There are always going to be some people who, short of murdering an old woman on live tv, are going to defend George W. Bush no matter what he does. But on the issue of this spying, I don’t care what the polls are. If only 1% of Americans understand that the president isn’t above the law, so be it. It is wrong. Too many Americans – from the original revolutionaries and down to the soldiers in Iraq – have died to protect the idea that we don’t have a king, not someone who decides on his own whims what is and isn’t legal.
If the case against these people was such a threat to national security – why didn’t they get a warrant. It isn’t hard to get a warrant, and you can even get a warrant after you’ve done the surveillance. If the president didn’t like the law, you get the congress to do it. This is how we operate in America.
The very concept that the terrorists seek to eliminate is the system the president and his supporters are undermining in the rush to short term political strength. It’s the very idea of a system of laws at the heart of America.
The old woman was an enemy of freedom. An evil-doer.
Man, I used to think the Moonies were bad. But the Moonies have nothing on the cult of AWOL George.
You know, there’s nothing Jeffy “ChickenHawk” Goldstein wouldn’t do for AWOL George.
Well, maybe one thing.
Enlist.
Ah yes, protein wisdom.
I believe elevated liver enzymes (protein) indicate excess
consumption of alcohol and this may explain both the cause and effect of Bush Apologists. Hallucinations of the sort described in the link
suggest the need for intervention.
If it is Osama Bin Laden’s aim to destroy the US, he seems to be succeeding inasmuch as you seem to be suffering from an invidious erosion of rights. I think he’d be pleased with the changes he has caused, as they seem to be the first steps along the road away from democracy.
The Clinton administration asserted they had the authority… and didn’t actually do anything without a warrant. Bush did it, and its okay. Do they require your soul and common sense before or after u vote republican?
So on one hand we have a president who followed the law even though he thought he didn’t have to. On the other we have a president who didn’t follow the law because he thinks he doesn’t have to.
Those are the same, aren’t they?
No really, I’m a dick, incapable of honest argument and instead I resort to personal attacks.
Let me get this straight Mike. Clinton said he had te authority yet congress disagreed so they placed authority with FISA. This is supposed to help your case how?
Oh, I forgot. The current congress is just a rubber stamp for the Pesident and believes he can do as he pleases.
More proof that the new GOP doesn’t believe the law applies to them, even when they write the law.
Glad to see Mike’s fax machine to receive GOP talking points is in working order.
Too bad the talking point is false:
From today’s National Review Online, by Byron York:
Sorry. “Bush spied – civil liberties died” just doesn’t hold water anymore.
Ahem. God, this is just so hard. How do I respond to this post on Oliverwillis.com? How? Oh, if I could only figure it out.
For those who can handle Mother Jones;
http://www.motherjones.com/cgi-bin/print_article.pl?url=http://www.motherjones.com/interview/2005/12/philippe_sands.html
Hey, since we’re bringing up extraneous shit, here’s this:
“Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. 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, Arrogant, Lying Motherfucker
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420-2.html
Interesting how Carter’s EO goes out of the way to insist that anyone carrying out surveillance do so in accordance with the FISA. Whereas Bush’s program was carried out in defiance of it. Better troll talking points, please.
So you don’t like it when Clinton did it? How about Carter?
Of course you know that your every post is being scrutinized because you have chosen the screen name ‘Quaker’. You might as well have called yourself ‘The Vegan Shoe Bomber’.
Tom, there has been no documentation that Bush has ever uttered a single lie, anywhere at anytime.
Dugger, holding my hands over my ears and humming loudly — I can’t hear what you’re saying! Your lips are moving and nothing is coming out!
Listen up, trolls! Carter and Clinton DID NOT end run FISA, Bush did. It’s simple really.
Are you all really as stupid as you seem to be? How do you remember to breath? You idiots.
OK Hedley, spell out what Carter ‘did’. Was it illegal?
But did they actually break the law? Can you show that they did? Kosovo was as much a war as Iraq was, legally. By the Bush standard, even the invasion of Granada is sufficient justification to ignore the constitution.
What Carter and Clinton “did” is demonstrate their belief that they were empowered to authorize searches without a court order. And they weren’t even at war.
There is one thing about having a belief that you can do something, proposing that you be allowed to do it or just doing it and then being overruled by the governing authority and then NOT or STOP doing it knowing you would be overruled by the governing authority and doing it anyway… in secret.
If you believe that all three administrations were wrong in their belief that the president has the authority, under certain circumstances, to authorize searches without a court order, then we don’t know if Carter or Clinton broke the law because any actions on their part were never leaked to the public as part of a book deal.
Of course, if all three administrations were wrong, then it is hard to see how President Bush knowingly broke the law when Democrats and Republicans alike believed he had the authority to do what he did.
Boy, this one’s spreading like wildfire, isn’t it?
Find out how Drudge lied about what Clinton and Carter signed. Just click here.
Jadegold
Man, I used to think the Moonies were bad. But the Moonies have nothing on the cult of AWOL George.
What an interesting comment, since the Moonies own the Washington Times and UPI, which are huge house organs for the Bushie neocons.
[...]
December 21, 2005
Oliver Knows Best
Chris Hall @ 11:31 am
Bottom Line on Busy s Spying: But on the issue of this spying, I donýÿ [...]
If you believe that all three administrations were wrong
The lunatic fringe fails to grasp that the only three administrations
germane to the subject is; Nixon, Reagan and Bush.
All three took precipitous actions which push the envelope
of Executive privilege. The first two forced Congress to enact
further restrictions on Presidential power because of abuses.
The Congressional rollbacks following Bush’s poor self-control, will
put us at greater risk because prudent use of Presidential power
will be diminished and our response time will be greatly reduced in the event of an emergency when those powers will be needed. Thank you Bush.
More NSA analysis. Because really, who can’t get enough of this stuff?
U of Chicago law professor Cass Sunstein, on Bush’s NSA program:The discussion of wiretapping by the President, without court approval, raises a number of important and interesting legal issues. According to CNN, Attorney General Gonzales recently…
The proper response to any discussion about Carter or Clinton (because pointing out that they didn’t break the law seems to be a lost cause) is “stop changing the subject.”
That’s the whole right wing strategy in a nutshell. Deflect, deny, divert, distract, and a whole bunch of other “d” things. Why defend the indefensible when you can cry “Clinton?” Wag that dog, baby.
It looks virtually certain that Bush broke the law (even putting aside his near blanket confession on live tv).
Period.
Two wrongs don’t make a right and I don’t care who did what before Bush. It’s like when I argue with my wife that just because everybody else is speeding doesn’t mean she has permission to get the lead out(her response, “but then I’m just slowing everybody else down and that’s just as dangerous”).
Carter and Clinton not only didn’t break the law, they were engaging in surveillance of FOREIGN communications, not domestic. That’s what Bush is in trouble for. Well, that, and completely forgoing the whole retroactive-72 hours-get-the-warrant-after-you’ve-already-done-your-spying thing. Too much paperwork, I hear.
You do have to love the presumption that although no illegal spying came to light with Clinton and Carter, they MUST be just as dirty as Bush because…well…JUST BECAUSE DAMMIT!
CLINTON!!!!
CARTER!!!!
STOP HELPING THE TERRORISTS!!!!
Tourette’s syndrome for the politically challenged.
Why America will always lose the war on terror!
America and its bloggers are idiots. Let me tell you why…
qyoecaur svpj mzotnug gbqzmo tqigcludz ahgykmvn tswbjgr