3
   

Bush supporters' aftermath thread II

 
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2006 12:22 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
blatham wrote:
As we all know, of course, the FISA detail is rather relevant and may well result in grounds for impeachment, such not being the case in the other example.


It's Carter's hypocrisy we're talking about, blatham. Which is there regardless of FISA.


But only because it is in your desired framing that things look the way you wish.

If you add in the critical aspect of legality (which you normally think important; eg, Clinton's lie vs those of your Washington heroes), then the examples differ.

If you add in who Carter's wiretaps intercepted, as contrasted with who Bush's have grabbed up (and we sure as hell don't yet know the range of that), then the examples differ.

If you consider the relevance of government surveillance of the Kings and the present case of surveillance by the FBI and perhaps other agencies of eg Quakers, then the period of Bush looks like the period of Nixon but Carter's period remains quite different.

So go ahead and frame your narrative such that it serves your purpose, but it's best not to assume that anyone other than the choir will happily chorus along.
0 Replies
 
Anon-Voter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2006 12:27 pm
Blatham,

That's Tico' mission in life ... squandering that wonderful law education massaging words and legal concepts to make Bush look like he's doing something legal ... no matter what!!

I hope he didn't make his parents PAY for that education !~!

Anon
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2006 12:34 pm
The war you didn't see

By Robert C.J. Parry, ROBERT C.J. PARRY, a first lieutenant in the California Army National Guard's 1-184 Infantry, is a senior account manager for a Century City public relations firm. Contact him at [email protected].

LAST MONTH I returned from Iraq, swapping my desert camouflage for a suit and tie to resume my desk job at a Century City firm. For the first time in 18 months I was separated from my battalion, the 1st of the 184th Infantry Regiment, which was among the first California Army National Guard units to be sent into combat since the Korean War.

From the first weeks of our mobilization in August 2004, we were in the spotlight. We were the battalion "mired in scandal." We were, according to the disgruntled, poor in training and morale. Once in Iraq, we were the battalion that suffered casualties seemingly faster than anyone could count: 17 killed in action and nearly 100 wounded in 12 months. We were the battalion whose commander, Col. William W. Wood, became the highest-ranking soldier to die in action. Our previous commander was relieved of duty after a scandal involving the abuse of Iraqi prisoners. Even as we rolled out each day to confront terrorists, we were known at home primarily for things that had nothing to do with the job we did or how we did it.

Over the course of 18 months, the 600 soldiers of the 184th experienced almost every high and low a band of brothers could, from great distinction to shocking heartbreak. But what never made it into print were the things that will mark our hearts until well after we become the old-timers down at the VFW.

We served with honor. We served with valor. We earned distinction.

Google us to find the litany of supposed woe. But if you want to know the real story of our battalion, go find Sgt. Thomas Kruger and ask him about April 5, 2005.

On that bright spring morning, with his legs shattered, Kruger dragged himself across 100 feet of debris and shrapnel to reach Cpl. Glenn Watkins, who had been mortally wounded moments earlier by the same ghastly roadside bomb.

You might also ask anyone from our ranks about Staff Sgt. Steve Nunez. Broken and bloodied by an IED, he was ordered home to recuperate after refusing to go voluntarily. He rejoined us to carry the fight forward, refusing the chance to stay home.

There were no front-page headlines for Kruger, Nunez or even Sgt. 1st Class Tom Stone, who covered a wounded subordinate's body with his own to protect that soldier from a secondary attack that could have come at any moment.

Stone, a Los Angeles Police Department officer, and Kruger, a paramedic on movie sets, were awarded Bronze Stars for their valor. Nunez, a Riverside metalworker, received our awe and admiration, and I hope yours too.

Equally deserving of recognition were Sgt. 1st Class Chris Chebatah and 1st Lt. Ky Cheng. One terrible September night, an armored personnel carrier in their patrol was destroyed by a tremendous blast and flipped, pinning a soldier. Even while taking enemy fire and directing the care for casualties around them, they rigged a chain to pull the 10-ton vehicle off him. The effort was successful but ultimately futile.

So far, 14 of our soldiers have been decorated for valor and another 48 have earned the Bronze Star for service. But that cannot be found in print.

Our unit ?- supposedly just a band of weekend warriors from the National Guard ?- was selected by the Army's renowned 3rd Infantry Division to take on its primary challenge: taking control of a sector of south Baghdad that was home to leading Baathists and Al Qaeda fanatics. In that capacity, we conducted more than 7,000 combat patrols totaling nearly half a million man-hours. We captured more insurgents in one month than did whole brigades. We stand nominated (with the rest of our brigade) for a Valorous Unit Award.

But instead, people who didn't know the first thing about us trumpeted the misdeeds of a handful of young men who scoffed at the concepts of honor and duty that our commander invoked.

At dawn on the June day that that story broke, we awakened to the deep reverberation of a complex attack ?- five car bombs and at least three subsequent ambushes designed to hit those who responded ?- in an adjacent sector. The 3rd Battalion, 7th Infantry Regiment was in a hot fight. Our Alpha Company ?- a part of our battalion, based in Fullerton ?- rallied to 3-7's aid. The company fought through ambushes to find, kill and capture terrorists. For a few hours, the men of Killer Company, as we call Alpha, were heroes.

But that night, amid rumor and whisper, the Alpha soldiers were taken off patrol and isolated. Within days we knew the ugly story. Months earlier, it seems, shortly after we arrived in Iraq, a few of Alpha's young NCOs had abused a group of Iraqi detainees.

It was immature, nasty, stupid stuff ?- using stun guns on the genitals of men allegedly caught trying to attack a power plant. The men they tortured were later released, as are so many of the suspected terrorists caught in country. In the investigation that followed, nine others were accused of lesser misdeeds ?- taking photographs of themselves with detainees and the like ?- in which no physical harm came to anyone.

The Army PR machine touted the news, almost proudly, much like "Access Hollywood" touts B-list celebrity gossip: "Baghdad Troops to Face Court-Martial for Detainee Abuse." Before long, word leaked out that they were ours. What was not said was that it was one of the soldiers in our own battalion who had found the video of the abuse and turned it in to our commander.

Lots of folks had lots of theories about why the Army made such a big deal of it. Mine is that the Army wanted to get out in front of "another Abu Ghraib," and a group of "nasty Guard" soldiers made good poster children. It was sound PR, but lousy teamwork.

Whatever the case, in the end, only three went to prison for their role in the abuse, all for short terms. The others received minor administrative punishments, and our commander ?- a schoolteacher, poet and a man of noble values ?- was sent elsewhere. The facts did not live up to the hype, but the hype was what we, and you, were left with.

While our Delta Company patrolled a stretch of Baghdad road where five of our soldiers were eventually killed, people who had never set foot in Iraq were quoted about our performance. People who rarely left the safety of an operations base damaged our reputations. We never flinched in a fight, but we were smeared nonetheless.

What none of us could explain was why no reporter actually met a single 184th soldier in Iraq until November. Even that only came after the tragic death of our new commander, Col. Wood, an amazing active-duty officer who held us together and made us strong again. Whether it was some form of politics or simply the realities of journalism in war, I do not know. The hype was all that mattered.

During my tour, I was blessed ?- or perhaps cursed ?- with a "utility infielder" role, serving in a variety of positions that gave me a diverse look at the lives of soldiers and Iraqis alike.

I patrolled the streets of Baghdad's elite Karrada neighborhood and its insurgent-rich Doura sector, shaking people's hands and learning their problems. I lived and worked alongside American contractors upgrading a key power plant. I trained Iraqi police, saw their enthusiasm and came to understand their different approach to things. I worked as a junior officer on our battalion staff, witnessing how the decisions governing the street fight were shaped. I was shot at and attacked with IEDs.

I saw the successes. I struggled with the failures. But most important, I saw people who once had nothing now bursting with hope and thanks.

While I was in Iraq, I read Walter Isaacson's remarkable biography, "Benjamin Franklin: An American Life." I was reminded of the passion and determination of our founding fathers, and of the long years they experienced between independence and the founding of the government we enjoy today. Franklin and company recognized the importance of having a fully informed American constituency involved in making the decisions of government.

When it comes to Iraq, in my experience, that constituency is poorly served.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2006 12:35 pm
blatham wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
blatham wrote:
As we all know, of course, the FISA detail is rather relevant and may well result in grounds for impeachment, such not being the case in the other example.


It's Carter's hypocrisy we're talking about, blatham. Which is there regardless of FISA.


But only because it is in your desired framing that things look the way you wish.

If you add in the critical aspect of legality (which you normally think important; eg, Clinton's lie vs those of your Washington heroes), then the examples differ.

If you add in who Carter's wiretaps intercepted, as contrasted with who Bush's have grabbed up (and we sure as hell don't yet know the range of that), then the examples differ.

If you consider the relevance of government surveillance of the Kings and the present case of surveillance by the FBI and perhaps other agencies of eg Quakers, then the period of Bush looks like the period of Nixon but Carter's period remains quite different.

So go ahead and frame your narrative such that it serves your purpose, but it's best not to assume that anyone other than the choir will happily chorus along.


Carter said: "Under the Bush administration, there's been a disgraceful and illegal decision -- we're not going to the let the judges or the Congress or anyone else know that we're spying on the American people," ... "And no one knows how many innocent Americans have had their privacy violated under this secret act," he said.

And at the CSK funeral, he said: ""It was difficult for them then personally with the civil liberties of both husband and wife violated as they became the target of secret government wiretaps."

Yet he conducted "secret goverment wiretaps" during his administration, and "no one knows how many innocent Americans ... had their privacy violated" during his administration .... right?

When Carter's AG testified in favor of FISA, he told Congress that while FISA doesn't explicitly acknowledge the "inherent power of the president to conduct electronic surveillance," it "does not take away the power of the president under the Constitution." Yet Carter has the gall to now say it's "ridiculous" for the current AG to say the surveillance is authorized by the Constitution.

He ought to learn to keep his hypocritical trap shut.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2006 03:49 pm
Quote:
Carter said: "Under the Bush administration, there's been a disgraceful and illegal decision -- we're not going to the let the judges or the Congress or anyone else know that we're spying on the American people," ... "And no one knows how many innocent Americans have had their privacy violated under this secret act," he said.

As you know, there is a large and considered body of legal opinion that holds with Carter's view. We know from memos etc that the JD lawyers also understood the legal dilemma. Of course, it is quite true that we don't know how many innocent Americans have had their privacy violated, but we know by government admission that it is some at least. And, as I mentioned, there are the other cases involving the Quaker group and more. That's all factual stuff and likely the tip of an iceberg.

Quote:
And at the CSK funeral, he said: ""It was difficult for them then personally with the civil liberties of both husband and wife violated as they became the target of secret government wiretaps."

Yet he conducted "secret goverment wiretaps" during his administration, and "no one knows how many innocent Americans ... had their privacy violated" during his administration .... right?


Of course the instances are quite unalike in legality, in scope, and in who was tapped. Or are you arguing that once any sort of wiretap is done by an administration's JD (say of the Mafia), then that administration can never complain about any other wiretapping that a future administration might engage in?

from thinkprogress...I'll let anyone fact check who wishes to...

Quote:
Fact Check: Clinton/Carter Executive Orders Did Not Authorize Warrantless Searches of Americans
The top of the Drudge Report claims "CLINTON EXECUTIVE ORDER: SECRET SEARCH ON AMERICANS WITHOUT COURT ORDERÂ…" It's not true. Here's the breakdown -

What Drudge says:

Clinton, February 9, 1995: "The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order"

What Clinton actually signed:

Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) [50 U.S.C. 1822(a)] of the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance] Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.

That section requires the Attorney General to certify is the search will not involve "the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person." That means U.S. citizens or anyone inside of the United States.

The entire controversy about Bush's program is that, for the first time ever, allows warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens and other people inside of the United States. Clinton's 1995 executive order did not authorize that.

Drudge pulls the same trick with Carter.

What Drudge says:

Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: "Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order."

What Carter's executive order actually says:

1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order, but only if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section.

What the Attorney General has to certify under that section is that the surveillance will not contain "the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party." So again, no U.S. persons are involved.



Quote:
When Carter's AG testified in favor of FISA, he told Congress that while FISA doesn't explicitly acknowledge the "inherent power of the president to conduct electronic surveillance," it "does not take away the power of the president under the Constitution." Yet Carter has the gall to now say it's "ridiculous" for the current AG to say the surveillance is authorized by the Constitution.


So, does Bush have the inherent power to conduct surveillance (secretly, without court ok, without informing congress) on MLK or quakers or you whenever he might deem it necessary? Is this inherent power unrestricted and unrestrictable by any other branch or law?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2006 03:52 pm
If those Quakers or whomever are making international calls to suspected terrorists, you bet. If the US government needs a warrant to inspect anything or anybody going in or out of this country, it is all over. We're screwed.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2006 03:54 pm
There is no way of telling if they are terrorists on the other end, or not, under the President's illegal program; they are spied upon before that is even determined.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2006 04:12 pm
It doesn't matter whether they're terrorists or not. If they're making international calls, there should be no particular right to privacy.

On another matter, nobody commented on the piece McG posted today, but of course it didn't support the Left's preferred theme of doom and gloom.

Following is another piece by a representative of the military with some interesting observations re Iraq:

February 13, 2006
Unreported History in Baghdad
By Lieutenant Colonel John M. Kanaley

The silence was deafening and the seats were empty. The western press was nowhere to be found. The location was Baghdad and the event was a February 10th, 2006 press conference announcing the final verification of December's election results. Although the final allocation of parliamentary seats did not change from last month's tentative reports, the conference was nonetheless significant for American and Iraqi history. What was equally significant was the absence of members of the western press.

If the pre-release of the topics to be discussed included reports of widespread voter fraud, complaints by detained terrorists of maltreatment, or a sudden clamoring for the return of the deadly former dictator, certainly, the major news networks and the print media would have found time to attend. Of course, their reports would have consisted of their own perceived failure of western style elections in a part of the world that they deem to be unprepared for democracy. Since they were unable to report a "disastrous" event of this war, apparently, their budgets did not allow for attendance in Baghdad.

The true significance of this announcement is the underlying theme which the anti-war crowd refuses to recognize: the war has been successful and there is verifiable progress within the country of Iraq. Not only did we defeat a murderous despot, we have gained an ally in the war against terrorism. Just three short years ago, these same people were being terrorized by a vicious regime whose primary responsibility was supposed to be to protect its own citizens. After being victims of this brutal state, free Iraqis are now fighting their former oppressors who consist of remnants of the Ba'ath Party and the foreign terrorists who have taken it upon themselves to determine what is best for the Iraqi people.

What is feeding the success of the Iraqis is that they are fighting for a legitimately elected government which they now have a genuine part in. No longer are they forced to support the narcissistic and sadistic ways of a tyrant. Instead, Iraqis learned at this press conference that their efforts to defeat terrorism through the ballot box have been legitimized by local and international organizations. Now, the business of forming the government begins.

It is said that success has many fathers, while failure is an orphan. In the pessimistic world of the western press and the anti-war left, they continually turn their backs on momentous accomplishments while simultaneously failing to acknowledge this turning point in the defense of freedom. The press never hesitates to report on the so-called surges of attacks in Iraq. Logically speaking, if there is a surge at any given point, then there must have been a previous decrease in attacks as well, yet, that is never reported.

True, there are peaks and valleys in the number of attacks. What is not reported when these supposed surges take place is the failure of most of the attacks. The bombings and shootings have not adversely affected operations, they have not disrupted our logistics, nor have they resulted in the enemy gaining one inch of territory. More importantly, they have not hindered the desire of the Iraqis to continue on with everyday life, despite the attempts of the terrorists to target innocent civilians. Yet, the intensity and constant reporting of every negative occurrence in Baghdad would lead one to believe that we have walked into the shadow of death from which there is no return.

An example of the failure to report on the importance of this success was demonstrated at the conclusion of the press conference. Several hours later, the only related news on CNN International were reports of two bombings in Iraq and the all important notice from Cindi Sheehan that she will not run for the Senate and send Diane Feinstein into retirement.

At a time when American troops deserve a good headline in the major newspapers or a positive top-of-the-hour news flash on the network stations, the press and the left instead continue to focus on more mundane topics of discussion. This is the beginning of the most pivotal year in this war, and once again, the mainstream media finds itself on the wrong side of history.

John M. Kanaley is a Lieutenant Colonel in the United States Army. He serves in Baghdad, Iraq
SOURCE
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2006 04:13 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
If those Quakers or whomever are making international calls to suspected terrorists, you bet. If the US government needs a warrant to inspect anything or anybody going in or out of this country, it is all over. We're screwed.


Not a serious address to any of the legal or constitutional questions.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2006 04:13 pm
blatham wrote:
As you know, there is a large and considered body of legal opinion that holds with Carter's view. We know from memos etc that the JD lawyers also understood the legal dilemma. Of course, it is quite true that we don't know how many innocent Americans have had their privacy violated, but we know by government admission that it is some at least. And, as I mentioned, there are the other cases involving the Quaker group and more. That's all factual stuff and likely the tip of an iceberg.


Yes ... I'm not addressing any of that. I'm talking about Carter's hypocrisy.

Quote:
Of course the instances are quite unalike in legality, in scope, and in who was tapped. Or are you arguing that once any sort of wiretap is done by an administration's JD (say of the Mafia), then that administration can never complain about any other wiretapping that a future administration might engage in?


I think if one's administration conducted "secret warrantless wiretaps," and then complains about a later administration's "warrantless wiretaps" as being "secret," their hypocrisy would be obvious.

Quote:
from thinkprogress...I'll let anyone fact check who wishes to...

Quote:
Fact Check: Clinton/Carter Executive Orders Did Not Authorize Warrantless Searches of Americans
The top of the Drudge Report claims "CLINTON EXECUTIVE ORDER: SECRET SEARCH ON AMERICANS WITHOUT COURT ORDERÂ…" It's not true. Here's the breakdown -

What Drudge says:

Clinton, February 9, 1995: "The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order"

What Clinton actually signed:

Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) [50 U.S.C. 1822(a)] of the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance] Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.

That section requires the Attorney General to certify is the search will not involve "the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person." That means U.S. citizens or anyone inside of the United States.

The entire controversy about Bush's program is that, for the first time ever, allows warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens and other people inside of the United States. Clinton's 1995 executive order did not authorize that.

Drudge pulls the same trick with Carter.

What Drudge says:

Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: "Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order."

What Carter's executive order actually says:

1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order, but only if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section.

What the Attorney General has to certify under that section is that the surveillance will not contain "the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party." So again, no U.S. persons are involved.


I'm referring to his pre-FISA surveillance.


Quote:
Quote:
When Carter's AG testified in favor of FISA, he told Congress that while FISA doesn't explicitly acknowledge the "inherent power of the president to conduct electronic surveillance," it "does not take away the power of the president under the Constitution." Yet Carter has the gall to now say it's "ridiculous" for the current AG to say the surveillance is authorized by the Constitution.


So, does Bush have the inherent power to conduct surveillance (secretly, without court ok, without informing congress) on MLK or quakers or you whenever he might deem it necessary? Is this inherent power unrestricted and unrestrictable by any other branch or law?


No, it must be for the purposes of gathering foreign intelligence, not domestic spying.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2006 04:29 pm
Quote:
It is said that success has many fathers, while failure is an orphan. In the pessimistic world of the western press and the anti-war left, they continually turn their backs on momentous accomplishments while simultaneously failing to acknowledge this turning point in the defense of freedom. The press never hesitates to report on the so-called surges of attacks in Iraq. Logically speaking, if there is a surge at any given point, then there must have been a previous decrease in attacks as well, yet, that is never reported.


Quote:
Though some 400 Iraqi police and soldiers have been killed by insurgents since February, the U.S. military reported a decrease in attacks against U.S. forces by 20 percent since March and the Iraqi government reported capturing several senior militant leaders.
PBS News found in a one minute search.

So, was this piece written by the CIA, the Defence Department's PR boys, or by a privately contracted stateside PR firm?
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2006 04:51 pm
AP is reporting that Jimmy Carter has cancelled plans to go duck hunting with the Vice President.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2006 04:55 pm
Not really.

But, to the matter of how our perceptions can be somewhat warped by biases and preferences...I've found myself feeling sympathy for the put-upon ex-FEMA Brownie.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2006 05:00 pm
American Bar Association, which as we all know gave Alito it's "well qualified" stamp of approval (some of you mentioned it, as we will recall) has issued its opinion on the spying/FISA matter...

Quote:
Lawyers Group Says Bush Exceeds His Powers

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: February 13, 2006
Filed at 4:12 p.m. ET

CHICAGO (AP) -- The American Bar Association denounced President Bush's warrantless domestic surveillance program Monday, accusing him of exceeding his powers under the Constitution.

The program has prompted a heated debate about presidential powers in the war on terror since it was disclosed in December.

The nation's largest organization of lawyers adopted a policy opposing any future government use of electronic surveillance in the United States for foreign intelligence purposes without first obtaining warrants from a special court set up under the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act...

The ABA has urged Congress to affirm that when it authorized Bush to go to war, it did not intend to endorse warrantless spying.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-ABA-Domestic-Spying.html
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2006 05:29 pm
One question...
If the courts and congress say something is legal and ok,does that mean it is?
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2006 06:15 pm
Hilarious little bit...apparently, the victim of the Cheney shooting accident is in...get this..."VERY stable condition".
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2006 06:30 pm
"Recovering nicely," I heard.
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2006 06:32 pm
Can't wait for Letterman and Leno on this.....

Smile
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2006 06:39 pm
The President has had and will not have any trouble convincing Americans that the FISA laws are too cumbersome to be of much use since 911. Nor will he have any trouble convincing Americans that the secret nature of sidestepping them was a necessary part of there effectiveness (so as not to tip off the targets, as has obviously now been done. Thanks Democrats. Rolling Eyes ) The ABA and even the Supreme Court may well rule that it was unconstitutional in the end, but simple common sense provides an understanding of why it was done, the way it was done. The harm done to Bush's Presidency won't match the political harm done to Democrats for politicizing a judgment call that was made with the best interests in protecting Americans at heart. No amount of hysterical politically driven witch-hunting will change the simple fact that; whatever flaunting of law was done was done for the protection of the vast majority of American citizens at a paltry expense to the few.

I lack the expertise to offer a legal judgment as to the actual legality of the wire taps and have no intention of trying to research it well enough to do so. Instead, I've addressed the presumably obvious (to a majority of Americans) motive for the spying and what I foresee as the majority opinion of those who've chosen to sacrifice the tool's usefulness for political gain. The Democrats have succeeded in weakening our national defense and will likely lose ground for having done so. Well done Democrats. Rolling Eyes
(Insert Timber's picture of the excavator burying itself here.)
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2006 06:43 pm
Re the quail shooting incident, did anybody listen in on the press conference?

Among such gems asked by the illustrious members of the Fifth Estate affectionately known as the White House Press Corps, there were questions to the effect of "Will the Vice President resign?" and "Should criminal charges be filed?" and, my personal favorite, "Would it have been more serious had the victim died?"

You can't make this stuff up.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 03/04/2026 at 02:05:02