't agree with someone? So when shouting down isn't effective enough when do they start shooting? When I graduated we were on notice that a requirement to graduation was that you could behave for two hours. You had the rest of your life to make an ass out of yourself. I didn't graduate from the Hitler Youth Camp either and it's really shameless to cheapen the tens of millions who suffered and died in WWII with such gross hyperbole.

The goofball should have been escorted out. Students have no 'freedom' to disrupt an event they are invitees too, what about the rights of the students who disagree? Why should their day be marred? These students know nothing of personal responsibility, is this what we can expect from our 'brightest' any time they don't agree with someone? So when shouting down isn't effective enough when do they start shooting? When I graduated we were on notice that a requirement to graduation was that you could behave for two hours. You had the rest of your life to make an ass out of yourself. I didn't graduate from the Hitler Youth Camp either and it's really shameless to cheapen the tens of millions who suffered and died in WWII with such gross hyperbole.

Extreme times often call for extreme measures.

Extreme times often call for extreme measures.

If you think the current climate in the U.S. or the world is at any point even remotely near extreme, you live in a bubble that is going to hurt when it pops.

If you think the current climate in the U.S. or the world is at any point even remotely near extreme, you live in a bubble that is going to hurt when it pops.

Maybe not yet, but better to be prepared when the sh*t does hit the fan.

Maybe not yet, but better to be prepared when the sh*t does hit the fan.

I've come to the realization that I like the current political climate in the US. The more the two sides are at each other's throats, the more each side is looking to frame the other, the more each side is so partisan it won't compromise with the other.... the better off We the People are. The current environment prevents the really stupid laws from being passed and keeps each side afraid to move.

It is out of the chaos that new, stronger parties will emerge that better represent what The People actually want from their government. It may take a generation or so but I'm willing to wait it out. Cry havoc, and let slip the dogs of war!

I've come to the realization that I like the current political climate in the US. The more the two sides are at each other's throats, the more each side is looking to frame the other, the more each side is so partisan it won't compromise with the other.... the better off We the People are. The current environment prevents the really stupid laws from being passed and keeps each side afraid to move.

It is out of the chaos that new, stronger parties will emerge that better represent what The People actually want from their government. It may take a generation or so but I'm willing to wait it out. Cry havoc, and let slip the dogs of war!

Better to cry "Bullsh&t!" and let slip the old dogs of both parties. this partisan free for all won't end until we get so damned tired of it we elect new blood that feels the same way.

Better to cry "Bullsh&t!" and let slip the old dogs of both parties. this partisan free for all won't end until we get so damned tired of it we elect new blood that feels the same way.

LOL! That's kinda what I was saying in that last paragraph, only less funny. :)

Think for yourself.

A virtue lacking in heckling mobs.

The goofball should have been escorted out. Students have no 'freedom' to disrupt an event they are invitees too, what about the rights of the students who disagree? Why should their day be marred? These students know nothing of personal responsibility, is this what we can expect from our 'brightest' any time they don't agree with someone? So when shouting down isn't effective enough when do they start shooting? When I graduated we were on notice that a requirement to graduation was that you could behave for two hours. You had the rest of your life to make an ass out of yourself. I didn't graduate from the Hitler Youth Camp either and it's really shameless to cheapen the tens of millions who suffered and died in WWII with such gross hyperbole.

I gleaned two words out of this...tell me what you think...GROSS HYPERBOLE.

/try to set your mockrage for stun.

I gleaned two words out of this...tell me what you think...GROSS HYPERBOLE.

/try to set your mockrage for stun.

I agree, everyone knows that college students can't behave for two hours.

A virtue lacking in heckling mobs.


By your standard exactly how many protesters could there have been before you would have presumed them to be lacking the virtue of independent thinking?

-- Do you always write in your vote to express how virtuously independent you are?

I agree, everyone knows that college students can't behave for two hours.


Was that your personal experience?

By your standard exactly how many protesters could there have been before you would have presumed them to be lacking the virtue of independent thinking?


None. He's a good little subject.

In the Genealogy of Morals, Nietzsche identifies something called herd mentality............radical Islam is this in its most rampant and ugly form.


PLEASE read something else...you spew the same author time and time again as some noble and overarching genius...ITS NOT.

PLEASE read something else...you spew the same author time and time again as some noble and overarching genius...ITS NOT.

Nietzsche may have been...Rydster definately not.

PLEASE read something else...you spew the same author time and time again as some noble and overarching genius...ITS NOT.

At least it's not Peter Heather.... again....

to just talk bikes.

b21
Or Barry just needs another bike. :)

These kids nowadays. Ya get yourself into a moreonic war and if there's a whiff of impropriety, BAM! Civility goes straight down the pipes. :rolleyes:

you spew the same author time and time again as some noble and overarching genius...


Your words not mine.

How you interpret the odd maxim I interject into my posts is your business.

None. He's a good little subject.

He who cannot command himself should obey.

He who cannot command himself should obey.


Nuff said. :)

It's too bad that they won't be moving on quite that soon
I can't help but feel that after eight years of this crap, you'll see a huge change in the country afterward. I mean socially. You can expect nothing less when millions of people collectively unclinch their sphincters at the same time. Sphincters have been clinched for so long, we'll have to relearn how to relax. Once our national focus is no longer on this catastrophuck, we'll be freed up to restart using our imaginations and be able to enjoy today as well as see beyond next week. Surely new problems will come up, we'll still have terrorism and other issues, but the worst of this big one will be over.

I can't help but feel that after eight years of this crap, you'll see a huge change in the country afterward. I mean socially. You can expect nothing less when millions of people collectively unclinch their sphincters at the same time. Sphincters have been clinched for so long, we'll have to relearn how to relax. Once our national focus is no longer on this catastrophuck, we'll be freed up to restart using our imaginations and be able to enjoy today as well as see beyond next week. Surely new problems will come up, we'll still have terrorism and other issues, but the worst of this big one will be over.

The damage will not end when Bush leaves, although it's a very good beginning. The thousands of incompetents who've been hired by this admin will still be in place until they expose themselves like Goodling. Our future military leaders have been infected. Our SCOTUS is right-leaning, as we've seen by their recent decisions, i.e. abortion and sexual discrimination...etc.

It'll probably take a generation to undo the damage this president has unleashed upon the world.

Your words not mine.

How you interpret the odd maxim I interject into my posts is your business.


now your lack of creativity is my fault? come on, you can do better than that...

Nuff said. :)

and considering it was (as revealed in testimony) Card and V05 who tried to bully Ashcroft into signing their version of the warrantless wiretaps.

pure transcript so no one can complain of Bias

COMEY: In the early part of 2004, the Department of Justice was engaged — the Office of Legal Counsel, under my supervision — in a reevaluation both factually and legally of a particular classified program. And it was a program that was renewed on a regular basis, and required signature by the attorney general certifying to its legality.

And the — and I remember the precise date. The program had to be renewed by March the 11th, which was a Thursday, of 2004. And we were engaged in a very intensive reevaluation of the matter.

And a week before that March 11th deadline, I had a private meeting with the attorney general for an hour, just the two of us, and I laid out for him what we had learned and what our analysis was in this particular matter.

And at the end of that hour-long private session, he and I agreed on a course of action. And within hours he was stricken and taken very, very ill…

SCHUMER: (inaudible) You thought something was wrong with how it was being operated or administered or overseen.

COMEY: We had — yes. We had concerns as to our ability to certify its legality, which was our obligation for the program to be renewed.

The attorney general was taken that very afternoon to George Washington Hospital, where he went into intensive care and remained there for over a week. And I became the acting attorney general.

And over the next week — particularly the following week, on Tuesday — we communicated to the relevant parties at the White House and elsewhere our decision that as acting attorney general I would not certify the program as to its legality and explained our reasoning in detail, which I will not go into here. Nor am I confirming it’s any particular program. That was Tuesday that we communicated that.

The next day was Wednesday, March the 10th, the night of the hospital incident. And I was headed home at about 8 o’clock that evening, my security detail was driving me. And I remember exactly where I was — on Constitution Avenue — and got a call from Attorney General Ashcroft’s chief of staff telling me that he had gotten a call…

SCHUMER: What’s his name?

COMEY: David Ayers.

That he had gotten a call from Mrs. Ashcroft from the hospital. She had banned all visitors and all phone calls. So I hadn’t seen him or talked to him because he was very ill.

And Mrs. Ashcroft reported that a call had come through, and that as a result of that call Mr. Card and Mr. Gonzales were on their way to the hospital to see Mr. Ashcroft.

SCHUMER: Do you have any idea who that call was from?

COMEY: I have some recollection that the call was from the president himself, but I don’t know that for sure. It came from the White House. And it came through and the call was taken in the hospital.

So I hung up the phone, immediately called my chief of staff, told him to get as many of my people as possible to the hospital immediately. I hung up, called Director Mueller and — with whom I’d been discussing this particular matter and had been a great help to me over that week — and told him what was happening. He said, I’ll meet you at the hospital right now.

Told my security detail that I needed to get to George Washington Hospital immediately. They turned on the emergency equipment and drove very quickly to the hospital.

I got out of the car and ran up — literally ran up the stairs with my security detail.

SCHUMER: What was your concern? You were in obviously a huge hurry.

COMEY: I was concerned that, given how ill I knew the attorney general was, that there might be an effort to ask him to overrule me when he was in no condition to that.

SCHUMER: Right, OK.

COMEY: I was worried about him, frankly.

And so I raced to the hospital room, entered. And Mrs. Ashcroft was standing by the hospital bed, Mr. Ashcroft was lying down in the bed, the room was darkened. And I immediately began speaking to him, trying to orient him as to time and place, and try to see if he could focus on what was happening, and it wasn’t clear to me that he could. He seemed pretty bad off.

SCHUMER: At that point it was you, Mrs. Ashcroft and the attorney general and maybe medical personnel in the room. No other Justice Department or government officials.

COMEY: Just the three of us at that point.

I tried to see if I could help him get oriented. As I said, it wasn’t clear that I had succeeded.

I went out in the hallway. Spoke to Director Mueller by phone. He was on his way. I handed the phone to the head of the security detail and Director Mueller instructed the FBI agents present not to allow me to be removed from the room under any circumstances. And I went back in the room.

I was shortly joined by the head of the Office of Legal Counsel assistant attorney general, Jack Goldsmith, and a senior staffer of mine who had worked on this matter, an associate deputy attorney general.

So the three of us Justice Department people went in the room. I sat down…

SCHUMER: Just give us the names of the two other people.

COMEY: Jack Goldsmith, who was the assistant attorney general, and Patrick Philbin, who was associate deputy attorney general.

I sat down in an armchair by the head of the attorney general’s bed. The two other Justice Department people stood behind me. And Mrs. Ashcroft stood by the bed holding her husband’s arm. And we waited.

And it was only a matter of minutes that the door opened and in walked Mr. Gonzales, carrying an envelope, and Mr. Card. They came over and stood by the bed. They greeted the attorney general very briefly. And then Mr. Gonzales began to discuss why they were there — to seek his approval for a matter, and explained what the matter was — which I will not do.

And Attorney General Ashcroft then stunned me. He lifted his head off the pillow and in very strong terms expressed his view of the matter, rich in both substance and fact, which stunned me — drawn from the hour-long meeting we’d had a week earlier — and in very strong terms expressed himself, and then laid his head back down on the pillow, seemed spent, and said to them, But that doesn’t matter, because I’m not the attorney general.

SCHUMER: But he expressed his reluctance or he would not sign the statement that they — give the authorization that they had asked, is that right?

COMEY: Yes.

And as he laid back down, he said, But that doesn’t matter, because I’m not the attorney general. There is the attorney general, and he pointed to me, and I was just to his left.

The two men did not acknowledge me. They turned and walked from the room. And within just a few moments after that, Director Mueller arrived. I told him quickly what had happened. He had a brief — a memorable brief exchange with the attorney general and then we went outside in the hallway.

SCHUMER: OK.

Now, just a few more points on that meeting.

First, am I correct that it was Mr. Gonzales who did just about all of the talking, Mr. Card said very little?

COMEY: Yes, sir.

SCHUMER: OK.

And they made it clear that there was in this envelope an authorization that they hoped Mr. Ashcroft — Attorney General Ashcroft would sign.

COMEY: In substance. I don’t know exactly the words, but it was clear that’s what the envelope was.

SCHUMER: And the attorney general was — what was his condition? I mean, he had — as I understand it, he had pancreatitis. He was very, very ill; in critical condition, in fact.

COMEY: He was very ill. I don’t know how the doctors graded his condition. This was — this would have been his sixth day in intensive care. And as I said, I was shocked when I walked in the room and very concerned as I tried to get him to focus.

SCHUMER: Right.

OK. Let’s continue. What happened after Mr. Gonzales and Card left? Did you have any contact with them in the next little while?

COMEY: While I was talking to Director Mueller, an agent came up to us and said that I had an urgent call in the command center, which was right next door. They had Attorney General Ashcroft in a hallway by himself and there was an empty room next door that was the command center.

And he said it was Mr. Card wanting to speak to me. I took the call. And Mr. Card was very upset and demanded that I come to the White House immediately.

I responded that, after the conduct I had just witnessed, I would not meet with him without a witness present.

He replied, What conduct? We were just there to wish him well.

And I said again, After what I just witnessed, I will not meet with you without a witness. And I intend that witness to be the solicitor general of the United States.

SCHUMER: That would be Mr. Olson.

COMEY: Yes, sir. Ted Olson.

Until I can connect with Mr. Olson, I’m not going to meet with you.

He asked whether I was refusing to come to the White House. I said, No, sir, I’m not. I’ll be there. I need to go back to the Department of Justice first.

And then I reached out through the command center for Mr. Olson, who was at a dinner party. And Mr. Olson and the other leadership of the Department of Justice immediately went to the department, where we sat down together in a conference room and talked about what we were going to do.

And about 11 o’clock that night — this evening had started at about 8 o’clock, when I was on my way home. At 11 o’clock that night, Mr. Olson and I went to the White House together.

SCHUMER: Just before you get there, you told Mr. Card that you were very troubled by the conduct from the White House room (ph), and that’s why you wanted Mr. Olson to accompany you.

Without giving any of the details — which we totally respect in terms of substance — just tell me why. What did you tell him that so upset you? Or if you didn’t tell him just tell us.

COMEY: I was very upset. I was angry. I thought I just witnessed an effort to take advantage of a very sick man, who did not have the powers of the attorney general because they had been transferred to me. I thought he had conducted himself, and I said to the attorney general, in a way that demonstrated a strength I had never seen before. But still I thought it was improper.

And it was for that reason that I thought there ought to be somebody with me if I’m going to meet with Mr. Card.

SCHUMER: Can you tell us a little bit about the discussion at the Justice Department when all of you convened? I guess it was that night.

COMEY: I don’t think it’s appropriate for me to go into the substance of it. We discussed what to do. I recall the associate attorney general being there, the solicitor general, the assistant attorney general in charge of the Office of Legal Counsel, senior staff from the attorney general, senior staff of mine. And we just — I don’t want to reveal the substances of those…

SCHUMER: I don’t want you to reveal the substance.

They all thought what you did — what you were doing was the right thing, I presume.

COMEY: I presume. I didn’t ask people. But I felt like we were a team, we all understood what was going on, and we were trying to do what was best for the country and the Department of Justice. But it was a very hard night.

SCHUMER: OK.

And then did you meet with Mr. Card?

COMEY: I did. I went with Mr. Olson driving — my security detail drove us to the White House. We went into the West Wing. Mr. Card would not allow Mr. Olson to enter his office. He asked Mr. Olson to please sit outside in his sitting area. I relented and went in to meet with Mr. Card alone. We met, had a discussion, which was much more — much calmer than the discussion on the telephone.

After — I don’t remember how long, 10 or 15 minutes — Mr. Gonzales arrived and brought Mr. Olson into the room. And the four of us had a discussion.

SCHUMER: OK.

And was Mr. — were you and Mr. Card still in a state of anger at one another at that meeting, or is it a little calmer, and why?

COMEY: Not that we showed.

SCHUMER: Right.

COMEY: It was much more civil than our phone conversation, much calmer.

SCHUMER: Why? Why do you think?

COMEY: I don’t know. I mean, I had calmed down a little bit. I’d had a chance to talk to the people I respected. Ted Olson I respect enormously.

SCHUMER: Right. OK.

Was there any discussion of resignations with Mr. Card?

COMEY: Mr. Card was concerned that he had heard reports that there were to be a large number of resignations at the Department of Justice.

SCHUMER: OK. OK.

And the conversations, the issue, whatever it was, was not resolved.

COMEY: Correct. We communicated about it. I communicated again the Department of Justice’s view on the matter. And that was it.

SCHUMER: Right.

And you stated that the next day, Thursday, was the deadline for reauthorization of the program, is that right?

COMEY: Yes, sir.

SCHUMER: OK.

Can you tell us what happened the next day?

COMEY: The program was reauthorized without us and without a signature from the Department of Justice attesting as to its legality. And I prepared a letter of resignation, intending to resign the next day, Friday, March the 12th.

SCHUMER: OK.

And that was the day, as I understand it, of the Madrid train bombings.

COMEY: Thursday, March 11th, was the morning of the Madrid train bombings.

SCHUMER: And so, obviously, people were very concerned with all of that.

COMEY: Yes. It was a very busy day in the counterterrorism aspect.

SCHUMER: Yet, even in light of that, you still felt so strongly that you drafted a letter of resignation.

COMEY: Yes.

SCHUMER: OK.

And why did you decide to resign? COMEY: I just believed…

SCHUMER: Or to offer your resignation, is a better way to put it?

COMEY: I believed that I couldn’t — I couldn’t stay, if the administration was going to engage in conduct that the Department of Justice had said had no legal basis. I just simply couldn’t stay.

SCHUMER: Right. OK.

Now, let me just ask you this. And this obviously is all troubling.

As I understand it, you believed that others were also prepared to resign, not just you, is that correct?

COMEY: Yes.

SCHUMER: OK.

Was one of those Director Mueller?

COMEY: I believe so. You’d have to ask him, but I believe so.

SCHUMER: You had conversations with him about it.

COMEY: Yes.

SCHUMER: OK.

How about the associate attorney general, Robert McCallum?

COMEY: I don’t know. We didn’t discuss it.

SCHUMER: How about your chief of staff?

COMEY: Yes. He was certainly going to go when I went.

SCHUMER: Right.

How about Mr. Ashcroft’s chief of staff?

COMEY: My understanding was that he would go as well.

SCHUMER: And how…

COMEY: I should say…

SCHUMER: Please.

COMEY: … to make sure I’m accurate, I…

SCHUMER: This is your surmise, not…

COMEY: Yes.

I ended up agreeing — Mr. Ashcroft’s chief of staff asked me something that meant a great deal to him, and that is that I not resign until Mr. Ashcroft was well enough to resign with me. He was very concerned that Mr. Ashcroft was not well enough to understand fully what was going on. And he begged me to wait until — this was Thursday that I was making this decision — to wait til Monday to give him the weekend to get oriented enough so that I wouldn’t leave him behind, was his concern.

SCHUMER: And it was his view that Mr. Ashcroft was likely to resign as well?

COMEY: Yes.

SCHUMER: So what did you do when you heard that?

COMEY: I agreed to wait. I said that what I would do is — that Friday would be last day. And Monday morning I would resign.

SCHUMER: OK.

Anything else of significance relevant to this line of questioning occur on Thursday the 11th, that you can recall?

COMEY: No, not that I recall.

SCHUMER: Thank you.

Now, let’s go to the next day, which was March 12. Can you tell us what happened then?

COMEY: I went to the Oval Office — as I did every morning as acting attorney general — with Director Mueller to brief the president and the vice president on what was going on on Justice Department’s counterterrorism work.

We had the briefing. And as I was leaving, the president asked to speak to me, took me in his study and we had a one-on-one meeting for about 15 minutes — again, which I will not go into the substance of. It was a very full exchange. And at the end of that meeting, at my urging, he met with Director Mueller, who was waiting for me downstairs.

He met with Director Mueller again privately, just the two of them. And then after those two sessions, we had his direction to do the right thing, to do what we…

SCHUMER: Had the president’s direction to do the right thing?

COMEY: Right.

We had the president’s direction to do what we believed, what the Justice Department believed was necessary to put this matter on a footing where we could certify to its legality.

And so we then set out to do that. And we did that.

SCHUMER: OK.

So let me just (inaudible) — this is an amazing story, has an amazing pattern of fact that you recall. […] So in sum, it was your belief that Mr. Gonzales and Mr. Card were trying to take advantage of an ill and maybe disoriented man to try and get him to do something that many, at least in the Justice Department, thought was against the law? Was that a correct summation?

COMEY: I was concerned that this was an effort to do an end-run around the acting attorney general and to get a very sick man to approve something that the Department of Justice had already concluded — the department as a whole — was unable to be certified as to its legality. And that was my concern.

SCHUMER: OK.

And you also believe — and you had later conversations with Attorney General Ashcroft when he recuperated, and he backed your view?

COMEY: Yes, sir.

SCHUMER: Did you ever ask him explicitly if he would have resigned had it come to that?

COMEY: No.

SCHUMER: OK.

But he backed your view over that what was being done, or what was attempting to being done, going around what you had recommended, was wrong, against the law?

COMEY: Yes.

And I already knew his view from the hour we had spent together going over it in great detail a week before the hospital incident.

SCHUMER: Yes.

And the FBI director, Mueller, backed your view over that of Mr. Gonzales as well — is that right? — in terms of whether the program could continue to be implemented the way Counsel Gonzales wanted it to be. The only reason I hesitate is it was never Director Mueller’s job or position to be drawing a legal conclusion about the program; that he was very supportive to me personally. He’s one of the finest people I’ve ever met and was a great help to me when I felt a tremendous amount of pressure and felt a bit alone at the Department of Justice.

But it was not his role to opine on the legality.

SCHUMER: How about Jack Goldsmith, the head of the Office of Legal Counsel? Did he opine on the legality?

COMEY: Yes. He had done a substantial amount of work on that issue. And it was largely OLC, the Office of Legal Counsel’s work, that I was relying upon in drawing my — in making my decision.

SCHUMER: OK. Just two other questions.

Have you ever had the opportunity to recall these events on the record in any other forum?

COMEY: No.

SCHUMER: OK. And…

COMEY: I should…

SCHUMER: Go ahead.

COMEY: I was interviewed by the FBI and discussed these events in connection with a leak investigation the FBI was conducting.

SCHUMER: And you gave them these details then.

COMEY: Yes.

SCHUMER: Thank you.

COMEY: But not — by forum I’ve never testified about it.

SCHUMER: And after you stood your ground in March of 2004, did you suffer any recriminations or other problems at the department?

COMEY: I didn’t. Not that I’m aware of.

What, they were just bringing Ashcroft "get well" flowers... :rolleyes:

this is a Partisan witch hunt.............

coming from a former member of the admin

but us thinking these guys are and have been abusive of our system is 'opinion'.

put an end to this thread