snarky last statement, but fair. he should be grilled on this issue. maybe he can prove that it actually is in the best interest of the nation. maybe he's a sneaky pigfucker who is just using "wartime powers" to spy on political enemies in the name of national security. it would be nice to hear him explain himself.

I had to vent, what can I say?

why is it then that everyone believed Bill when he looked through that camera lens and told us all, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinsky." You mean, you don't believe Bush when he looks in the camera and tells you he did nothing wrong? Or is it that since Clinton, you just expect the pres to lie to you?

P6 di you really mean to type this?

but I figure since I'm right in step with professional journalists, I'm okay.

pretty low standards even for a lib.

Andy, if you're silly enough to have believed him you're silly enough to have voted for Bush.

I for one didn't believe him for a second. I just didn't find it relevant to his job performance...and as a man I'd have been shocked if he hadn't lied to his wife about it.

Justin, if I had the resources your standard fully-employed-as-a-journalist person, I'd be way out ahead of them.

I actually voted libertarian in the last presidential election...and I never believe any one that wags their finger in my face while they're talking to me. I've always said that...if caught in the same situation...I'd lie through my teeth!

Point made, I was just waiting for the inevitable MSM, vast right-wing conspiracy, Spin doctor comments. You seem to be well informed.

Misguided but well informed.

Not misguided.

No guided in any way, in fact.

**why is it then that everyone believed Bill when he looked through that camera lens and told us all, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinsky."**

I didn't believe him, nor did I believe GW when he said, "(the reason) I wasn't flying at Dannelly was because they didn't have the same kind of airplanes."

This isn't an opinion in defense of Bush, but I say DON'T impeach him. If he's removed from office, then Dick Cheney would become President. Now who would want that?

Do you think that would be an increase in status and power for Cheney? Remember who they hid after 9/11.

you people do realize that if bush is impeached, that dick cheney would be even more in control as president, and then the ranks of power shift up one level accordingly...

You do realize that if Bush is impeached all you're doing is vindicating the whiney ambition of a bunch of appeasers and self-promoters who value the welfare of the American people far below their own political careers, right?

Dave

think a head:

See the comment directly above yours.

Dave:

No. All I'm doing is arguing the legal and Constitutional issues. If that justifies whiners, well, he shouldn't have broken the law.

I dont like big brother spying on its people. I also believe we should do everything in our power to find out who is involved in terrorist activities and eliminate them. That is the dicotomy. Freedom vs. protection. Benjerman Franklin once had a qoute that went something like this... Those who would choose protection over freedom deserve neither. My personal opinion is that you have to error on the side of personal liberties in this case. I think the president did have poor judgement on this although I belive this was not just a power grab the ends dont always justify the means. I do think this ought to be invstigated and argued out in a court. However I dont think with what information I have the case is there for impeachment just yet. He did not lie under oath or show a deriliction in duty. He was doing what he thought was the best way to proceed. Although I dont think he should be given a total free pass or anything as long as this behavior by the feds is stoped that would be good for now untill more can be found out. Anyhoo as of calling your self a progressive I realy dont see how raising taxes, Killing unborn children, and running away from any country that tries to bully us is progress can someone explain that too me? Its not an attack I just dont understand.

P6, have you seen the initial cause of action filed by the ACLU? It's laughable. The plaintiffs they name have no reason to even believe they've been spied on.

For any kind of impeachment over this issue to work there has to BE a crime. Good luck finding one.

Dave

P6, have you seen the initial cause of action filed by the ACLU?

metal head:

Anyhoo as of calling your self a progressive I realy dont see how raising taxes, Killing unborn children, and running away from any country that tries to bully us is progress can someone explain that too me? Its not an attack I just dont understand.

Flaws in your case? Yes, there needs to be a CRIME with a clearly identified victim and an intent to do harm for there to be an impeachment. For that matter there should probably be some sort of actual harm done, which certainly can't be proven.

And that's not even taking into consideration the enormous amount of precedent for prior presidents doing exactly the same thing Bush did. Was Lincoln impeached? Was FDR? They did exactly the same sorts of things on a much larger scale and were not pursued for it.

Lincoln arrested and illegally detained two thirds of the members of the Maryland state legislature with federal troops at one point. He implemented a national income tax in direct violation of the Constitution (the 16th amendment had not been passed yet). He freed all of the slaves in the south based solely on an executive order. These actions completely dwarf anything Bush did.

Dave

Flaws in your case? Yes, there needs to be a CRIME with a clearly identified victim and an intent to do harm for there to be an impeachment.

For that matter there should probably be some sort of actual harm done, which certainly can't be proven.

Dave or anyone - can you explain the legal difference between a 'declaration of war' and a 'authorization for the use of force' as it relates to administration powers over US civil law - ?

clearly this is important when deciding if a law has been broken

troll

There is no legal difference, troll. That's been established by the courts already. In addition, since we were attacked first by a foreign entity - Al Qaeda - making war on them doesn't even require a declaration of war because a state of war exists whether declared or not.

And P6, the powers are not denied the office by the Constitution. They are just not granted specifically by the Constitution. The Constitution leaves the granting of those powers up to the Congress and the Congress granted them pretty unambiguously.

Oh and their DOES have to be a crime for impeachment - it's not just a fishing expedition. If you read the constitution, impeachment is initiated when it has been proven that the president is guilty of 'high crimes and misdemeanors'. That means you have to prove the crime first.

Dave

And P6, the powers are not denied the office by the Constitution. They are just not granted specifically by the Constitution. The Constitution leaves the granting of those powers up to the Congress and the Congress granted them pretty unambiguously.

Oh and their DOES have to be a crime for impeachment

the Congress granted them pretty unambiguously.

Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK):

Some people say that is a broad change in authorization to the Commander in Chief of this country. It is not. It is a very limited concept of giving him the authority to pursue those who have brought this terrible destruction to our country and to pursue those who have harbored them or assisted them and conspired with them in any way. [Congressional Record, 9/14/01]

Rep. James McGovern (D-MA):

The body of this resolution is appropriately limited to those entities involved in the attacks that occurred on September 11th...It reiterates the existing constitutional powers of the President to take action to defend the United States, but provides no new or additional grant of powers to the President. [Congressional Record, 9/14/01]

Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE):

In extending this broad authority to cover those 'planning, authorizing, committing, or aiding the attacks' it should go without saying, however, that the resolution is directed only at using force abroad to combat acts of international terrorism. [Congressional Record, 9/14/01]

Rep. Christopher Smith (R-NJ):

The resolution is not a blank check. We do this with our eyes open and in fervent prayer, especially the prayer that President Bush and his national security team will be lavished with wisdom from God above to use only that force which is truly necessary and only that force which is truly appropriate. [Congressional Record, 9/14/01]

Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-TX):

The tension that we face tonight is to provide the President with enough authority to eradicate wrongdoing without wronging the carefully crafted systems of checks and balances so essential to our democracy. ... As we vote for this important resolution with the lives of so many at stake in this important endeavor against terrorism, we cannot let the executive branch become the exclusive branch. [Congressional Record, 9/14/01]

Bush broke the FISA law which specifically states it is the only vehicle by which domestic wiretaps can be authorized. It even takes the state of war into account. And the Constitution DOES specifically state interstate commerce is in Congress' domain.

You may argue he had a good reason to break the law, but broken it is.

This has yet to be determined. Not applying the FISA law and breaking it are not the same thing. You may have judged and condemned Bush, but Congress hasn't done it yet, nor has a jury or even a special investigatory committee. Bush has a case to make, and it's not as cut and dried as you seem to have determined in what is clearly merely your opinion, not an established fact by any means.

As for your quotes, did you actually read them? Let's run it down in summary:

Ted "I ought to be censured for corruption" Stevens clearly says that Bush is authorized to use extraordinary measures in pursuit of terrorists.

Joe "I would have Invaded Iraq AND Syria" Biden doesn't even address this issue in the vaguest way in his quote.

Christopher "I'm a Bible Thumping Whacko" Smith talks about 'appropriate' force, which has zero to do with this issue, which doesn't even involve the use of force.

Lloyd "I Wish I Could Publicly Admit I'm a Socialist" Doggett - did you READ that paragraph of gibberish? He's not only not discussing this issue, he's not saying anything at all.

Surely you can do better? I know that the Demos have backtracked a lot since 2001, I'm sure you can find some contemporary statements where they totally reverse their positions when they voted war powers to the president. These quotes certainly show that they knew what they did back then and knew what it meant.

Dave

Not applying the FISA law and breaking it are not the same thing.

TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 36 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 1809 § 1809. Criminal sanctions
Release date: 2005-03-17

(a) Prohibited activities
A person is guilty of an offense if he intentionally--
(1) engages in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute; or
(2) discloses or uses information obtained under color of law by electronic surveillance, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through electronic surveillance not authorized by statute.

I will, however, note:

Christopher "I'm a Bible Thumping Whacko" Smith talks about 'appropriate' force, which has zero to do with this issue, which doesn't even involve the use of force.

And of course they aren't discussing this issue. They're discussing the authorization they ACTUALLY gave to Bush.

P6, you seem to be overlooking the import of THIS phrase: "except as authorized by statute"

What do you think the AUMF is? It includes wording specifically authorizing the president to use the measures he deems necessary to pursue and aprehend terrorists. Nothing ambiguous about that.

ow, as you said, Congress would have to give up the power to disregard this, and we have many Congressmen ans Senators saying they didn't have this in mind at all, with several making the specific public statement without contradiction of their peers at the time the force authorization was passed. All these things I can show you. Have, in fact.

No, what you've quoted is a few congressmen and senators saying that the AUMF is limited, and one confirming that those limitations don't apply to pursuing terrorists. But on the whole just vaguely asserting that it doesn't make the president all powerful. No one's arguing that. The argument comes down to whether a few wiretaps was an appropriate action under the extraordinary authorization to pursue terrorists includen in the AUMF.

Let me quote to you from secton 3, part b of the AUMF:

"In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that"

This is why he contacted and briefed the speaker and the party leaders in both houses and getting their approval before engaging in any wiretaps.

"(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations"

This authorizes him to "take the necessary actions" which in this case means wiretapping known terrorists.

Seems pretty cut and dried to me. Certainly a viable defense.

Dave

Its not off subject he starts his post by stating that he considers himslef a progressive wich has always been a way for a liberal to describe themselfs without all of the stigma atached to the label. Progressive always sounds so much better to the masses than socialist, comunist,ect.

Dave asks - *What do you think the AUMF is?*

it's an authorization to use US military forces...it is not an authorization to use wiretaps or any extra legal technique:

*SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION.—The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to—
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.*

nothing else is authorized...there is no b

secition 3 (2) (from which you pull a partial line) is a determination and reporting requirement not an authorization...the Pres has to report that he has determined that the use of the US military:

*acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.*

(IMO an argument can be made that the Pres screwed that pooch)

finally the resolution specifically bows to section 8(d)(1) of the War Powers Act:

*(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS.—
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION.—Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory
authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS.—Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.*

8(d)(1) reads:

*SEC. 8. (d)
Nothing in this joint resolution--
(1)
is intended to alter the constitutional authority of the Congress or of the President, or the provision of existing treaties;*

where in all this do you see an authorization to ignore existing law - ?

maybe the Pres should have used the military to perform the wiretaps

troll

Let me quote to you from secton 3, part b of the AUMF:

"In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that"

this issue, which doesn't even involve the use of force.

Its not off subject he starts his post by stating that he considers himslef a progressive wich has always been a way for a liberal to describe themselfs without all of the stigma atached to the label. Progressive always sounds so much better to the masses than socialist, comunist,ect.

The AUMF clearly authorizes both the use of force and the use of other methods as needed to contravene terrorism. To say otherwise requires a really twisted reading of it. It's not 'word juggling'. Section 3 has two clear sections, one which covers the use of force and one which covers measures against terrorists not necessarily limited to force. It's entirely unambiguous.

Dave

Here's the entirety of section 3

(note that that 3(a) is the authorization...3(b)requires a Presidential determination and report...3(c) states that the requirements of the War Powers Act are met and are not to be exceeded)

Dave writes - * Section 3 has two clear sections, one which covers the use of force and one which covers measures against terrorists not necessarily limited to force. It's entirely unambiguous*

just where in section 3 is the Pres authorized to use these claimed 'measures against terrorists not necessarily limited to force' - ?

the reader will have to decide if Dave's interpretation holds H2O

-----

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION. In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter
as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his
determination that

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either

(A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or

(B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist
organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS.

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION. Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS. Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

troll

What about Section 3/B/2 is in any way ambiguous to you, troll?

Dave

there's nothing ambiguous in it - it clearly states that the Pres must determine and report that the use of the US military is consistent with (ie does not conflict with) whatever other measures the US and other countries are employing to fight terrorists

there is nothing in it that authorizes these 'other measures'

troll

I'd be ok with an impeachment hearing on these foundational issues if it weren't for one thing... every single member of the House of Representitives (ok not all but most) are politicians. An impeachment won't deal with these issues but will be partisan wrangling. It'd be a show trial, and in the end, the most vocal soundbites wins.

Troll, it also effecticvely states that the president is presumed to be authorized to take necessary action to combat terrorism and terrorist nations. He wouldn't have to report on those actions if they weren't authorizing him to take them.

Dave

JB, all an impeachment is - as demonstrated by the Clinton impeachment - is an opportunity for politicians to grandstand and advance their own careers at the expense of the president.

Dave

there is no reporting requirement in 3(b)(2) for these 'necessary actions' in use by the US and other countries - only that the use of US forces will not conflict with them

by your reasoning

1 - the resolution gives authorization (for example) for the Pres to initiate a program of assassination of foreign leaders...or any other measure that he decides is necessary

2 - the Pres has to report on every action he uses to fight terrorists and in addition report on the actions that other countries use as well

IMO this is an inaccurate reading of the resolution

troll

Yes, troll. I believe that as worded the AUMF would authorize the assassination of the leader of a terrorist sponsoring nation, and it does seem to require him to inform congress of actions he's taken if they involve the use of the military. It's not clear that something like a wiretap would require such notification.

Neither the AUMF or the War Powers Resolution specifically addresses non-military and intelligence gathering activities associated with a war, but the intent of the AUMF is clearly to authorize the president to pursue those measures necessary to deal with terrorists and terrorist nations by whatever means are deemed necessary.

Dave

so - if the Pres wants to go this route the resolution authorizes the assassination of US citizens who support terrorists - ? how 'bout suspending habeas corpus...is that authorized by 3(b)(2) as well - ?

I guess we'll just go round and round

troll

Dave:

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

the intent of the AUMF is clearly to authorize the president to pursue those measures necessary to deal with terrorists and terrorist nations by whatever means are deemed necessary.

I am completely mystified how you can quote that and then yet not apparently actually read it.

Separation of powers has nothing at all to do with executive action authorized by the AUMF, because the passage of the AUMF constitutes the performance of the role of the legislative branch and acting on the authority given by the AUMF is the fulfillment of the role of the executive branch. There, all powers are involved and doing their part.

And troll, yes habeas corpus is probably suspended as it applies to foreign terrorists and terrorist nations - but then it never applied to them in the first place.

Dave

Dave says - *And troll, yes habeas corpus is probably suspended as it applies to foreign terrorists and terrorist nations - but then it never applied to them in the first place.*

and here I thought we were doing so well at not distorting each other's arguments

I'm not distorting your argument, troll. I don't think the AUMF suspends habeas corpus for US citizens who are not acting as agents of a foreign terrorist organizaton.

Dave

but you think that the AUMF does authorize suspending habeas corpus for US citizens who are acting as agents of a foreign terrorist organization - ?

(didn't the court shoot down this argument in Padilla's case)

anyone have any links to discussions concerning the intent of the Congress behind the wording of the resolution - ?

troll

Separation of powers has nothing at all to do with executive action authorized by the AUMF, because the passage of the AUMF constitutes the performance of the role of the legislative branch and acting on the authority given by the AUMF is the fulfillment of the role of the executive branch. There, all powers are involved and doing their part.

Dave:

To the point: I understand how you're trying to interpret issues, but let me ask: if Congress authorized Bush to go around FISA, why don't they just say so?

P6, you brought some new facts to the table. Thank you for that at the very least. How refreshing.

President Bush will not be impeached but he has done much more to earn - through illegal activities under "claimed" powers - than Clinton or even Nixon. Earned in the way that the Legislature and Judiciary don't get bypassed on matters of national security just because three people say it's a matter of national security. That path leads to darkness.

You don't get to claim powers, without going through the usual legal processes. Arrogance can take you to a certain spiteful point, but it always comes back to bite you in the ass. History will spit on this man as a leader, led by men of political hate, and laugh at his claims to be a uniter not a divider.

Even in Texas his "unified' leadership seems to be coming undone and being taken to the courts and disassembled. History may also hail him, yet, as bringing demoracy to Iraq and perhaps beyond ... but . ... if he doesn't get there he and his defenders will have a million excuses why it didn't work - all fingers will point outward - and they will start with bellicose name-calling and proceed not much beyond that.

As a nation, that's what we have to look forward. Anti-intellectual dishonesty.

This is most neatly wrapped up in the FISA controversy. To boldy claim and admit to law-breaking and then to claim that a law authorizing force as a last resort - that doesn't even mention wiretapping around the justice system already in place - does actually authorize it?

It is to laugh. It is to cry that so many would come to defend that idiocy, without looking back in history or, especially, into the future.

I can make this all much simpler for you boys. Clinton got impeached and now it's all about the revenge. If the demoncrats had a majority Bush would already be impeached. Since they don't they'll get their revenge by whining qbout it for 3 more years.

Lumpy, for every question there is an answer that is simple, direct and wrong. Thank you for identifying it in this case.

Your complex analysis makes a lot less sense. Ever hear of Occam's razor?

I prefer Einstein's advice: make things as simple as possible...but no simpler.

Your "analysis" ignores literally everything having anything to do with the constitutional issue. If that's the level on which you must operate, fine. To me, your "argument" joins metal head's...empty, and therefore to be ignored.

And this is the last empty argument I will address.

To the point: I understand how you're trying to interpret issues, but let me ask: if Congress authorized Bush to go around FISA, why don't they just say so?

That's a very valid question. My guess is that they really didn't give FISA a second thought when passing the AUMF. There are a lot of regulations about intelligence and military deployment and the AUMF or for that matter a state of war pretty much overrides them all. The AUMF is extremely broad. It really doesn't address any specifics, which opens the door for all sorts of potential excesses, but war is nothing if not excessive.

Dave

I see why we're just not going to agree.

During times of war do we cut the rule of law down to following orders necessary to win, and freedom down to doing whatever you want in the time not allocated to war preparations? Is that the country you live in?

I wish that were not the way the country worked, P6, but historically that is EXACTLY what we do. Not just in times of war, but in times of crisis in general we suspend the rule of law at the drop of a hat.

Wilson did it during Lincoln did it in the Civil War. Wilson did it in WWI, FDR did it during the depression and during WWII, Nixon did it just to respond to a recession, Truman did it during the Communist scare. Compared to each of these examples the steps which Bush has taken are laughably insignificant, and none of these presidents - some of whom are considered among our greatest - were impeached.

Dave

here's an interesting post about detentions and the use of the 2001 AUMF as justification...some history of power grabbing and attempts to reign administrations in - (eg the Non-Detention Act of 1971)

troll

Even if interpreted incorrectly as has been done here (with full knowledge of the line blurring), the other presidents had one thing with them - the will of the people.

None of them proffered the continual, increasing willful and where so comfortable in misleading the American people. None of them then denied when caught that it really was the law, if you just trusted their claims. And none of them asked the American peple to avoid the question of, if all this was legal, why they had drown in secrecy, and keep holding the baby down.

An empyrean point, but nevertheless one rooted in the desire of a country. All examples given, also had much more clear, time-limted achievable goals. Lyndon Baines Johnson, for example, didn't conduct the same runaround the established legal system to fight the War on Poverty; another unattainable goal.

One also worth aiming for with equally grave conseqeuences and mortality, but the difference in approach is, I'm sure, quite obvious.

Temple, I hardly think Nixon had the will of the people on his side when he instituted wage and price controls and had Hoover begin wiretapping his enemies list.

And I didn't bring up LBJ. He worked by pretty acceptable methods even if some of his projects ended up being disastrous.

But Franklin Roosevelt both engaged in massive deception of the public and literally shredded the Constition at his convenience.

Dave

Not just in times of war, but in times of crisis in general we suspend the rule of law at the drop of a hat.

here's a straight forward presentation of DOJ's argument for those who haven't seen it

troll

and here's Daschel's statement of 12/22/05 concerning - in part - congressional intent...(again - for those who have not seen it already)

troll

and lastly - here's a counter argument to DOJ's claims

troll

Nixon is the obvious exception (only the wiretapping is relevant here, however) and he was on his way to impeachment if he hadn't resigned. One small point you've attached yourself to. Congrats.

Except. ...

Obviously it was wrong when Nixon did it, but now, with the extra FISA law in place, its legally OK when President Bush does it to people - American citizens - he's just guessing and claiming may be enemies? The scope of which we do not actually know, but we do know it is much broader than anyone in the Administration can bring themselves to admit.

That's a logically corrupt and mentally deficient position.

Again, to repeat for all, claims do not laws make. Actions on this scale on the basis of claims, if proven illegal are impeachable offenses. As stated, I don't think that will happen. And, at this point, I'd rather history be the judge.

You know this.

Then you know your entire argument depends on finding this not just acceptable but correct.

It's certainly correct factually that it has been done again and again. Whether it was the correct (right) thing to do now or then is debatable. As for whether it's acceptable, it may not be acceptable to me or you, but clearly it has been acceptable to the republic in the past for the president to act extra-constitutionally in times of crisis, so the question is whether we can legitimately hold Bush to a higher standard.

Dave

Nixon is the obvious exception (only the wiretapping is relevant here, however) and he was on his way to impeachment if he hadn't resigned. One small point you've attached yourself to. Congrats.

Wrong. The wiretapping is NOT the only relevant issue, and it's not limited to the Nixon administration. Both Roosevelt and Truman authorized extensive surveillance of US citizens without warrants, to the degree that the FBI under Hoover assumed that it had the autonomous authority to wiretap and investigate people for political reasons without even getting presidential oversight. Every single action Bush has taken which has been called in question has been done by prior presidents and in fact to a much larger extent.

Obviously it was wrong when Nixon did it, but now, with the extra FISA law in place, its legally OK when President Bush does it

FISA isn't the primary issue here, the violation of the 4th amendment is, and it's been in place for two centuries. FISA doesn't even really apply to domestic surveillance, because the 4th amendment does.

to people - American citizens - he's just guessing and claiming may be enemies?

From what I've read surveillance was only done on people who had been directly tied to known terrorists overseas. If details contrary to this eventually come out then that might make some difference.

Again, to repeat for all, claims do not laws make. Actions on this scale on the basis of claims, if proven illegal are impeachable offenses. As stated, I don't think that will happen. And, at this point, I'd rather history be the judge.

History HAS been the judge, and it's generally excused these small acts of tyrrany. Just ask the members of the German American Bundt or scores of socialist groups or any Japanese American or members of the SDS in thr 60s, or for that matter anyone like me who was involved in protesting the draft registration in the early 80s.

Dave

As for whether it's acceptable, it may not be acceptable to me or you, but clearly it has been acceptable to the republic in the past for the president to act extra-constitutionally in times of crisis, so the question is whether we can legitimately hold Bush to a higher standard.

Not only can we, we must for three reasons. First, the power of this particular reach is unprecedented, and he's obviously been part of a plan to do this for quite a while. And I'm not talking about eavesdropping, I'm talking about centralizing the power of the government into a single person...undermining the very structure of the government.

Any familiarity with US history shows this not to be true. The centralization of power in the hands of the executive is a trend which comes and goes. By no stretch of the imagination can Bush be considered even in the same league with Andrew Jackson, Lincoln or either Roosevelt in this area.

Secondly, we always hold ourselves to higher standards than our predecessors. That's how advancement happens. If we don't, we give up on the future.

That sounds great, but you can't hold Bush to a higher standard retroactively. You can't let everyone else geta way with something and then punish him for it. Slap him on the wrist, change the policy by passing a constitutional amendment defining presidential power in times of war and THEN hold him fully accountable after that.

Finally, this is the standard that Bush himself says should be used to interpret law...original intent, textual, strict construction, no matter which label you choose you see Bush broke the letter of the law.

Apparently he doesn't see it that way, and it's certainly debatable. And the 'intent' bit cuts both ways. He can argue that the intent of the framers was never to tie the executives hands in time of war, or that their intent in the 4th amendment was concerning property and physical safety and liberty, not information or communication - that could even be construed as a 'strict construction'.

I think Temple Stark is right...there will be no impeachment. And that might be for the best. I know humans and there's a strong chance Republicans would reach to impeaching Bush in a way that would lead Congress to treat impeachment like California treats voter initiatives. That would really suck.

I agree that there won't be an impeachment. IMO if they want to make a real issue of this, they need to at the very least pass a comprehensive federal law on surveillance practices which goes beyond what FISA covers so that in the future this issue will not have room for ambiguity.

But I make the obvious case for it because people should not be able to hide behind rhetoric or "that's the way it's always been." Doing nothing is a choice too, and people should not be able to deny the results of their choices.

A fundamental tenet of our legal system is precedent. Laws are actually overturned by courts if you can show that they were habitually not enforced. You can lose your property if someone else can show that they have possession of it an you've never tried to contest it. Same concept applies here.

Dave

Blah. Blah. Blah. Forget about impeaching this clown. He's a lame duck. Make him more lame by a wholesale overthrow of Congress. It's an election year, America. Get your asses out and vote. Rid Washington once and for all of the scum that has festered there.

Plus you don't even have to wait until the general election in November. You can get a number of the lamers out in the primaries this spring.

Dave

I have to agree with Silas above at #74.

Prometeus, it strikes me that what you are really saying is that the United States should have a parliamentary system of government like its neighbor to the north.

That way, if the house of representatives lost confidence in the prime minister, they could boot him out. Votes of confidence are a lot cheaper than impeachment proceedings. A lot faster, too.

NSA should look into BC what with all the encrypted entries

troll

Silas:

I agree with everything you said except "Forget about impeaching this clown." I even agree with the "Blah. Blah. Blah." part.

Ruvy:

Not to be rude, but what I'm really saying is exactly what I wrote. Fact is, though, I think we should give our Constitutional form of government a try before we ape other countries.

Prometeus, it strikes me that what you are really saying is that the United States should have a parliamentary system of government like its neighbor to the north.

Yeah, but look at what a godawful mess their government is. What we need is the moderating power of three or more parties under the Constitution and legislative structure as it currently exists. That's the answer.

Dave

Impeachment won't happen but I think it would be great if Democrats did control at least one house of Congress after this year's elections.

well well...first Post i look at when i come back from the UK..and it looks real comfy

time for your friendly neighborhood "non-partisan contrarian" to hop in?....

mebbe...

but first, thanks P6 for the good linkage in the Post

thanks troll for fighting the good fight, as usual, and giving us nice links to peruse and ponder

thanks Silas for being the Voice of Reason, and stating the obvious....our Government works MUCH better when it is divided among the "gangs"...Scott gets points for noticing

that's all for now...no US news or internet for the weeks...i've got a lot to catch up on...

miss me?

Excelsior!

P6 et al. Impeachment proceedings are a way to get rid of someone committing "high crimes and misdemeanors." If your system of government produces only high criminals and miscreants in it highest position of power, it is time to get rid of the system.

Read the preamble of your Declaration of Independence over once or twice. It explains the concept better than I ever could.

decently put Ruvy..and one i mention frequently as the "jeffersonian Option"

but the problem is not that our form of government creates these miserable pigfuckers, it is a product of our current "two Party" system, and how THEY choose whom we are forced to choose FROM that does it

big difference

but you are correct in that it something the american People much decide on, and then work to create better Circumstances

we will see, eh?

your mileage may vary

Excelsior!

One possible solution is to see how the Germans elect the lower house of their parliament. Half of the seats are chosen on the basis of proportional representation and half from election districts.

This would allow for smaller parties to actually show up in the house of representatives. It's not a guarantee of success. But it would be an improvement. Introducing elements of a parliamentary system would be helpful also.

As to the Canadian system, it must be remembered that it has two levels of political parties and attempts to somehow meld those two together.

That's not a solution because our form of government is defined by the Constitution, and that's what we're trying to respect here.

How did I miss this?

By no stretch of the imagination can Bush be considered even in the same league with Andrew Jackson, Lincoln or either Roosevelt in this area.

Secondly, we always hold ourselves to higher standards than our predecessors. That's how advancement happens. If we don't, we give up on the future.

That sounds great, but you can't hold Bush to a higher standard retroactively. You can't let everyone else geta way with something and then punish him for it. Slap him on the wrist, change the policy by passing a constitutional amendment defining presidential power in times of war and THEN hold him fully accountable after that.

But I make the obvious case for it because people should not be able to hide behind rhetoric or "that's the way it's always been." Doing nothing is a choice too, and people should not be able to deny the results of their choices.

A fundamental tenet of our legal system is precedent. Laws are actually overturned by courts if you can show that they were habitually not enforced.

First of all, it's not retroactive...he's breaking the law NOW.

He is? Could you demonstrate definitively what law he's breaking? I don't see anything in FISA about monitoring phonecalls by computer, for example. Nor do I see anything in FISA about email. There's also nothing in the constitution about telecommunications of any kind being private. They could very well be the legal equivalent of shouting at a guy across the street.

And control of interstate commerce is fully assigned and has been since before the Bill of Rights (sorta...I know it wasn't ratified until the Bill of Rights was added but it sounds dramatic so there you are).

Huh? What does this have to do with interstate commerce?

And this has been in the works since before 9/11. If the military had finished with Afghanistan and caught bin Ladin when he was surrounded in the mountains, the purpose of the force authorization would have been fulfilled and we wouldn't even be having this conversation. War powers are no excuse.

The AUMF specifically refers to Iraq, not Afghanistan.

But I make the obvious case for it because people should not be able to hide behind rhetoric or "that's the way it's always been." Doing nothing is a choice too, and people should not be able to deny the results of their choices.

I agree that we should do something. Congress should say that what Bush is doing is not what they intended and either amend FISA or write a new comprehensive wiretap law.

Well, I was talking about voters and citizens being responsible. But you're right, and that's one more reason to impeach Bush.

I'm getting the feeling that merely drawing breath is a reason to impeach Bush in your book.

Dave

*The AUMF specifically refers to Iraq, not Afghanistan.*

which one are we talking about...there have been two - the first concerns terrorists(Sept 01); the second Iraq(Oct 02)

troll

ummm...one quibble here...the FISA laws are about surveillance involving telecommunications

the methodology of how such monitoring is done is immaterial...this is supported by numerous SCOTUS decisions...look them up yerself, ya will see

ANY of these type of surveilances are covered by either FISA or other applicable statutes...again SCOTUSD has set precedents

ALL of said precedents REQUIRE going before the appropriate Judicial branch review...this is INTENTIONALLY done to prevent abuses by Prosecutors or the State...

nuff said?

Excelsior!

I'm getting the feeling that merely drawing breath is a reason to impeach Bush in your book.

He is? Could you demonstrate definitively what law he's breaking? I don't see anything in FISA about monitoring phonecalls by computer, for example.

*The AUMF specifically refers to Iraq, not Afghanistan.*

which one are we talking about...there have been two - the first concerns terrorists(Sept 01); the second Iraq(Oct 02)

If you're going to get silly and say that's not covered under "electronic surveillance," the conversationis over.

Well, I guess the conversation ended sometime in the early 80s when telecommunications started to mean something entirely different than it did in 1978.

Dave

again, you try and dodge around the technical and legal definitions of the actual Law

sorry to break it to you, but "electronic surveilance" DOES cover this shit, as i shwo in another Thread

how about you stick to fonts..and leave the technical shit to folks that have a clue?

Excelsior!

In 1978 electronic surveillance meant planting physical bugs IN phones as shown in the picture attached to the article, or on the physical premises being bugged. How is that not clear to you? Today the means of communication and the methods of surveillance have changed radically.

I'm not some sort of technological idiot, gonzo. I know what electronic surveillance is. But the means and the methods are different today than they were at the dawn of the telecommunications age. Yes, it's all still electronic surveillance in the broadest sense, but what was adequate law in a time of simple wiretaps and crude radio frequency listening devices could easily be seen as outdated, inapplicable or even irrelevant today.

Look, I believe in giving the greatest possible protection of all rights to all Americans. I'm fine with just prohibiting any form of wiretap or information gathering within the US. But I'm not running the country, that's not the way things are being done, and I'm trying to deal with the reality.

It's fine for you to take a principled stand and reject everything else, but it does NOTHING to find a reasonable solution to the problems raised by this situation.

Dave

Electronic surveilance means either surveilance of, or using electronics. Take your pick.

Telephone is electronics. Computer is electronics. And you are desperate to find reasonable doubt here. There is none.

The letter of the law was broken, and the letter of the law is what Bush wants enforced everywhere but here? That seems kind of...arbitrary. Kind of king-like. And he's been wrong so much, hidden so much information, there is no reason to believe what he says, even if HE does.

And I don't want him impeached for eavesdropping. This is just what brought it forth in undeniable fashion. It's for a long-term effort to destabilize the government, undermining both the Judiciary and Congress, in order to concentrate power into the one office. Totally anti-American.

P6 writes,

"That's not a solution because our form of government is defined by the Constitution, and that's what we're trying to respect here."

Then you shouldn't be urging impeachment at all. It was a mistake to impeach Clinton. It would be a mistake to impeach Bush. One mistake does not justify another.

Your argument boils down to devaluing impeachment so that it is a routine act - kind of like having the Praetorian Guard running the Roman Empire.

Not smart. That's like cutting a kid's hand of for stealing a banana.

It's fine for you to take a principled stand and reject everything else, but it does NOTHING to find a reasonable solution to the problems raised by this situation.

I'm not some sort of technological idiot, gonzo. I know what electronic surveillance is. But the means and the methods are different today than they were at the dawn of the telecommunications age.

Yes, it's all still electronic surveillance in the broadest sense, but what was adequate law in a time of simple wiretaps and crude radio frequency listening devices could easily be seen as outdated, inapplicable or even irrelevant today.

Ruvy:

Your argument boils down to devaluing impeachment so that it is a routine act - kind of like having the Praetorian Guard running the Roman Empire.

I think Temple Stark is right...there will be no impeachment. And that might be for the best. I know humans and there's a strong chance Republicans would reach to impeaching Bush in a way that would lead Congress to treat impeachment like California treats voter initiatives. That would really suck.

Clinton's impeachment was for lying about having sex with a bimbo; Bush's is about lying about reasons for going to war w/Iran - a big, BIG difference.

Meanwhile, discussions concerning Bush violating the constitution, both here, in the media, & in congress, have been hijacked by lawyerly nittering about how many NSA agents can dance on the head of a pin. Where is the outrage? Are we so numb to government lies & violations of law that our attention deficit is limitless these days?

Meanwhile, discussions concerning Bush violating the constitution, both here, in the media, & in congress, have been hijacked by lawyerly nittering about how many NSA agents can dance on the head of a pin. Where is the outrage?

well done P6

troll

I'm glad somebody is. I'm getting fed up with all the posturing by congress & the media as they pick-pick-pick, obviously with no intent whatsoever to actually act or do anything about something that should be a burning, hot-button issue that far outweighs Nixon's abuses. I must conclude that congress isn't interested in doing anything about anything except getting themselves re-elected so they can enrich themselves at the expense of the public. I have come to the conclusion that the only solution is congressional term limits: there should be NO 'career' congress whatsoever, and those who serve should be banned for a minimum of 5 years - not 1 or 2 - from engaging in lobbying (which I think should be totally illegal, anyway).

But back to the issue. The nitpicking seems to be a tactic by Rove & Co. to prevent anyone from actually taking action against Bush: keep congress squabbling, and they'll be too distracted to prosecute.

Electronic surveilance means either surveilance of, or using electronics. Take your pick.

Telephone is electronics. Computer is electronics. And you are desperate to find reasonable doubt here. There is none.

Electronic surveillance means surveillance carried out by electronic means, not necessarily limited to electronic media.

The letter of the law was broken, and the letter of the law is what Bush wants enforced everywhere but here? That seems kind of...arbitrary. Kind of king-like.

No, it seems kind of expedient. It's a word you should learn. In times of crisis the President's role is to do what needs to be done and do it by the methods available and then sort out the ramifications later.

And he's been wrong so much, hidden so much information, there is no reason to believe what he says, even if HE does.

And I don't want him impeached for eavesdropping. This is just what brought it forth in undeniable fashion. It's for a long-term effort to destabilize the government, undermining both the Judiciary and Congress, in order to concentrate power into the one office. Totally anti-American.

Here's where we're never going to agree. This vague accusation that Bush is some sort of potential tyrant who's systematically perverting our government just doesn't fly. There's no evidence to support it. It's some sort of weird leftist fantasy which people keep bringing up but really can't back up in any substantial way, and it colors all of your opinions and renders a lot of what you say just silly, because it's coming from a perspective of weird prejudice because you see Bush as this wannabe dictator - a role which he fills only in your mind and in the groupthink culture you're part of.

Dave

as opposed to the groupthink culture of the GOP which thinks King Shrub sounds nice and they can never do anything wrong...that the Administration spends all their waking hours doing everything they can to being back the glory days of the Cleavers and Nelsons

the Reality is more than likely some where in between

how about we just take each thing as it's own and work it from there?

Excelsior!

This vague accusation that Bush is some sort of potential tyrant who's systematically perverting our government just doesn't fly. There's no evidence to support it.

No, it seems kind of expedient. It's a word you should learn. In times of crisis the President's role is to do what needs to be done and do it by the methods available and then sort out the ramifications later.

in the groupthink culture you're part of.

If the gov uses these new powers it has aprropriated itself to spy on an American citizen with no terrorist connections, and the gov uses this info in an inappropriate way, what legal remedy does the citizen have?
Will they be able to subpeona records of the wiretap, or will the gov be able to hide behind the mantra of 'national security'?
I was willing to give to Bush some leeway on this at first, but having heard his 'I talked to Congress and they thought it was ok' explaination of why he should be trusted with this new power; instead of concrete steps that can be taken to make sure an individual who is wrongly spied on has legal rights...
I'm starting to change my mind.

Whether Bush has or not, at some point the gov WILL abuse this power. It's inevitable.
The 'I'm the President so I can order the NSA to do anything as long as I secretly inform Congress' precedent that is being set here...
In Russia, in Afghanistan, in Turkey, the presence of a democratic process seems to be used as cover for violating freedom of political speech.
If they don't set new limits on this new tech, the same thing is gonna happen here.

SS has the best point anyone has made in a while. If you give the government too much power someone will eventually abuse it. That's the real reason why whatever law eventually gets passed on this ought to err on the side of limiting wiretaps rather than enabling them.

I still don't think Bush has done the tyrranical things which the more paranoid among us fear that he has. If he were that out of control he would not have sought legal opinions and conferred with congressional leaders on what he was doing.

Consider a comparison with Nixon.

Bush: Wiretapped known Al Qaeda associates.
Nixon: Wiretapped personal enemies.

Bush: Had the appropriate government agency do the wiretaps.
Nixon: Hired criminals and renegade black bag operatives.

Bush: Conferred openly with judges and legislators.
Nixon: Made every effort to cover up and conceal his actions

Does this make the difference between an overly zealous chief executive and a half-crazed potential tyrant any clearer?

Dave

except for the fact that we don't know who was "data mined" or what was done with the data and logs since...

we don't have any way to check the assertations by the Administration...since none of it went to any kind of outside review

i don't like comparing Nixon with Bush...it's apples and oranges, really...we know what Nixon did, and it was pretty petty penny ante stuff...we don't know the full extent of what this Administration has done/is doing...but the scale and implications are of a much grander scope, with the possibility of exponentially worse outcome for our Nation on what could be an epic scale

not i am very careful with the qualifiers here, we are not certain yet...and i do hope quite fervently that it is all not as bad as it could be

i would dearly love to be proven completely incorrect, and find everything is just rosy...and that i am just being overly suspicious based on what we do know so far...

but i ain't betting my lunch money on it

Excelsior!

Does this make the difference between an overly zealous chief executive and a half-crazed potential tyrant any clearer?

it is ex-Admiral Poindexter...a convicted felon, he was part of the Iran-Contra scandal

just helping out with the score card

Excelsior!

P6, I never said I didn't believe in the rule of law. That's something you and gonzo came up with. I just realize that there are a lot of things our existing laws don't address adequately, leaving room for actions like those Bush has taken.

And Gonzo...

i don't like comparing Nixon with Bush...it's apples and oranges, really...we know what Nixon did, and it was pretty petty penny ante stuff...we don't know the full extent of what this Administration has done/is doing...but the scale and implications are of a much grander scope, with the possibility of exponentially worse outcome for our Nation on what could be an epic scale

That's all fairycake with wish icing, gonzo. We have no reason to believe Bush is anywhere near the same league as Nixon. That you call Nixon's crimes 'penny ante' shows that you don't understand this issue at all. Bush is accused of possibly taking advantage of a gray area in the 4th amendment. Nixon violated the 1st, 4th and 5th amendments repeatedly and did it in full knowledge that it was illegal. He was party to felonies for which people went to jail and he was spared as an 'unindicted co-conspirator'. Give me a break.

Dave

Ruvy sadly looks out of his roost at the windy and cold day and shakes his head. Can all these people commenting really be people of substance? Oy vey!!

Get real, folks! You no longer have a democracy! But if you went through all the energy and effort required to impeach George W. Bush, got him tried and convicted and kicked out - you get Cheney, who is just as bad, and from the same oil and banking plutocracy that Bush is!

He would continue all the violations of your civil liberties that Bush is pursuing now, and just keep on going like the Energizer Bunny.

In addition, he would continue the war in Iraq - because he couldn't afford to move it to Saudi Arabia. It isn't smart to pee on the boss's shoes.

What will you have accomplished?

Gúrnisht, nada, niente, éfes - a big fat goose egg.

to comment #113...
you appear to misunderstand me...i know how bad Nixon screwed up, but his offenses were truly petty and domestic

i was stating that the possible infractions of this Administration could be far worse...why you ask?
pre-emptive invasion
diebold
FISA

and a few other things, NONE of which are proven and NONE of which have even been properly Investigated as of yet

so we just don't know, and as i stated quite clearly..i do honestly hope that when all of this IS looked into , that it won't be anywhere near as bad as it could be

to Ruvy...

i know exactly what you mean..you will note that i have never aactually said to impeach him...for just the reasons you state

far better if nothing happens until after November, and either House or Senate goes Dem...then some decent Investigations can be had, checks and balances will be restored

then let things go as needed

nuff said?

Excelsior!

I don't look at it the same way. I think that the thing which makes Nixon infinitely worse no matter what is that what he did was done for personal gain, while what Bush may have done was done for reasons of what he perceived as the best interests of the nation. It's a lot easier to excuse an excess of zeal in a good cause than an abuse of rights which serves no one but yourself.

Dave

P6, I never said I didn't believe in the rule of law. That's something you and gonzo came up with. I just realize that there are a lot of things our existing laws don't address adequately, leaving room for actions like those Bush has taken.

But I'm not running the country, that's not the way things are being done, and I'm trying to deal with the reality.

for comment #116

you raise some very good points, unfortunately i do NOT share your optimism as to the motivations of this Administration.

i do NOT think they are looking out for the Nation's best interests...hence the conflict of Opinion

Excelsior!

so - Nixon didn't believe that what he was doing was in the interest of national security - ?

at the time of his criminal behavior we were in a conflict authorized by Congress and lots of Americans were acting in ways that looked traitorous to him

I don't see much difference between now and then in this aspect...

and the fact is we don't know what ops Bush has authorized - all we know is that he is willing to push the envelope of the law if not break it outright in the name of executive power

troll

1: "most viciously debated thread"?

2: The Cheney scare isn't very scary. C'mon folks, if you impeach and remove from office a President over a given act there is no longer any doubt where the line is. A Vice President that ascends to the Presidency that way would be watched like a hawk...and that's if he wasn't removed for complicity.

Bush impeached...
Cheney indicted...
Hastert in control?

And if something happens to Hastert...Ted Stevens is up next!

ugh...*shudder*

The point is, we didn't know about the NSA wiretapping, and Bush's claim that he informed selected members of congress apparently doesn't hold water, since at least some of them deny it. So ... what ELSE is there he's done that no one knows anything about? As far as I know, it's entirely likely Bush has done all kinds of illegal things a la Nixon - it's just no one's found out about them yet. Also, as SS pointed out, even if Bush himself hasn't abused it, who's to say someone else - Cheney, perhaps? Some penny-ante self-appointed Oliver North wannabe in the NSA? - hasn't? The WH continues to stonewall turning over any kind of memos or other information on the wiretapping as well as stuff like Hurricane Katrina on the laughable grounds of "protecting the privacy of WH advisors". Privacy of WH advisors, my fat butt! If you work in the WH or government, there is and should be no privacy, especially in matters of adhering to the law. That BushCo is resisting on such ridiculous excuses says to me they do have something to hide. I do hope this goes to a full-fledged impeachment, if only because such a procedure will bring out the facts, without claims of executive privilege or pathetic excuses about Karl Rove's privacy concerns.

and here
is a nice bit of an article on the topic of the whole FISA bit for your perusal

i doubt anyone could call this article, or the Chicago times, too blantantly partisan...it gives a decently balanced view

yer welcome, yas know i live ta Serve

Excelsior!

#117 + #118: I tend to view the cup as half full rather than half empty. And my empty half is a little different than yours. I'm much more concerned about the great ideas Bush had which he hasn't been able to execute because of these manufactured crises, than I am about the supposed problems his opponents keep trumping up.

so - Nixon didn't believe that what he was doing was in the interest of national security - ?

In his deranged mind he may have thought it was, but since he targeted people who were hurting his chances of reelection rather than threatening the country, that explanation doesn't make much sense.

1: "most viciously debated thread"?

Well, it's held the top of the discussion list in politics for quite a while, and that means a lot of back and forth.

Dave

I'm much more concerned about the great ideas Bush had which he hasn't been able to execute because of these manufactured crises, than I am about the supposed problems his opponents keep trumping up.

Did you mean that in the grand historical context or just in the context of the history of the US or just in the context of the Bush administration?

Manufacturing bogus crises and inflated scandals has been part of politics from the beginning of time. Doesn't mean I have to like it when it gets in the way of implementing good ideas.

Dave

Did you mean that in the grand historical context or just in the context of the history of the US or just in the context of the Bush administration?

I'm much more concerned about the great ideas Bush had which he hasn't been able to execute because of these manufactured crises, than I am about the supposed problems his opponents keep trumping up.

What I don't Get is the surveillance can only be used in a case involving terrorist activity, So what is everyone so scared of if your not a terrorist your safe not from electronic surveillance but from indictment. My Question is What do you know that America doesn't need to know?

I went to the democrat website and all it pretty much had was Bush bashing. Then I went to the Republican website and it had only one or two stories where they bashed Dems.I am seeing a pattern with the Dems. that started sence Bush won the first election. Dems. quit complaining 24/7 he is almost out!!!!

So what is everyone so scared of

I've supported a Constitutional Convention for the last 20 years. I believe that we're ripe in this country for major political reform.

With the apparent victory of the terrorist wing of Palestinian politics, we h