Reprinted from NewsMax.com

My Express Consent for Wiretapping

David Limbaugh
Tuesday, Feb. 7, 2006

I hereby expressly consent to the NSA eavesdropping on any telephone conversation, Internet communication or any other electronic forms of communications I may have - whether I initiate it or am on the receiving end of the communication - with any person or persons the government has reasonable basis to conclude is a member of al-Qaida, affiliated with al-Qaida or a member of an organization affiliated with al-Qaida.

I aver that I have no expectation of privacy with respect to any communications I might have with suspected or known al-Qaida members or persons linked to al-Qaida or related terrorist organizations. Indeed, I'd like to meet the person who would pretend to be victimized by an interception of a call with al-Qaida.

As is usual with the Democratic leadership, it's difficult to tell for sure whether its motivation in attempting to scandalize the president's wartime electronic surveillance of the enemy is purely political, based on legitimate civil-liberties concerns or a combination of both.

Given its overt misrepresentation of the president's program and its disregard for the historical practice of warrantless electronic surveillance of the enemy by the presidents of both parties, my bet is that their motivation is partisan.

If Democratic leaders were truly concerned about potential infringements of privacy rights, would they repeatedly mischaracterize the program as "domestic" spying?

Would they have pretended that the president conducted this program completely clandestinely when he briefed key members of Congress from both parties more than a dozen times?

Would they all repeat the same hollow mantra, "We are in favor of spying on al-Qaida"?

Isn't that what's going on here?

Sorry, boys and girls, you can't have it both ways. Explain to us how you would protect the nation by always requiring warrants in this fast-moving, high-tech world, with ever-shifting phone numbers and disposable cell phones - a world the drafters of FISA couldn't possibly have envisioned. Let's be clear what we're talking about here.

The NSA surveillance program involves intelligence of a foreign enemy during war. None of the interceptions of communications is for the purpose of criminal law enforcement but instead for the detection and prevention of terrorist attacks against the United States.

The program clearly does not apply to purely domestic communications, where all parties to the communications are located in the United States.

The Justice Department has specified that the president "has authorized the NSA to intercept international (emphasis mine) communications into and out of the United States of persons linked to al-Qaida or related terrorist organizations." (For the record, it wouldn't bother me if the program included purely domestic communications as long as one or more parties to the conversation were reasonably believed to have ties to al-Qaida.)

In light of the Democratic leadership's exaggerated displays of concern, one might infer it suspects the president of having assimilated a list of political enemies and authorized warrantless wiretaps of their calls. But it's difficult to imagine how anyone could think this president, who considers Ted Kennedy a friend and Bill Clinton a brother, even believes he has political enemies.

It's not as if President Bush has hired the Clintons' favorite private eye, Anthony Pellicano, to dig up dirt on Howard Dean.

If Democrats were not engaged in partisan shenanigans here, why did they wait for The New York Times to leak news of this program to raise objections to it when important members of their party had been briefed well ahead of the publication of the story?

Would they be attempting to criminalize the president's surveillance program or suggest that it constitutes an impeachable offense instead of civilly debating him over his constitutional authority?

Perhaps we should call for members of Congress to be impeached every time they arguably exceed their constitutional authority, which happens to be almost daily.

The Democratic leadership insists it is as vigilant on national security matters as the president. If that's the case, why does it always rush to err on the side of civil liberties, even when there are no known victims of any NSA surveillance abuses - or of the Patriot Act, for that matter?

Based on the evidence before us, it appears once again that the Democratic leadership is willing to politicize anything, including our national security.

Its cacophony over the Fourth Amendment is just a lot of hot air designed to singe the president, who is manifestly engaged in a good-faith effort to honor his constitutional duty as commander in chief to protect the nation from enemy attack.

:i :i :i :i :i :i :i :i :i :i :i :i

We'll know soon. Just a couple more Republicans to see the errors of his ways and we'll have an impeachment. Can't wait for GWB's answers to Congress' questions. Should be amusing.

We'll know soon. Just a couple more Republicans to see the errors of his ways and we'll have an impeachment. Can't wait for GWB's answers to Congress' questions. Should be amusing.

Politics over national security, eh, barry? You'd obviously rather we lost the war on terror as long as your lib buddies get to be in charge. That's a very dangerous mindset, and indicates a lack of patriotism.


Reprinted from NewsMax.com

War History Repeats Itself
Philip V. Brennan
Tuesday, Feb. 7, 2006

At the outset of the Civil War Congress got very antsy over the fact that the on-to-Richmond campaign somehow was getting stalled somewhere in the neighborhood of Washington, D.C.

That's not how it was supposed to be. According to their scenario Federal forces were to drive 100 miles or so south, brush aside the allegedly hapless rebels, capture the Confederate capital, and the rebellion would be over in a jiffy.

Instead there was a quagmire, and the Union was deeply mired in it.

As historian Bruce Tap has written, Secretary of State William H. Seward once commented that "there would be no serious fighting after all; the South would collapse and everything serenely adjusted" - one battle and it would all be over.

Zachariah Chandler, Michigan's Republican senator, predicted that the Confederates under the elegantly named General Pierre Gustave Toutant Beauregard would "run like cowards" at the sight of Union forces.

It didn't exactly work out that way. In Virginia, during the first conflict of the war, the Battle of Ball's Bluff, the Union forces got their ears pinned back.

In Congress' eyes, President Lincoln was in over his head; the federal army was ill-equipped and ill-generaled and it was up to the men on Capitol hill to step in and take charge. The result: The Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War.

The legislators who made up this weird conglomeration were for the most part dedicated foes of the military.

Enamored of the rather peculiar notion that wars should not be fought by people who had even the vaguest idea of what they were doing, Congress was determined to gut the professional military, including abolishing West Point where, to their disgust, men were taught how to fight battles and win wars.

This absurd mindset was not, by the way, shared by President Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson or the rest of the Confederacy's top officers, all of whom learned their trade, and learned it well, at West Point.

The idea that Lincoln and those West Pointers who stuck with the Union should be allowed to prosecute the war without the wisdom and guidance of the people who made up the Committee on the Conduct of the War surely helped impede the Union's conduct of the war, elongate it, and cost a hell of a lot more lives on both sides of that tragic conflict.

With a membership from the House and Senate, none of whom had ever worn a uniform, and to a man suspicious of the military sticking their noses into the business of prosecuting a war, the ability of the Commander in Chief and the military's top leadership to do their job had to be and was seriously obstructed.

Moreover, public opinion about the war, for and against, was influenced to a great degree by the activities of this ill-begotten committee which continuously implied that dark forces were behind the failure to end the war and bring to troops home.

In his monumental study "Amateurs at War: Abraham Lincoln and the Committee on the Conduct of the War," Bruce Tap wrote " Back in the early days of the rebellion, President Lincoln had assumed broad powers in dealing with the crisis, and Congress approved most of his actions during a special session in July.

"In early December, however, the attitude of Congress was markedly different. Dissatisfied with the state of the war, less confident in Lincoln, and convinced that treason lurked within the innermost circles of the North's military establishment" Congress established the Committee to straighten things out.

To the delight of the Confederate military, the committee's open discussions about the Union's strategy and tactics were providing them with information their intelligence forces were unable to discover on their own.

Moreover, the growing anti-war sentiment in the North as the war continued to go badly gave hope to the South that the North would cut and run if they held out long enough. And so the war went on much longer than it would have had the Confederates not believed the people of the North would eventually cave in.

If all this sounds familiar you have only to consider the behavior of many of the members of today's Congress towards the conduct of the war against militant Islam.

Take for example the disgusting spectacle of the Monday's Senate Judiciary Committee hearing where many of the members sought to portray the Attorney General, and his boss, President Bush as liars and criminals for daring to spy on al-Qaida operatives overseas and their assets here in the United States.

The attitude of the Civil War committee revolved around the idea of presidential incompetence, including accusations of treason by the army's top generals rings a bell when considering the attitude of congressional Democrats and a few disaffected Republicans who accuse the president of incompetence in the prosecution of the war and of outright dishonesty to the point of criminality.

That laughter you hear in the background is coming from Osama bin Laden and his fellow thugs who are surely delighted to count among their unconscious allies the anti-war forces in the United States Congress just as the Confederacy's leadership must have been over the antics of the Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War.

Today's burning issue - that monitoring communications between terrorist forces abroad and their allies in the United States is somehow violating my civil rights and yours is simply ludicrous.

As the president has asked, if our enemies overseas are chatting with some people in the United States, don't we want to know what they're talking about?

The whole problem here is twofold. First, the issue is seen as a political opportunity for the Democrats to score points and maybe win back control of Congress, and second, because these people do not have the vaguest notion of what this war is all about. They fail to see it for what it is, a rebirth of Islam's ancient desire to subjugate the West.

If anybody doubts the accuracy of this fact, one has only to consider the present world-wide conflagration over a handful of cartoons printed in a Danish newspaper and reprinted elsewhere in Europe. It is obvious that this firestorm could not be, and is not, spontaneous - it is being directed from above.

The anti-war crowd may not recognize this as genuine evidence that we are engaged in a new and different kind of world war and their refusal to admit it is giving our enemies a signal victory. If you won't admit that somebody out there wants to kill you, the chances are that they will enlist you in the effort to dig your grave.

Instead of concentrating on fighting and winning this war, congressional Democrats are engaged in fighting a political war against the president and his party, and the armed forces of the United States are caught in the crossfire.

The fact that all of our history shows that in a time of war the president has the constitutional authority to do what must be done to safeguard the American people and win the war is ignored. Politics triumphs over the safety of the American people who have been protected against another 9/11 by such tactics as the monitoring of enemy communications.

Observing that "Terrorists and terrorist governments are giving us almost daily evidence of their fanatical hatred and violent sadism, as the clock ticks away toward their gaining possession of nuclear weapons," the magnificent Tom Sowell writes that "They not only hold a harmless young woman hostage in Iraq, they parade her in tears on television, just as they have paraded not only the terrorizing, but even the beheading, of others on television."

Moreover, he notes "there is a large and gleeful audience in the Arab world for these gross brutalities, just as there was glee and cheering among the Palestinians when the televised destruction of the World Trade center was broadcast in the Middle East. "

Sowell asks "Yet what are we preoccupied with or outraged about? Whether the American government should intercept the phone calls of these cutthroats to people in the United States."

It is said that history repeats itself. One wonders how long it will be before Chappaquiddick Teddy, Senator Patrick Leahy the leaker, and the rest of that crowd get around to demanding the creation of a joint committee on the conduct of the war on Islamofascism.

But then again, they don't really need to - they're doing enough to damage the president's efforts to protect the American people and win the war without one.

Screw you David. You're talking out you ass again.

I do have a problem with, IMHO, a stupid man having unlimited powers.

I do have a problem with, IMHO, a stupid man having unlimited powers.Oh boy. Here we go again.

Screw you David. You're talking out you ass again.

I do have a problem with, IMHO, a stupid man having unlimited powers.

There's no reasoning with you, barry. Your anger and hatred of Bush trumps your judgment, which is a good indicator of why it is so important that your Weenie leaders are not permitted to gain control of this country. Nothing could be more dangerous for our personal freedoms and safety than for people like you to have political power again.

BTW, you have never answered the paradox of how a 'stupid' man could FOOL so many members of Congress like you claim.

Ludicrous, just like your phony attempts to make nice with me in PMs while attacking me in public. You're not to be trusted.

so important that your Weenie leaders are not permitted to gain control of this country. Nothing could be more dangerous for our personal freedoms and safety than for people like you to have political power again.If somebody like Feingold or Clinton gets elected, it will be open season on the United States.

We cannot afford to allow the Democrats to ever have control over our foreign policy decisions again. They are too weak, and weakness invites confrontation. Feingold is the one who scares me the most from the Dem side. I can actually see that guy wanting to surrender to terrorists demands if we ever get smacked in the mouth again.

The gullibility that led us into the last war could yet bring us a new conflict

Our leaders were never trustworthy, yet many people were only too willing to believe them - and they may do so again

Gary Younge
Monday February 6, 2006
The Guardian
The day after Colin Powell did his show-and-tell before the United Nations security council in an attempt to prove that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, in February 2003, the late Washington Post columnist Mary McGrory wrote a column entitled "I'm persuaded". Describing how Vietnam "came close to making me [a pacifist]", McGrory conceded that "nobody I know was for the war". But something about Powell's performance made her reconsider: "I don't know how the United Nations felt about Colin Powell's 'J'accuse' speech against Saddam Hussein. I can only say that he persuaded me, and I was as tough as France to convince."
Article continues

Two and a half years later Powell referred to the episode as "a painful blot" on his record - a pack of lies and half truths that has led to an ever-increasing mound of corpses.

The power of both illusion and delusion should never be underestimated. The compulsion to believe in something we need and want to be true, rather than see reality for what it is, can at times be astounding.

Remember those eyewitness accounts of the Brazilian student Jean Charles de Menezes before he was shot dead on the underground? Not all of them were made up by the police, although they did nothing to deny them. Mark Whitby, a plumber from Brixton, thought he saw a Pakistani terrorist being chased and gunned down by plain-clothes policemen. Less than a month later Mr Whitby told the Daily Telegraph "he now believes that what he actually saw was the surveillance officer being thrown out of the way" as Mr Menezes was being killed.

Anthony Larkin, who was on the train, said he saw "this guy who appeared to have a bomb belt and wires coming out". The Pakistani in the puffa jacket who vaulted the barriers, it transpired, was a Brazilian in a light denim jacket who picked up a free paper and used his Oyster card.

I am not talking here about lying. The potency of downright fabrication is self-evident. What is truly insidious is the propensity of people to arrange an array of possibles, probables, maybes and might-bes, and construct from them a reality that is both definite and wrong.

The power of suggestion, assumption and presumption is everything. The day before Menezes was shot, London saw an attempt to launch a second terrorist attack in two weeks. What Whitby and Larkin saw had been refracted through a prism of fear and stereotypes, and emerged completely distorted. The price was right; the market was ripe; people bought into it.

The war in Iraq has revealed just how truly bullish and persistent this market in bad ideas based on flawed preconceptions can be. Bad ideas helped take us into the war; and unless we examine what they were and why some managed to believe them, they will prevent us from getting out.

In such a market there will always be sellers aplenty. Someone, somewhere, will forever be peddling war, bigotry, conspiracy, profiling, persecution and plunder. It is only when the buyers come forward in large numbers that we really have to worry. For at critical moments people do not just consume these bad ideas; they invest heavily in them too. So when reality refuses to match up to the idea, they do not change their ideas; they change reality.

There were of course lies; huge whoppers served up on both sides of the Atlantic. On February 23 2003 Tony Blair told the Commons that the government was giving Saddam "one further final chance to disarm voluntarily" through the United Nations. Three weeks earlier President George Bush told him the war was going ahead regardless of what the UN decided. Blair replied that he was "solidly" behind him.

This is of course disgraceful, not least because those who lied have never accepted responsibility for their actions. But it was not a surprise. The case was always flimsy and those who made it were never trustworthy. What is shocking is the number of people who not only bought it but wore it and are still trying to sell it on.

Last October the former Democratic presidential hopeful John Kerry said: "I regret that we were not given the truth; as I said more than a year ago, knowing what we know now, I would not have gone to war in Iraq. And knowing now the full measure of the Bush administration's duplicity and incompetence, I doubt there are many members of Congress who would give them the authority they have abused so badly. I know I would not."
If Kerry did not have the full measure of Bush's duplicitous and incompetent nature by that stage then he is a poor judge of character. The overwhelming majority of people in the rest of the world - who had far less access to information than he did - managed to see the war for what it was. But then they weren't going to run for president.

In November the former Powell aide Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson told the Today programme: "You begin to speculate, you begin to wonder ... was this intelligence spun? Was it politicised? Was it cherry-picked? Did, in fact, the American people get fooled? I'm beginning to have my concerns." Go figure. Shouldn't the speculation begin before the bombs drop rather than after?
Everybody has the right to change their mind and make mistakes. The growing number of people on both sides of the Atlantic who believe it was wrong to go to war is heartening. But since the war has already been going for almost three years these regrets are only of any use, beyond personal expiation, if they help to correct the consequences of the original sin.

These particular turnarounds fail on two fronts. First, they expose the anti-war case to the charge of opportunism. People such as Kerry backed the war not on principle but because it was expedient to do so. They oppose it today for the same reason.

Second, there is little point in claiming you were tricked unless you address what made you so gullible in the first place. The basic idea that the US has a historic duty to bring progress, democracy and enlightenment at the barrel of a gun seems about as firmly ingrained in the American mindset as its record of doing the opposite in Central and South America and south-east Asia is in American history. Nothing that has happened in Iraq seems to have shifted that perception in the US. A significant minority were against the war from the start. For the rest, the trouble with the war is not that they invaded a sovereign country on a false pretext and killed hundreds of thousands. It's that they're not winning.

"We can't leave Iraq. We simply can't," says Colonel Wilkerson. "We're there, we've done it, and we cannot leave." Kerry's position is similar. A Pew research survey in December showed that 48% of Americans believe that invading Iraq was wrong. A Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll last week revealed that 57% of Americans support military intervention if Iran builds itself a nuclear capability.

With each exposé of torture, subjugation, blunder and plunder you keep hearing that Americans have lost their innocence. Somehow they always find it again just in time to buy into the next bad idea.

I do recognize the executive branches legal ability to perform these wire taps. There was nothing illegal and hopefully it is generating good intelligence.

My only concern is the following:
If the U.S. decides to prosecute any of these terrorist in the civil courts again, especially now because the issue has been so politicized, I worry that defense attorney's will be able attempt to have all the evidence related to these searches dismissed because of they didn't go through the article three or FISA proceedures.

If they stop an attack, it's worth it. But I'm a little worried about the effect it'll have during a prosecution.

Answer one question honestly.

Would you vote to give Hillary Clinton the same power under the same circumstances?

To answer Barry's question: I would and that is coming from a guy that totally dislikes Hillary, big time.

I fwe ever get hit again in a major US city with any kind of WMD, forget about health care, forget about jobs, forget about buying gas for $2.50.

The game will be over.

Answer one question honestly.

Would you vote to give Hillary Clinton the same power under the same circumstances?

You Fib Weenies think that Conservatives like me are just as partisanly blind as you are, but the fact is that I am intellectually honest about the rule of law regardless of which party has power in the Oval Office. The fact is that my view of the Constitution remains the same regardless of how repugnant the thought of Hillary Clinton being in charge may be to me personally.

See, this shows how uninformed you are about Constitutional Law and the provisions for the Commander in Chief. The President's powers during wartime aren't "voted" to him by some national referendum as you imply, NOR are they given to him by some benevolent Congress. Neither are they, for that matter, conveyed to him by some Supreme Court decision. The President's powers to protect our country during wartime are laid out SPECIFICALLY by the Constitution, which would make any law, FISA included, UNCONSTITUTIONAL wherever that law conflicted with those powers INHERENT in the Constitution. Therefore: The President didn't break the law, instead, the law was found to be unconstitutional.

The fact is that Hillary Clinton as President would have those powers inherently granted to her by the Constitution just like any other President HAS ALREADY HAD.

Good luck getting impeachment proceedings. That tactic is NOTHING but sour grapes due to the fact that you Weenies can't live with the fact that you lost a national election and are grasping at straws. Regardless of your attempts to aid the terrorists in winning the war, the Constitution STILL trumps anything you've said so far.

do people honestly think that before domestic spying was announced that it never went on before. our nation has been spying on ourselves since we were first established. that is what any smart country does is monitor the thoughts and expressions of its people. i just cant believe that alot of people are flipping out about him announcing domestic spying. i honestly dont believe that domestic spying is just now starting. if anything we should thank him for making those actions public and known instead of in secret as our nation has done in the past.

You are slightly misinformed. BuSh never brough this program to anyone's attention. Thank him?

"Domestic Spying" is a pejorative term anyway, with inaccurate and negative connotations.

I have a question for you, barry:

If an Imam in Iran with known ties to Al Qaeda terrorists calls some guy named, say, Ahmad Muhammad in some mosque in the United States, WOULD YOU WANT OUR INTEL PEOPLE TO BE ABLE TO MONITOR THE CALL, OR NOT???

Yes or no.

Yes, but only with a warrant. Or, change the law. Until then it is a violation. Are Spector and other Republicans wrong?

Please post the specific text that gives the President super powers. That's all they're asking too. I gather from your posts that you think the CIC is above the law. Most do not agree.

To answer Barry's question: I would and that is coming from a guy that totally dislikes Hillary, big time.

I fwe ever get hit again in a major US city with any kind of WMD, forget about health care, forget about jobs, forget about buying gas for $2.50.

The game will be over.

Thanks for the vote of confidence for Hillary :) Perhaps because of the way the "War on Terror" was presented, Other's who totally disliked BuSh voted for him.

As it stands now, because of funding millions of dollars into the war, "forget the jobs" (going overseas, plants closing anyway), "forget healthcare" (too expensive and over rated anyway) and forget buying gas at $2.50. (will be going up anyway)

With BuSh, the WMD are Word of Mass Deception..

Yes, but only with a warrant. Or, change the law. Until then it is a violation. Are Spector and other Republicans wrong?

Please post the specific text that gives the President super powers. That's all they're asking too. I gather from your posts that you think the CIC is above the law. Most do not agree.

YOU'RE NOT LISTENING. The Constitution TRUMPS ANY LAW WRITTEN. PERIOD.


Vital Presidential Power

By William Kristol and Gary Schmitt
Tuesday, December 20, 2005; A31

A U.S. president has just received word that American counterterrorist operatives have captured a senior al Qaeda operative in Pakistan. Among his possessions are a couple of cell phones -- phones that contain several American phone numbers. In the wake of Sept. 11, 2001, what's a president to do?

If the president were taking the advice offered by some politicians and pundits in recent days, he would order the attorney general to go to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. The attorney general would ask that panel of federal judges for a warrant under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to begin eavesdropping on those telephone numbers, to determine whether any individual associated with those numbers was involved in terrorist activities.

But the attorney general might have to tell the president he might well not be able to get that warrant. FISA requires the attorney general to convince the panel that there is "probable cause to believe" that the target of the surveillance is an agent of a foreign power or a terrorist. Yet where is the evidence to support such a finding? Who knows why the person seized in Pakistan was calling these people? Even terrorists make innocent calls and have relationships with folks who are not themselves terrorists.

The difficulty with FISA is the standard it imposes for obtaining a warrant aimed at a "U.S. person" -- a U.S. citizen or a legal alien: The standard suggests that, for all practical purposes, the Justice Department must already have in hand evidence that someone is a problem before they seek a warrant.

Consider the case of Zacarias Moussaoui, the French Moroccan who came to the FBI's attention before Sept. 11 because he had asked a Minnesota flight school for lessons on how to steer an airliner, but not on how to take off or land. Even with this report, and with information from French intelligence that Moussaoui had been associating with Chechen rebels, the Justice Department decided there was not sufficient evidence to get a FISA warrant to allow the inspection of his computer files. Had they opened his laptop, investigators might have begun to unwrap the Sept. 11 plot. But strange behavior and merely associating with dubious characters don't rise to the level of probable cause under FISA.

This is presumably one reason why President Bush decided that national security required that he not simply follow the strictures of the 1978 foreign intelligence act, and, indeed, it reveals why the issue of executive power and the law in our constitutional order is more complicated than the current debate would suggest. It is not easy to answer the question whether the president, acting in this gray area, is "breaking the law." It is not easy because the Founders intended the executive to have -- believed the executive needed to have -- some powers in the national security area that were extralegal but constitutional.

Following that logic, the Supreme Court has never ruled that the president does not ultimately have the authority to collect foreign intelligence -- here and abroad -- as he sees fit. Even as federal courts have sought to balance Fourth Amendment rights with security imperatives, they have upheld a president's "inherent authority" under the Constitution to acquire necessary intelligence for national security purposes. (Using such information for criminal investigations is different, since a citizen's life and liberty are potentially at stake.) So Bush seems to have behaved as one would expect and want a president to behave. A key reason the Articles of Confederation were dumped in favor of the Constitution in 1787 was because the new Constitution -- our Constitution -- created a unitary chief executive. That chief executive could, in times of war or emergency, act with the decisiveness, dispatch and, yes, secrecy, needed to protect the country and its citizens.

That is why the president uniquely swears an oath -- prescribed in the Constitution -- to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. Implicit in that oath is the Founders' recognition that, no matter how much we might wish it to be case, Congress cannot legislate for every contingency, and judges cannot supervise many national security decisions. This will be especially true in times of war.

This is not an argument for an unfettered executive prerogative. Under our system of separated powers, Congress has the right and the ability to judge whether President Bush has in fact used his executive discretion soundly, and to hold him responsible if he hasn't. But to engage in demagogic rhetoric about "imperial" presidents and "monarchic" pretensions, with no evidence that the president has abused his discretion, is foolish and irresponsible.

Thanks for the vote of confidence for HillaryTrust me. There will never be a vote of confidence coming from me regarding her.

Perhaps because of the way the "War on Terror" was presented, Other's who totally disliked BuSh voted for him.O, if you say so.

As it stands now, because of funding millions of dollars into the war, ..We are safer and haven't been attacked again. Soon as the Rats get back in, Katey bar the doors.

"forget the jobs" (going overseas, plants closing anyway),..government regulation, poor quality, over-priced due to higher manufacturing costs (pensions, unions, etc.) are the reason. Not Bush.

"forget healthcare" (too expensive and over rated anyway)..Until you have a surgery or other catastrophic occurrence.

and forget buying gas at $2.50. (will be going up anyway)..Tell your Congressman and Senator you want to start increasing the amount of drilling on American property #1, and you want a couple more refineries #2 and tell the Chinese and Indians to stop growing their economies and having so many kids #3.

With BuSh, the WMD are Word of Mass Deception..Cute. Keep repeating the liberal mantra...Bush lied.

Trust me. There will never be a vote of confidence coming from me regarding her.

O, if you say so.:confused:

We are safer and haven't been attacked again. Soon as the Rats get back in, Katey bar the doors.:shifty:

government regulation, poor quality, over-priced due to higher manufacturing costs (pensions, unions, etc.) are the reason. Not Bush.:cool:

Until you have a surgery or other catastropic occurence.:eek:

Tell your Congressman and Senator you want to start increase drilling on American property #1, and you want a couple more refineries #2 and tell the Chinese and Indians to stop growing their economies and having so many kids #3.:(

Cute. Keep repeating the liberal mantra...Bush lied.


Can you smell the scarcasim?:rolleyes:

Can you smell the scarcasim?:rolleyes:

Hey, look who's figured out how to paste smilies! Do you want a big pat on the back?

Way to go! You fit right in with the liberal left on this forum - all symbolism, no substance.

Bozell Column: The Media's Partisan 'Domestic Spying' Fight

Posted by Brent Bozell on February 8, 2006 - 11:43.

The debate over the propriety of intelligence-gathering by the Bush administration is complicated, and the programs themselves can lose their secrecy (and effectiveness) the more they are debated. The media aren’t monitoring the debate. They started the fight by blowing the lid off the NSA activity in the New York Times, and they’re pushing the fight day and night, clearly coming down against Bush, that arrogantly unconstitutional rogue.

When given a choice between more information about our intelligence-gathering methods and less safety, or less information about our intelligence-gathering and more safety, which do the public choose? The public tends to prefer more safety. The media prefer more information. And the media would prefer the public believe it agrees with them, even if it has to cook a few surveys to establish that canard.

A recent CBS News/New York Times poll brilliantly illlustrated how the public shifts sides on this question depending on how the question is framed. First question: “In order to reduce the threat of terrorism, would you be willing or not willing to allow government agencies to monitor the telephone calls and e-mails of ordinary Americans on a regular basis?”

“Ordinary Americans”?!? The only Americans being tapped would be those suspected of helping wage war on America – hardly “ordinary Americans.” Who could support secret government surveillance of ordinary Americans? It’s not surprising that this idea was rejected: 70 percent say they’re not willing to allow that, and only 28 percent say yes.

Then the CBS/Times pollsters changed the wording to be much more precise in who is being monitored: "In order to reduce the threat of terrorism, would you be willing or not willing to allow government agencies to monitor the telephone calls and e-mails of Americans that the government is suspicious of?" When the targets are suspected terrorists or sympathizers, the poll numbers completely flipped: 68 percent support monitoring them, and only 29 percent say no.

Now consider that according to the CBS/New York Times pollsters, President Bush has a 42 percent job approval rating, and a 52 percent approval rating in fighting terrorism. It’s shocking to see that almost 70 percent – including a big chunk of people who aren’t wild about Bush -- support keeping electronic tabs on our enemies.

It’s also somewhat shocking that our supposed accuracy-lauding media have preferred the first, more inaccurate phrasing – spying on “ordinary Americans” – over the second phrasing about terrorist suspects. In an eye-opening study of the 69 stories on the last seven weeks of ABC, CBS, and NBC evening-news coverage, Rich Noyes of the Media Research Center found that the TV reporters described who was being monitored.

Most correspondents in those stories portrayed the NSA as casting a wide net, targeting “Americans” or “U.S. citizens” (53, or 40 percent), or used terms such as “domestic” or “communications inside the U.S.” (60, or 45 percent). ABC's Dan Harris even began on December 24 by hyping “the spying was much more widespread, with millions of calls and e-mails tracked — perhaps even yours.”

Perhaps – if you’ve got al-Qaeda on your cell-phone’s speed-dial.

By contrast, only about a sixth of these descriptions (21, or 16 percent) stated that the government was focused on persons contacting suspected terrorists (12) or the suspected terrorists themselves (nine). For example, NBC's Pete Williams described monitoring of “suspected al-Qaeda members” on December 29.

There are more findings. Fully 83 percent of network stories suggested the NSA program was illegal, or legally questionable. Reporters framed the story as the government violating “civil liberties” in 42 percent of stories, but the NSA program’s role in the war on terror surfaced in only seven stories (ten percent). The supposed nonpartisan legal experts quoted on the ethics or legality of the NSA program were a slanted cast: 30 (or 56 percent) condemned the program, while only four (seven percent) found the program justifiable, an eight-to-one disparity.

One aspect of the story was almost completely ignored by TV reporters: the leak of classified information to the New York Times. Only five network stories focused on the leak probe, and those five mostly painted it as an act of retribution from an enraged Bush administration. And you certainly couldn’t expect a New York Times poll on the propriety of the New York Times.

In April of 1995, after the Oklahoma City bombing, President Clinton called for more agents to investigate domestic terror suspects, and more power to infiltrate terrorist plots and examine suspects’ “phone, hotel, and credit card records,” as CBS explained at the time. CBS didn’t shriek about “domestic spying” or commission a poll then questioning Clinton’s commitment to civil liberties. They noted Clinton’s handling of Oklahoma City “sent his approval ratings soaring.”

This story is extremely politicized. Americans can’t trust a liberal media, so partisan in this debate, to tell it to them straight.

http://newsbusters.org/node/3949

We are safer and haven't been attacked again.

True we haven't been attacked again, but you are DEAD WRONG that we are safer. Or was the recent video-taped warning from Osama Bin Ladin, the mastermind of 9/11, still on the loose after 5+ years of BuSh's FAILURE to aprehend or assisinate him, just a figment of my imagination??

My take on this "domestic spying" / "terrorist surveilence" program, if this is ALL just a big misunderstanding, WHY is the BuSh administration so reluctant to propose changes to the letter of the law to clarify this situation once and for all? I'm ALL FOR survillence of terrorists (not just within, but most importantly outside our boarders), as long as the power to do that cannot be abused, like it has by a prior republican president.

True we haven't been attacked again, but you are DEAD WRONG that we are safer. Let's just say the DemocRats are doing their best to make us less safe than we are now and will continue to do so in the near future unless they get it thru their thick skulls that people care about the safety of their family and America. To say that we are not safer than before 9/11 is simply a ludicrous statement.

as long as the power to do that cannot be abused, like it has by a prior republican president.So DemocRats spy on political enemies within our borders and that is OK. Bush is 'listening' in on conversations taking place between KNOWN terrorists or acquaintances outside the US and people within our borders and you have a fit? Please. This is nothing more than politics. Everybody can see this and the 'FEAR FACTOR' card will once again trump you guys at the polls because you Libs have given the Conservatives the cannon fodder they need in sound bite after sound bite to cook your goose in the upcoming elections.

p.s. Who is the prior Republican president you speak of?

Let's just say the DemocRats are doing their best to make us less safe than we are now and will continue to do so in the near future unless they get it thru their thick skulls that people care about the safety of their family and America. To say that we are not safer than before 9/11 is simply a ludicrous statement.

So DemocRats spy on political enemies within our borders and that is OK. Bush is 'listening' in on conversations taking place between KNOWN terrorists or acquaintances outside the US and people within our borders and you have a fit? Please. This is nothing more than politics. Everybody can see this and the 'FEAR FACTOR' card will once again trump you guys at the polls because you Libs have given the Conservatives the cannon fodder they need in sound bite after sound bite to cook your goose in the upcoming elections.

p.s. Who is the prior Republican president you speak of?

Wow, how can you honestly say that the left is trying to make our country "less safer"? It should be the Righteous that need to get it through their "thick skulls" that "ALL" Americans care about the safety of our families.

Just because we have not been attacked, does not necessarily mean we are any safer. Heave forbid we do get attacked again, but do you think for one instant that the Al Qaeda has given up on plans.

You are right; the Righteous is going to continue the "FEAR FACTOR" approach to politics. It the only thing they have going for them. :mad: TERROR TERROR TERROR, I'm making your life safer...

True we haven't been attacked again, but you are DEAD WRONG that we are safer. Or was the recent video-taped warning from Osama Bin Ladin, the mastermind of 9/11, still on the loose after 5+ years of BuSh's FAILURE to aprehend or assisinate him, just a figment of my imagination??

My take on this "domestic spying" / "terrorist surveilence" program, if this is ALL just a big misunderstanding, WHY is the BuSh administration so reluctant to propose changes to the letter of the law to clarify this situation once and for all? I'm ALL FOR survillence of terrorists (not just within, but most importantly outside our boarders), as long as the power to do that cannot be abused, like it has by a prior republican president.

The reason Bush doesn't want to get into making new laws about this, O Prognosticator, is because he would be spelling out for the terrorists EXACTLY HOW we're trying to defeat them. If the enemy knows about it, they'll change their tactics, and then we'll get hit again. DUH.

I do realize that my explanation is lost on you because our national security and winning the war on terror are not important to you, and that you'd gladly sacrifice American lives if it means your party regains power.

Explain to me why it's even relevant that we have to capture bin Laden.

Johnny,

Explain to me why it's even relevant that we have to capture bin Laden.
The guy can't even make a video anymore. I guess caves do not have electricity or broadband.:D

The reason Bush doesn't want to get into making new laws about this, O Prognosticator, is because he would be spelling out for the terrorists EXACTLY HOW we're trying to defeat them. If the enemy knows about it, they'll change their tactics, and then we'll get hit again. DUH.

I do realize that my explanation is lost on you because our national security and winning the war on terror are not important to you, and that you'd gladly sacrifice American lives if it means your party regains power.

Explain to me why it's even relevant that we have to capture bin Laden.

BuSh identified MANY new tactics to deal with Terrorists. However, regarding the wire tapping, he will not disclose anything because of the Abramm and CIA problems. It will implicate he went above the law and poof the righteous are hit with another slam!

As far a Bin Laden, BuSh identified him as the target right after 9/11. Is it ok to let him go? Hell no, But he is a bush puppet. If I hire a hit man, do I get arrested or just the hit man?

National Security and the War on Terror are important to EVERYONE!. I don't believe we will "Win" the war because it is never ending. As long as America and the West continue to harass other countries, they (other countries) will strike in retaliation.

Isn't it the republicans who continue the course on Iraq, sacrificing American lives for the IRAQ people? You need to quite being a Hater, and open your eyes and heart.

Explain to me why it's even relevant that we have to capture bin Laden.

1) He's a terrorist leader
2) One of the founding fathers of Al Qaeda
3) 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center
4) 1998 explosions at U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania
5) 2001 9/11, the event that started Bush's 'War On Terror'

It's safe to say this guy is not going to stop plotting against and attacking America until he is captured/killed. I've also read that 'The U.S. government considers Osama bin Laden to be the most dangerous terrorist in the world.' Not sure if that is really true, but I can't imagine which other terrorist would be #1.

Why do you think it is irrelevant that we capture Osama? If that is what you implied.

Why do you think it is irrelevant that we capture Osama? If that is what you implied.

What year did we capture Hitler and Emperor Hirohito?

What year did we capture Hitler and Emperor Hirohito?

Neither were captured, Hitler committed suicide (widely believed), Hirohito surrendered. But that is irrelevant to capturing Osama. Osama is not the leader of any single country we are at war with, he is a terrorist who to this day threatens America and its allies.

and forget buying gas at $2.50. (will be going up anyway)



Tell your Congressman and Senator you want to start increasing the amount of drilling on American property #1, and you want a couple more refineries #2 and tell the Chinese and Indians to stop growing their economies and having so many kids #3.


Tell investors to stop buying oil futures too. Btw, gas for me is $2.10 today.

If somebody like Feingold or Clinton gets elected, it will be open season on the United States.

We cannot afford to allow the Democrats to ever have control over our foreign policy decisions again. They are too weak, and weakness invites confrontation. Feingold is the one who scares me the most from the Dem side. I can actually see that guy wanting to surrender to terrorists demands if we ever get smacked in the mouth again.

As evil as it sounds, id rather have someone like Feingold or Clinton get elected. When they do, as we all know, the attack will come, and people will finally wise up, and never vote left again (along with kickin em out of office)

Neither were captured, Hitler committed suicide (widely believed), Hirohito surrendered.

While that referance is often made, i feel that osama is more a threat as a symbol of terrorisim, rather than a leader, i believe he can do much more harm by consistantly "evading" us (even though i seriously doubt he his free because we cant find him, hes only free because we dont want to capture him just yet, for some reason or another). By consistantly "evading" us, he is sending a message to the rest of the arab world that we are not invincable. That is NOT the message we want portrayed. He is the david that brought down goliath, to the arab world. IMO he must be captured.

That was astute. Great observation.

Thank you Mr. Wilson! I appreciate your point. ;)

Thank you Mr. Wilson! I appreciate your point. ;)

hay, im not a right or left kinda guy. I will take the side based on what i feel is best, not just because WEIB or NPR told me so.

hay, im not a right or left kinda guy. I will take the side based on what i feel is best, not just because WEIB or NPR told me so.

You are a very astute person Mr. Wilson. I salute you.:iconcur:

You are a very astute person Mr. Wilson. I salute you.:iconcur:

well, thank you. I salute you as well.

While that referance is often made, i feel that osama is more a threat as a symbol of terrorisim, rather than a leader, i believe he can do much more harm by consistantly "evading" us (even though i seriously doubt he his free because we cant find him, hes only free because we dont want to capture him just yet, for some reason or another).Saddam was free too, remember, before we caught him. Just goes to show, if you put your mind to it, anybody can live in a hole.

Osama could travel with impunity under Clinton. When is the last time you heard that Osama took a vacation in Hawaii or anywhere else for that matter?

Osama is not the leader of any single country we are at war with, he is a terrorist who to this day threatens America and its allies.

OK, I give up, which country is he the leader of?

Neither were captured, Hitler committed suicide (widely believed), Hirohito surrendered. But that is irrelevant to capturing Osama. Osama is not the leader of any single country we are at war with, he is a terrorist who to this day threatens America and its allies.

Wrong, wrong, and wrong. We had WWII won long before Hitler killed himself or Hirohito surrendered. We defeated the military arms and invaded the countries in order to win. (See my thread on Bush's brilliance of strategy)

Osama is the leader of Al Qaeda, an organization with which we are at war. It is not necessary to capture or kill bin Laden in order to win the war on terror. He cannot hurt us without money, people, and asylum. As we continue to weaken his organization, his money will dry up and countries will cease to be friendly to him, which will render him ineffective. If we captured him tomorrow, neither is there any guarantee that the war on terror would instantly be over. To think that he is the centerpiece of this is reckless and shortsighted. Winning the war is more important than wiping out a symbol. If he is killed he would just become a martyr, like Che Guevara did.

Osama could travel with impunity under Clinton. When is the last time you heard that Osama took a vacation in Hawaii or anywhere else for that matter?

Clinton is no more to blame for 9/11 than BuSh Sr. is for WTC bombing I.

Flash-and-distract: A tired principle used by the right to divert attention from the real issue, a sure sign of desperation when they've lost the argument.

OK, I give up, which country is he the leader of?

:slam What a brilliant post.

:slam What a brilliant post.

Thank you, JohnnyBz00LS.

You are the guy that wanted to attack Saudi Arabia, correct? http://www.geocities.com/vitas00/LINCOLNS/a.gif

Saddam was free too, remember, before we caught him. Just goes to show, if you put your mind to it, anybody can live in a hole.

Osama could travel with impunity under Clinton. When is the last time you heard that Osama took a vacation in Hawaii or anywhere else for that matter?


Its not the quality of his freedom, its the fact that he has any at all that is the problem.

Clinton is no more to blame for 9/11 than BuSh Sr. is for WTC bombing I.

Flash-and-distract: A tired principle used by the right to divert attention from the real issue, a sure sign of desperation when they've lost the argument.

Thursday, March 25, 2004 12:45 p.m. EST

Prosecutors Eyed bin Laden Before Clinton Let Him Go

In 1996, when President Clinton refused Sudan's offer to extradite Osama bin Laden to America, federal prosecutors had already publicly identified the 9/11 mastermind as an unindicted co-conspirator in a radical Islamist plot to blow up New York City landmarks.

Bin Laden's known ties to the terror cell that would later be implicated in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center stands in marked contrast to the ex-president's claim that when he turned the Sudanese offer down, bin Laden had committed no crime against the U.S.

"At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America," Clinton insisted in a 2002 speech to a New York business group. "So I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America."

But reports published before March 1996, when the Sudanese tried to hand the top terrorist over, show that the ex-president did indeed have a legal basis to bring him to America and at least hold him, with an eye toward putting him on trial.

On April 21, 1995, USA Today reported:

"One of the most notorious patrons of Sudan's terrorist camps is Osama Bin Laden, a wealthy Saudi Arabian. He was named by federal prosecutors in New York as a potential co-conspirator in the terror trial of radical Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and 10 other Muslims accusing of plotting a 'war of urban terrorism' in the USA."

Mohammed Jamal Khalifah, better known as "bin Laden's banker," was also named an unindicted co-conspirator who financed Ramzi Yousef's plot to destroy the World Trade Center in 1993, according to a November 1995 report in U.S. News & World Report.

Six Americans died in the '93 attack, with over 1,000 injured.

Five months before Sudan offered to turn bin Laden over to Clinton, the 9/11 mastermind helped carry out another terrorist attack that killed five Americans.

On Nov. 27, 1995, U.S. News reported, "At 11:40 a.m. last Monday, dozens of Americans sat eating lunch in a downtown Riyadh snack bar in a building that housed a U.S.-run military training center for the Saudi National Guard. Suddenly, a van packed with explosives erupted outside. Another explosion followed seconds later. When the dust settled, six people were dead and 60 injured, most of them Americans."

The final death toll rose to seven, with two Indians among those killed.

Four Saudis later confessed to the crime, naming bin Laden as their leader.

In 2001, PBS's "Frontline" chronicled what the U.S. knew about bin Laden before the 9/11 attacks. According to PBS, prior to Sudan's March 1996 offer to turn the wealthy Saudi over, bin Laden had been implicated in the following terrorist activity:


"February/March 1995 - Ramzi Yousef, mastermind of the World Trade Center bombing, is captured in Pakistan and extradited to the United States. A search of his former residences leads investigators to believe he is financially linked to bin Laden. Also, he had stayed at a bin Laden-financed guest house while in Pakistan.

"June 1995 - Unsuccessful assassination attempt on the life of the President of Egypt, Hosni Mubarak, in Addis Ababa. U.S. intelligence sources believe bin Laden was somehow linked.

"August 1995 - Bin Laden wrote an open letter to King Fahd of Saudi Arabia calling for a campaign of guerrilla attacks in order to drive U.S forces out of the kingdom.

"November 13, 1995 - Five Americans and two Indians are killed in the truck bombing of a US-operated Saudi National Guard training center in Riyadh. Bin Laden denies involvement but praises the attack.

"Spring 1996 - President Clinton signed a top secret order that authorized the CIA to use any and all means to destroy bin Laden's network." [End of Excerpt]


On Tuesday the Independent Commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks said there was "no reliable evidence" to contradict denials from Clinton administration officials that Sudan ever offered bin Laden to the U.S. The Commission did not explain why President Clinton's own admission that the offer was real was not considered "reliable evidence."

*owned*

Can anyone from the Left explain why 2 of your top lieutenants are siding with Bush. Amazing story and nothing in the Major Press about it. Makes ya wanna go hummmm.

With Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff
For the story behind the story (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/2/13/93626.shtml?s=ic&s=lh)...


Monday, Feb. 13, 2006 9:32 a.m. EST
Tom Daschle, Jane Harman: Don't Stop Wiretap Program

Former Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, along with the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Jane Harman, said emphatically yesterday that President Bush should continue his controversial terrorist wiretapping program.

Daschle was asked by NBC "Meet the Press" moderator Tim Russert: "Knowing what we know now, should the president stop this program?"

The former top Senate Democrat responded: "No, absolutely not. I think it’s a very valuable program."

Moments later, Russert asked Rep. Harman: "Do you think the program should be stopped?"

"No," she responded. "I think the program should go on."

Both Democrats qualified their endorsements of the wiretapping program, saying it should be restructured to comply with the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

"I think we’ve got to respect the rule of law," former Sen. Daschle explained. "I think there ought to be an investigation by the appropriate committees of Congress and look into NSA to see how we might [change] it effectively."

After Rep. Harman offered her endorsement, she added: "I think the program should fully comply with FISA."

The California Democrat also said that she "deplored" the leak to the New York Times that exposed the program in December.

I love the part you didn't highlight. Typical Bryan.

Both Democrats qualified their endorsements of the wiretapping program, saying it should be restructured to comply with the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

You are pissing into the wind again Bryan. I don't think anyone here opposes the program. It's all about the fact that Bush lied about it. Please stop your lame distractions of that event.

OK, I give up, which country is he the leader of?

You miss read what I posted. I said he IS NOT the leader of any country.

I love the part you didn't highlight. Typical Bryan.Highlighting Democrats cover their stink trail is not newsworthy. Just typical.


Both Democrats qualified their endorsements of the wiretapping program, saying it should be restructured to comply with the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.Of course Democrats will always qualify their statements. How else can you have it both ways? Typical Democrat strategy. Just come out and say that Bush was right. AGAIN!


You are pissing into the wind again Bryan. I don't think anyone here opposes the program. It's all about the fact that Bush lied about it. Please stop your lame distractions of that event.Bush Lied. Bush Lied. Sheesh. What did he lie about this time?.................................Can't wait. This should be good.


And please explain to me how you can be an American and not want this Country to do EVERYTHING it can to keep us safe?

Wrong, wrong, and wrong. We had WWII won long before Hitler killed himself or Hirohito surrendered. We defeated the military arms and invaded the countries in order to win. (See my thread on Bush's brilliance of strategy)

Osama is the leader of Al Qaeda, an organization with which we are at war. It is not necessary to capture or kill bin Laden in order to win the war on terror. He cannot hurt us without money, people, and asylum. As we continue to weaken his organization, his money will dry up and countries will cease to be friendly to him, which will render him ineffective. If we captured him tomorrow, neither is there any guarantee that the war on terror would instantly be over. To think that he is the centerpiece of this is reckless and shortsighted. Winning the war is more important than wiping out a symbol. If he is killed he would just become a martyr, like Che Guevara did.

Wrong, wrong and wrong? I hope two of those wrongs are not towards Hitler killing himself and Hirohito surrendering... But you're definitely right that the war was as good as won before the suicide and surrender. But, if Hitler had been killed say in 1941 or 1942, don't you think the war would of ended sooner?

Either way though, that is irrelevant, we're comparing apples to oranges, WW2 was a conventional war, this isn't. Unfortunately, Al Qaeda has an unending surplus of young men willing to listen to ass back-word rhetoric and go blow themselves up. As Mr. Wilson pointed out, his constant evading and threats serves to strenghted people to Al Qaeda's cause, the sooner he is captured/killed, the better.

Highlighting Democrats cover their stink trail is not newsworthy. Just typical.


Of course Democrats will always qualify their statements. How else can you have it both ways? Typical Democrat strategy. Just come out and say that Bush was right. AGAIN!


Bush Lied. Bush Lied. Sheesh. What did he lie about this time?.................................Can't wait. This should be good.


And please explain to me how you can be an American and not want this Country to do EVERYTHING it can to keep us safe?

"There you go again." Attempting to re-write history to fit your fictitious view of the world, and using the oh-so-typical fear-tactic of "your not an American if......" line of BS.

Show me where ONE DEMOCRAT (not including loudmouth Howard Dean) has stated that they want this wiretapping of terrorists' communications within the US stopped. If you CAN, then you can ligitimately label them a LWW pinko commie with my permission, because they would be in the extreme minority. Otherwise, STFU.

Was BuSh right in wiretapping AlQuida communications?? YES!
Is BuSh right in doing so ILLEGALLY?? NO!

Dems have been offering to mold the letter of the law to remove any abiguity about the NSA wiretap program and FISA laws. Why doesn't the BuSh administration take up this offer? I'll tell you WHY. Because: A) that would be the same as admitting that they were wiretapping ILLEGALLY (are they affraid this may lead to impeachment proceedings??? OK, we'll give GW a "get out of jail free" card to use, BFD), and B) The BuSh administration doesn't want to give up the "luxury" of being able to live above the law.

And YES, we ARE PISSED that BuSh LIED to us, AGAIN. He told us months ago that a wiretap requires a court warrant and that he would abide by those laws. Now he tells us that he didn't need a warrant to wiretap. It doesn't matter WHEN he stated his LIE, he LIED none the less.

Otherwise, STFU.

Was BuSh right in wiretapping AlQuida communications?? YES!
Is BuSh right in doing so ILLEGALLY?? NO!

Dems have been offering to mold the letter of the law to remove any abiguity about the NSA wiretap program and FISA laws. Why doesn't the BuSh administration take up this offer? I'll tell you WHY. Because: A) that would be the same as admitting that they were wiretapping ILLEGALLY (are they affraid this may lead to impeachment proceedings??? OK, we'll give GW a "get out of jail free" card to use, BFD), and B) The BuSh administration doesn't want to give up the "luxury" of being able to live above the law.

OK, Mr. STFU. Is this our new civil tone? LOL. Right.


Anyway, Bush is right to wiretap and Bush is doing it legally. So you STFU and get with the program. ;) Just the fact that you have to post "mold the letter of the law to remove any ambiguity" forces you to lose the argument.

Why is it so hard for the lefties to understand that it is not in our best interests to reveal all that we are doing to our enemies just so we can make sure that Bush isn't listening in on Aunt Mables secret pie crust ingredients.

Quite hiding behind the veil of civil liberties. Show me one case, (with all these rabid news journalists running around you'd think they could find one), one example where Bush has wiretapped a US citizen with absolutely no link whatsover to a terrorist. Show me one example. If you can't, STFU, because you know what, America wants us to keep doing what we are doing and if Bush could run again, they would re-elect him to keep doing it.

If you guys really are concerned about the law, then you have no argument. What this is all about is political posturing. Nothing else. So guys like Barry can run around screaming.... see, see, Bush lied again. Impeach him.

Just keep showing what pansies liberals really are and we'll see who wins in the voting booth. How you guys live with yourselves is beyond me.

I've never met anyone that liked the taste of crow so much. How do you think the GOP will maintain its control with all the stink? Republicans are bailing left and Right. The Republicans I've spoken to are pissed because of massive spending and dramatic increase in the size of government. When the big cash dries up your boys will be second string.

Was BuSh right in wiretapping AlQuida communications?? YES!
Is BuSh right in doing so ILLEGALLY?? NO!

I'm glad we can agree that Bush is right in wiretapping Al Quaeda communications. But you are wrong when you say it is illegal or is being done illegally.

There are two reasons why the wiretapping is legal. First, after the 9/11 attacks, Congress authorized the President to use all appropriate force to hunt down the Al Quaeda terrorists responsible for the attacks. Any reasonable person would read into "all appropriate force" the notion of spying on the terrorists using wiretaps. Without that ability, we would not know who to attack, much less when or where. It makes perfect sense to include this authorization when the Congress granted the President authority to go after the terrorist. Secondly, the Article II powers vested in the President by the Constitution includes the role as Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces. Part of this CIC power is spying on the enemy, and that includes wiretaps.

Our Liberal friends say the president isn't obeying the law since he did not comply with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). That may be true, but it does NOT make the wiretapping illegal. Many would argue that the FISA law hampers his Constitutional authority as Commander in Chief, and is therefore nulled when it comes to actions such as enemy surveillance.

Part of the problem is that people do not understand that the President's Constitutional authority TRUMPS FISA. In other words, the Congress cannot pass a law that cuts back the Article II powers granted to the President. If restricting the President's powers is the goal when it comes to National Security matters, it must be done by Constitutional Amendment.

I've never met anyone that liked the taste of crow so much. How do you think the GOP will maintain its control with all the stink? Republicans are bailing left and Right. The Republicans I've spoken to are pissed because of massive spending and dramatic increase in the size of government. When the big cash dries up your boys will be second string.

Really stepping out on a limb there eh Barry. Since usually all mid-term election wind up with the party out of power making gains in both House and Senate seats, it really wouldn't be too much of a stretch to think that Dems might gain a couple of seats here and there. But wasn't it Bush's administration that actually GAINED seats in the mid-terms of 2002. How did your savior Clinton do in his mid-terms? Oh ya, I remember, he got destroyed and Republicans captured the House for the first time in 40+ years in '94. He did gain a few in '98 to his credit (I guess). Bush gained in 2002. So what does this mean? It means that in the last 36 mid-term elections, the Party sitting on the outside gained seats 33 out of 36 times. So sit there and pontificate about how Bush is a bad President and that is the reason Republicans might lose some seats in 2006. BFD! History has already shown that whoever is President usually loses seats. However, despite the most vicious press in our nation's history, I know the Greatest President Ever bucked that trend once, and hopefully he'll be the only President in history to do it twice.


BTW, ToddG...Great Post!

Greatest President Ever? This should be good!

Greatest President Ever? This should be good!I see you took 'Worst President Ever' out of your signature. Having second thoughts are we? :rolleyes:

Where have you been? I took that out six months ago when the last boil-over happened.

No, I still think he's the "Worst President Ever". Just my opinion.

I eventually catch on.

BTW, ToddG...Great Post!

Thanks. Above I said

Part of the problem is that people do not understand that the President's Constitutional authority TRUMPS FISA. In other words, the Congress cannot pass a law that cuts back the Article II powers granted to the President. If restricting the President's powers is the goal when it comes to National Security matters, it must be done by Constitutional Amendment.


Look at this another way. What if the President signed an Executive Order stating that Congress shall not impose a personal income tax rate of greater than 30% on any citizen of the United States. Would Congress have to obey the Executive Order? No. The President has no authority to limit the power of Congress (in this case the Taxing power set out in Article I, Section 8, clause 1), and therefore this EO would be unconstitutional. Its the exact analogous situation with FISA -- Congress cannot limit the President's power by passing a law. It all goes back to the concept of three COEQUAL branches of government, each with certain powers.

And that ends today's civics lesson. :D

Where are the checks and balances if the President has limitless power?

Where are the checks and balances if the President has limitless power?

Fair question. This power of the President in this area does not appear to be subject to the normal checks and balances (e.g., the President nominates candidates for judges and the senate confirms or rejects, or when Congress passes a law and the President signs or vetos). I think one "check" could be that the Congress could bring an impeachment proceeding for egregious behavior. Also, the people could not re-elect the president to a second term, as well as the president being term-limited to only two terms.

My understanding is that the Founders wanted a strong executive (President) and gave him nearly unlimited power to conduct war and engage in foreign affairs because those activities needed to be undertaken with speed that the legislature or courts could not provide. The thinking was that having one person in charge of these two areas allowed the country to act immediately and with great flexibility in times of crisis.

ToddG, thanks for the clarification / explanation. Its nice to not have to wade through a pile of back-handed insults towards "fiberals" to get the message.

ToddG, thanks for the clarification / explanation. Its nice to not have to wade through a pile of back-handed insults towards "fiberals" to get the message.

Yes, we can have a good debate without the insults.

Here's a bit more clarification about presidential powers. First of all, it is important to remember that Founding Fathers had fled a tyrranical monarch, the King of England, who was a single individual who held ALL the governmental powers. The Founding Fathers knew that having all the power vested in one person could lead to abuse, so when they established our government the decided to go with a (small-r) republican form of government with a bicameral legislature (e.g., upper chamber [Senate] and lower chamber [House of Representatives]), a chief executive, and one Supreme Court. By splitting the power and providing a mechanism of checks and balances, this assured that one branch of the government would not grab power from the other branches. The process of lawmaking was also intentionally meant to be a slow process so that proper deliberation could take place and all points of view could be heard before any new laws were made.

In their wisdom, however, the Founding Fathers recognized that in certain instances, having certain powers vested in a single individual has definite advantages, speed of decisions being the most obvious. They decided that the President should have the powers of conducting war and engaging in foreign affairs because he can make decisions much more quickly than the lengthy deliberative processes that are required by the Congress or the courts. In times of national crisis, speed of decisionmaking is often crucial, so these powers were given to him to do that.

All the stuff that's happened since 9/11 has raised some legitimate concerns by various groups, regardless of political persuasion. For example, under his war powers, the President has the power to detain enemy combatants indefinitely, even if they are a US Citizen. Is that decision reviewable by a court? I don't know. These are questions we've never faced before, so it is good to have a debate about them. Overall, however, I believe the system is working the way it was intended. Some people may not like it, but I think it's working properly.

Other than the election process, what is the difference between a King and a President? One does not have to be tyrannical to be a monarch.

That's the perception that many Bush detractors have. If what you say is true then we who oppose this behavior should work to change the Constitution. Is that correct?

Other than the election process, what is the difference between a King and a President? One does not have to be tyrannical to be a monarch.

That's the perception that many Bush detractors have. If what you say is true then we who oppose this behavior should work to change the Constitution. Is that correct?

It depends what your objective is. If you are trying to change the war powers all President will have, as given in the Constitution, then yes, there must be a Constitutional amendment for that to happen. FYI, that process begins in Congress where language must be hammered out, then it goes to the states for ratification (I think 3/4 of the state legislatures must pass it). Its not an easy process, and the Founders made it that way intentionally because they felt that amending the founding document was not something to do on a whim -- they wanted thorough deliberation and cool heads in doing something like that.

Compared to the amendment process, I think it is much easier to simply change the occupant of the White House. However, keep in mind, the President is the only elected official who is elected by ALL the people of the country. Therefore, that individual must have national appeal. In the last election, Bush won because he had more national appeal than Sen. Kerry, and because he took a strong stand on defense and security. I think the Democrats have a real problem because, with the exception of maybe Joe Lieberman, they have no potential candidates with strong national appeal.

I'll say.

I think we'll elect an A-A President before we elect one that's Jewish. I think a woman will come before both of those.

While I appreciate your take on how our government is run I don't believe that the Founding Fathers intended for the Presidency to be as secretive as GWB has been. Much of the complaining is coming from both Democrats and Republicans that feel that they have not been fully informed of what has happened, as well as what is going to happen.

That was supposed to be, as a proper check and balance to the Presidency. I still have a problem with the President granting himself warrantless searches on US citizens. The Right often uses the slippery-slope argument. Those that disagree with GWB are using it now.

I'll say.

I think we'll elect an A-A President before we elect one that's Jewish. I think a woman will come before both of those.

While I appreciate your take on how our government is run I don't believe that the Founding Fathers intended for the Presidency to be as secretive as GWB has been. Much of the complaining is coming from both Democrats and Republicans that feel that they have not been fully informed of what has happened, as well as what is going to happen.

That was supposed to be, as a proper check and balance to the Presidency. I still have a problem with the President granting himself warrantless searches on US citizens. The Right often uses the slippery-slope argument. Those that disagree with GWB are using it now.

Barry, I'll admit I do not know exactly what the Founding Fathers had in mind about secrecy and how far it should go. However, I would refer you to Federalist #70, written by Alexander Hamilton in 1788, which makes the case for a single, strong Executive (this is the so-called "Unitary Executive" concept that has been in the news lately). Here's the link:

http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/funddocs/fed/federa70.htm

In one passage that discusses the advantages of a single Executive, Hamilton wrote:

"That unity is conducive to energy will not be disputed. Decision, activity, secrecy, and despatch will generally characterize the proceedings of one man in a much more eminent degree than the proceedings of any greater number; and in proportion as the number is increased, these qualities will be diminished."

Secrecy was obviously a concept that Hamilton thought about and which would be used by the Executive. To the degree that it is used by this president, I don't think the founders could even have imaginged what would be going on today with terrorism and weapons of mass destructions.

Bottom line as I see it is that secrecy is required if the chief executive is going to conduct a war, so I don't have a problem with that. In other circumstances, however, a little more transparency would be nice (the Energy Task Force that deliberated early on in the President's term, for example). I think it ultimately boils down to an issue of trust. Some people trust the President to do the right thing, even if it is done in secret, and some do not.

I guess that's what this all boils down to, trust. I don't believe that this President has earned my trust.

Thank you for being civil. It a much better learning experience and you got you point across without having to change my mind. You presented the facts in a logical manner and let me decide. What a concept!

Thank you for your time researching my question. Now tell me how Bush has earned your trust.

this may be a bit of topic by now, as I have not read through all 69 posts, but this controversy puzzles me becauze it seems the tables have turned.

traditionally it is the conservatives who would never give up privacy rights and the liberals who would give up rights for the "greater good" because mamma govt. knows best. I just don't see why liberals would fight so hard over privacy rights now except to oppose the president's winning strategies. And yes, I agree that wire tapping is a winning strategy, and I hate it!! heh heh. I don't want to yield my right to privacy; even during "wartime" because it is a slippery slope. we may never see the end of this type of war, so we may never see our right to privacy given back to us.

Remember Orwell's 1984? the people were kept under the thumb of the government because they thought they were at war and were willing to give up their rights for a short time, but the war never ended (it actually did but the govt./media dupped the public into thinking they were still at war). In reality we may always be at war, and we may lose all of our rights because of it. We could all be suspects until the problem is over, and I believe that until Islam is completely reformed or removed, this war will continue. You see, it is not just about the US occupying the middle east, it is about the US not submitting completely to Islam. sure today its this, and tomorrow it will be something else, but in the end they will not be finished until any form of religion exists except islam. Just look at thier track record with neighboring countries. The US is not sticking its nose where it doesn't belong, we are there to try to defend those helpless against the tyranny of Islam. Yes, some will say that we are there just for the oil, well guess what... WE ARE! we are there to see that one of the worlds most precious recources isnt under complete control of islam's tyranny. For lots of reasons WE SHOULD BE THERE!

But, this controversy over wire tapping is just a fight for the sake of fighting.

If we conservatives are to accept wire tapping, we should expect that no convictions can be made which involve wire tapping unless they are for convictions of treason or espionage. And all wire taps should be made public record after say two years so we can turn around and sue the govt. for extensive or inappropriate wire taps that can or will not lead to treason or espionage convictions. I would rather the govt. break the law and convict war criminals, then make it legal to spy on us. Done honestly and correctly, we need this strategy. Just get 'r done already! why politicize this?

But again, why on earth are privacy rights being defended by the left and not the right? It is usually the other way around!

Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires — a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we’re talking about chasing down terrorists, we’re talking about getting a court order before we do so. It’s important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.
~George W. Bush April 2004