Do you support Bush?

[chessforlife]

I suppose this is an overlap of many topics, but i hope this thread will help me understand more opinions.

OVERALL i support Bush. I've always thought the WMD reason was a mistake for the USA to hang its motives on. I wanted us to remove Saddamn because HE WAS AN UNACCEPTABLE THREAT TO NECCESSARY MIDDLE EAST STABILITY.

And concerning the phone tapping stuff, I think many don't have their priorities in order. Yes, it would be best if such sticky actions were free of constitutional issues, but it's most inportant that WE ARE FINDING TERRORISTS THAT ARE PLANNING TO KILL US EN MASSE. The white house has stressed that phomes are only tapped against those that are credible suspects. I WANT THIS TO CONTINUE. DON'T YOU? And honestly, i couldn't care less if the goverment is listening to my bad beat phone stories. I have nothing to hide.

Your thoughts?

[cardcounter0]

You forgot "think of the children". Bush is making the world safe for the children to live in. You don't want your children growing up in a dangerous world, do you?

[canis582]

"HE WAS AN UNACCEPTABLE THREAT TO NECCESSARY MIDDLE EAST STABILITY."

None of his neighbors in the region perceived him to be a threat.

"WE ARE FINDING TERRORISTS THAT ARE PLANNING TO KILL US EN MASSE."

We can do this without breaking the law. The consitution does not have to be a casualty in the so called war on terra.

"The white house has stressed that phomes are only tapped against those that are credible suspects"

They lie all the time.

"And honestly, i couldn't care less if the goverment is listening to my bad beat phone stories. I have nothing to hide."

Move to China if you like facsism so much.

[chessforlife]

[ QUOTE ]
"HE WAS AN UNACCEPTABLE THREAT TO NECCESSARY MIDDLE EAST STABILITY."

None of his neighbors in the region perceived him to be a threat.



[/ QUOTE ]

i dont mean to be confrontational, but its common knowledge that EVERYONE in the middle east considered him a threat.

[canis582]

Sometimes common knowledge = propaganda in the US

The president of the United Arab Emirates described U.S. threats of military action as "bad and loathsome," and declared that Iraq does not pose a threat to its neighbors.

[chessforlife]

I'll need to check the UAE fact myself, but Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Israel (of course), and IRAN definitely considered Saddamn a threat.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
None of his neighbors in the region perceived him to be a threat.

[/ QUOTE ]
Then why did we still have the No-Fly Zone in effect or the sanctions in place?

As far as the "wire tapping" issue, I have seen and read that it was only numbers that:

a) Were contained in material seized from captured terrorists.

b) Were coming from or to known terrorists.



The Dem's are just "playing politics" with our national security once again. Al Quaeda members DO NOT HAVE PROTECTIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION!!! Why isn't there an investigation into which official leaked this?

Why isn't there an outrage about President Clinton when he used the spy satellites to spy on Americans? Because the ACLU (all crazy liberals united or all crazy lawyers united) is a liberal activist group.

[PoBoy321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
None of his neighbors in the region perceived him to be a threat.

[/ QUOTE ]
Then why did we still have the No-Fly Zone in effect or the sanctions in place?

[/ QUOTE ]

For the same reason we still have sanctions and restrictions on Cuba: because it was politically advantageous for him to be perceived as a threat.

[bocablkr]

Do I support Bush on:

The war on terror - mostly yes
Foreign policy - mostly no
Protecting the environment - NO
Global warming - NO
Energy Policy - NO
Privatization of Social Security - NO
Abortion - NO
Health Care - NO
Immigration - NO
Tax Cuts for the rich - NO
Bringing religion back into Government - NO
Teaching ID in Science class - NO

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
As far as the "wire tapping" issue, I have seen and read that it was only numbers that:

a) Were contained in material seized from captured terrorists.

b) Were coming from or to known terrorists.


[/ QUOTE ]

Riddle me this Batman- if there was evidence that they were terrorists, why not go to a judge and get a warrent?

[sweetjazz]

I support Bush, inasmuch as I hope that his policies work out well for Americans. I generally disagree with most of his policies, and I am disappointed in his unwillingness or inability to raise the level of discourse in this country. (I am disappointed in most other public officials for this same trait.)

EDIT: Regarding domestic spying, I do not approve of the disregard shown for the courts based on the information I know now. I am open to more information becoming available during the course of the hearings that occur and changing my opinion, but I believe that the claimed benefit of disregarding the established procedures is much smaller than the possibility for abuse by either this administration or a future one.

[tolbiny]

"OVERALL i support Bush. I've always thought the WMD reason was a mistake for the USA to hang its motives on. I wanted us to remove Saddamn because HE WAS AN UNACCEPTABLE THREAT TO NECCESSARY MIDDLE EAST STABILITY."

Do you consider Iraq to be more stable currently than it was during the previous 10 years of saddam's regime?
Could the billions spent on the war have been spent more effectively on stabilizing the middle east?

"Yes, it would be best if such sticky actions were free of constitutional issues, but it's most inportant that WE ARE FINDING TERRORISTS THAT ARE PLANNING TO KILL US EN MASSE."

So why not go to a judge and have a legal amount of oversight? If need be set up a court where a judge is on call 24 hrs and can review the evidence within an hour or two and render a decision.

I find that WHEN I TYPE IN ALL CAPS I FEEL AS IF I JUST LANDED ON AN AIRCRAFT CARRIER WITH A BIG "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" BANNER. Don't you agree?

[masse75]

[ QUOTE ]
If need be set up a court where a judge is on call 24 hrs and can review the evidence within an hour or two and render a decision.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think we already have this...and if you're in a rush, why don't you wait 3 days after you start tapping?

The legislative and judicial branches need to get some balls and reign in the executive branch.

[ QUOTE ]
Riddle me this Batman- if there was evidence that they were terrorists, why not go to a judge and get a warrent?

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you suppose a NOC/black ops agent could get a warrant from a federal judge to monitor a terrorist?

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"HE WAS AN UNACCEPTABLE THREAT TO NECCESSARY MIDDLE EAST STABILITY."

[/ QUOTE ]

None of his neighbors in the region perceived him to be a threat.

[/ QUOTE ]

Getting my ass kicked in Omaha/8 so I'm in a fowl mood /images/graemlins/smile.gif. This is simply an unbeleivable response considering he waged war on Iran and Kuwait and if memory serves launched some scud missles in the direction of Saudi Arabia. God only knows how many Kurds and Shias he was responsible for murdering and you claim neighboring countries didn't perceive him as a threat?

Also it's incredible to me that so many posters on this forum value stability of autocratic, despotic, murderous dictators. For crying out loud North Korea is stable too does that make their government desirable or even legitimate? The Shah of Iran was stable for a long period of time. Hell the Soviet Union was stable for many, many years.

[James Boston]

I don't like George Bush, but do you realize that mentalities like yours aren't helping the cause when it comes to pointing out his serious flaws?

[ QUOTE ]
Global warming - NO


[/ QUOTE ]

What does that even mean? George Bush, to my knowledge, hasn't come out in support of global warming.

I could go on, but I don't care to. These cookie-cutter liberal jabs at Bush, IMO, do more to distract from the real reasons he's a bad president than anything else.

[Cumulonimbus]

chessforlife - How many times have you clicked "Yes"?

[tolbiny]

As i understand no groups that would have problems gaining a warrent have jurisdiction to function in the US.

[ QUOTE ]
Also it's incredible to me that so many posters on this forum value stability of autocratic, despotic, murderous dictators. For crying out loud North Korea is stable too does that make their government desirable or even legitimate? The Shah of Iran was stable for a long period of time. Hell the Soviet Union was stable for many, many years.


[/ QUOTE ]

Didn't you know, regimes run by autocratic, despotic, murderous dictators aren't evil, because its "much more complicated" than that?

Apparantly, the liberty and freedom of "other" people doesn't matter, so long as there is "peace" in the world.

[lehighguy]

I think the most enlightning thing about politics today is that Bush himself has greater support then his various policies.

[bdypdx]

Like another liberal, "Al Franken", I do support the troops.

Definitely NOT the Bush administration however!

Cheers.

[bdypdx]

[ QUOTE ]
I suppose this is an overlap of many topics, but i hope this thread will help me understand more opinions.

OVERALL i support Bush. I've always thought the WMD reason was a mistake for the USA to hang its motives on. I wanted us to remove Saddamn because HE WAS AN UNACCEPTABLE THREAT TO NECCESSARY MIDDLE EAST STABILITY.

And concerning the phone tapping stuff, I think many don't have their priorities in order. Yes, it would be best if such sticky actions were free of constitutional issues, but it's most inportant that WE ARE FINDING TERRORISTS THAT ARE PLANNING TO KILL US EN MASSE. The white house has stressed that phomes are only tapped against those that are credible suspects. I WANT THIS TO CONTINUE. DON'T YOU? And honestly, i couldn't care less if the goverment is listening to my bad beat phone stories. I have nothing to hide.

Your thoughts?

[/ QUOTE ]

My thoughts? I see no problem with the white house obeying the FISA law. Unfortunately, the current white house thinks that it is above the law. Go figure....

[andyfox]

Approximately 50% of the electorate voted for Bush in 2000 and again in 2004.

The administration agrees with your reason for opposing Hussein. WMDs and 9/1 were excuses, not reasons for the invasion. They thought they were making the world safe for us to prosper in it. They see the Middle East as the key to remaking the world in their image.

As for the phone tapping, the administration could have accomplished whatever it wanted going through the FISA court, which has approved tens of thousands of wiretaps while rejecting only a handful. The fact that they didn't lends one to believe they have something to hide. They can protect us from terrorists using the FISA system. The idea that the president has inherent powers to wiretap or because of the congressional resolution to use force in the wake of 9/11 is a naked, undemocratic power grab. This was stated very clearly by Vice Presidnet Cheney on his way back from Iraq when he said we need to increase the powers of the president.

If we let paranoia about our enemies effect us so that we allow our leaders inordinate power over our lives, we will face a bigger problem at least as big as the terrorists.

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
As for the phone tapping, the administration could have accomplished whatever it wanted going through the FISA court, which has approved tens of thousands of wiretaps while rejecting only a handful. The fact that they didn't lends one to believe they have something to hide.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most likely it was that they knew the Dems would play politics with it if they found out the administration was requesting permission to spy. So they hoped they could get away with it. I'm not a fan of violating the constitution, but I'm more concerned about obeying the spirit of it rather than the proper technical procedure.

Due process does exist for a reason, but I'm happy to let this one slide because frankly there are more important things to be debating right now.


Also I'm surprised this poll is as high in support of Bush as it is (25% when I checked). His approval rating is hovering around the low-30s and I would think the selection bias of an internet forum (generally younger, more urban people.... especially a poker forum) would have a bigger impact.

[ QUOTE ]
Due process does exist for a reason, but I'm happy to let this one slide because frankly there are more important things to be debating right now.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's just scary that you could feel this way about the constitution of the US. /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[andyfox]

"Most likely it was that they knew the Dems would play politics with it if they found out the administration was requesting permission to spy. So they hoped they could get away with it."

I don't buy this. The FISA court had been used thousands of times. For example, in 1996, under a Democratic president, the FISA court approved over 800 surveillance and physical search orders. If the Republicans didn't make hay with that against Clinton, why would they have worried about the Dems doing that against Bush? Especially in the wake of 9/11, I don't see how the administration could have thought the Dems could make political hay with this.

The problem with obeying the "spirit" of the law, rather than the "proper technical procedure," it that the spirit is open to each person's personal interpretation of that spirit. According to Attorney General Gonzalez, the president has the inherent right to wiretap without a court order to protect the country. If that's the case, why do we even need a FISA court? I thought the Constitution protected us from warrantless wiretaps, not that it gave the president the inherent right to do it when he decided it was OK.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As far as the "wire tapping" issue, I have seen and read that it was only numbers that:

a) Were contained in material seized from captured terrorists.

b) Were coming from or to known terrorists.


[/ QUOTE ]

Riddle me this Batman- if there was evidence that they were terrorists, why not go to a judge and get a warrent?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well Robin, for the same damned reason it is all over the news now. The more people that know about it, the more likely The New York Crimes and the rest of the liberal rags are going to print it. As of this morning, the attorneys that are representing the terrorists that have been caught are planning to use this as a defense. Why aren't you worried about Clinton when he spied on the people at "Ruby Ridge"?

For the record, it's "warrant", not warrent.

[canis582]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"HE WAS AN UNACCEPTABLE THREAT TO NECCESSARY MIDDLE EAST STABILITY."

[/ QUOTE ]

None of his neighbors in the region perceived him to be a threat.

[/ QUOTE ]

Getting my ass kicked in Omaha/8 so I'm in a fowl mood /images/graemlins/smile.gif. This is simply an unbeleivable response considering he waged war on Iran and Kuwait and if memory serves launched some scud missles in the direction of Saudi Arabia. God only knows how many Kurds and Shias he was responsible for murdering and you claim neighboring countries didn't perceive him as a threat?

Also it's incredible to me that so many posters on this forum value stability of autocratic, despotic, murderous dictators. For crying out loud North Korea is stable too does that make their government desirable or even legitimate? The Shah of Iran was stable for a long period of time. Hell the Soviet Union was stable for many, many years.

[/ QUOTE ]

#1: move down in stakes, try play money

#2: there is volumious evidence to suggest that the middle east is LESS stable without Saddam than it is with it. Why wouldn't our allies, Turkey and Bahrain, let us use their counties as staging grounds if Saddam was such a threat to them?

#3: The US government loves brutal dictators, as long as they are friendly to us.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
I'll need to check the UAE fact myself, but Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Israel (of course), and IRAN definitely considered Saddamn a threat.

[/ QUOTE ]Iran opposed the American invasion most clearly -- and repeatedly pointed out the hypocrisy of Washington in going to war against a regime they were supporting in the Iraq-Iran War. Jordan opposed the invasion, as well, and tried to mediate the crisis.

Of course, Kuwait* and Saudi Arabia welcomed the invasion, a position which has destabilized the Kingdom, perhaps for good.

But I was surprised about Israel! Are you sure about that? I mean, Israel opposes the invasion of Arab countries, right?.. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

___________


* Note that Kuwait, in both geographical and historical terms, rightly belongs to the ruler of Mesopotamia. Saddam's original demands were very much justified, in the previous Gulf War! A fact which was tacitly recognized by the U.S. Ambassador to Baghdad at the time -- or, at least, not contested. Check the history books : The ridiculous borders in the fertile crescent of modern Mesopotamia were drawn by the French and British --represented by a woman!-- colonialists in the early years of the 20th century, and were mostly dictated by the respective oil companies, in accordance to what they knew then about oilfields!

[canis582]

Divide and conquer, baby.

This is a gem:
http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20051218.htm

Noam Chomsky: In other words, suppose that the parliament, instead of being an elite force, dominating the population, suppose the parliament represents popular will, say the popular will of 80 percent of Iraqis who want the occupying forces to withdraw, according to the British Ministry of Defence. Suppose that happens? Well then the occupying forces should immediately initiate withdrawal and leave it to the Iraqis. Now there's a good reason why Washington and London are not contemplating that. It has nothing to do with the fate of the Iraqis, quite the contrary. Just think for a minute. What would an independent Iraq be likely to do, an independent, more or less democratic Iraq? Think. I mean if you're going to have a Shi'ite majority. Therefore the Shi'ites will have a lot of influence in policy, probably a dominant influence. The Shi'ite population in the south, which is where most of the oil is, would much prefer warm relations to Iran over hostile relations to Iran. Furthermore they are very close relations already, the Badr brigade, which is the militia that mostly controls the south, was trained in Iran. The clerics have long-standing relations with Iran; the Ayatollah Sistani actually grew up there. Chances are pretty strong, they'll move towards a some sort of a loose Shi'ite alliance, with Iraq and Iran. Furthermore right across the border in Saudi Arabia, there's a substantial Shi'ite population, which has been bitterly oppressed by the US-backed tyranny in Saudi Arabia, the fundamentalist tyranny. Any move towards independence in Iraq is likely to increase the efforts to gain a degree of autonomy and justice. That happens to be where most of Saudi Arabia's oil is. So you can see not far in the future a loose Shi'ite alliance controlling most of the world's oil, independent of the US. Furthermore, it is beginning to turn toward the East. Iran has pretty much given up on Western Europe, it assumes that Western Europe is too cowardly to act independently of the US, well it has options. It can turn to the East. China can't be intimidated. That's why the US is so frightened of China. It cannot be intimidated. In fact, they're already establishing relations with Iran and in fact even with Saudi Arabia, both military and economic. There is an Asian energy security grid based on Asia and Russia but bringing in India, Korea and others. If Iran moves in that direction, having abandoned any hope in Europe, it can become the lynchpin of the Asian energy security grid.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Do I support Bush on:
<font color="white"> . </font>
The war on terror - mostly YES
Foreign policy - mostly NO
Protecting the environment - NO
Global warming - NO
Energy Policy - NO
Privatization of Social Security - NO
Abortion - NO
Health Care - NO
Immigration - NO
Tax Cuts for the rich - NO
Bringing religion back into Government - NO
Teaching ID in Science class - NO

[/ QUOTE ]

Next question : If you are judging a man's potential for future performance on the basis of past performance, and that performance is being measured by 12 criteria -- and he fails in 11 outta the 12 criteria, do you think that the man is more likely to perform well in the future or less likely ?

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

OVERALL i support Bush.

I don't know about the "overall" part, but I support the war.

Yes, it would be best if such sticky actions were free of constitutional issues, but it's most inportant that WE ARE FINDING TERRORISTS THAT ARE PLANNING TO KILL US EN MASSE

To paraphrase Ben Franklin "anyone who would sacrifice some piece of his liberty for a small measure of security deserves neither and soon will lose both."

And as to killing us "en masse", stop being a wimp. On 9/11/01, 1/1000 of 1% of our population was killed. I'd hardly call that "en masses."

The terrorists hate us for our open, secular, free, mercantile society. Every reduction in liberty in the name of security is a victory for Osama bin Laden, et. al.

As 2-time presidential Candidate Harry Browne put it, "We need to put forth our best efforts to bring those responsible to justice, and the best way to do that is to avail those suspected of every constitutional protection afforded all Americans."

2700 deaths do not warrant the loss of one ounce of liberty for 270,000,000 people.

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't buy this. The FISA court had been used thousands of times. For example, in 1996, under a Democratic president, the FISA court approved over 800 surveillance and physical search orders. If the Republicans didn't make hay with that against Clinton, why would they have worried about the Dems doing that against Bush?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not talking about the Reps doing the same thing to Clinton or claiming one action is more justified than another. You're making the assumption that what I would condone for Bush I would condemn for Clinton. I'm not partisan enough for that to be the case.

[ QUOTE ]
Especially in the wake of 9/11, I don't see how the administration could have thought the Dems could make political hay with this.

[/ QUOTE ]

HA! Yeah, because the wake of 9/11 has really stopped them in the past....

[ QUOTE ]
The problem with obeying the "spirit" of the law, rather than the "proper technical procedure," it that the spirit is open to each person's personal interpretation of that spirit.

[/ QUOTE ]

I realize, and as far as my personal interpretation goes, Bush didn't violate the spirit of the law. If someone else thinks differently, then they should feel differently. I went on to say "due process exists for a reason", and that reason is to protect our rights. In this case it is my opinion that such protection would have been moot, and as a result I'm not gonna worry about it.

[ QUOTE ]
Do I support Bush on:

The war on terror - mostly yes
Foreign policy - mostly no
Protecting the environment - NO
Global warming - NO
Energy Policy - NO
Privatization of Social Security - NO
Abortion - NO
Health Care - NO
Immigration - NO
Tax Cuts for the rich - NO
Bringing religion back into Government - NO
Teaching ID in Science class - NO

[/ QUOTE ]

The war on terror- YES
Foreign Policy- YES
Protecting the environment by NOT signing Kyoto treaty-Yes
Global warming (wich doesn't exist)- not applicable
Energy Policy-Yes
Privatization of Social Security- Yes
Health Care-Yes, it isn't the gov't's responsibility to provide it.
Immigration-The fence should have been built a long time ago.
Tax cuts for the rich(e.g. "supply side economics") Yes
Because he has faith in God-Sure
Health Care-Absolutely.
Giving billions to Africa to fight AIDS- HELL NO
Teaching ID in science class as an opposing theory to evolution, why not?
Abortion- Don't really care.

[BluffTHIS!]

Bush, may he ever be right, but Bush right or wrong!

er . . uh . . I meant . . .

[chessforlife]

Do I support Bush on:

The war on terror - yes
Foreign policy - mostly yes
Protecting the environment - no
Global warming - no
Energy Policy - don't know
Privatization of Social Security - yes
Abortion - no
Health Care - yes
Immigration - no
Tax Cuts for the rich - this isn't a fair labeled topic
Bringing religion back into Government - no
Teaching ID in Science class - no

but the most important is the Iraq war. we need a strong leader right now.

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
The war on terror- YES
Foreign Policy- YES
Protecting the environment by NOT signing Kyoto treaty-Yes
Global warming ( wich doesn't exist )- not applicable
Energy Policy-Yes
Privatization of Social Security- Yes
Health Care-Yes, it isn't the gov't's responsibility to provide it.
Immigration-The fence should have been built a long time ago.
Tax cuts for the rich(e.g. "supply side economics") Yes
Because he has faith in God-Sure
Health Care-Absolutely.
Giving billions to Africa to fight AIDS- HELL NO
Teaching ID in science class as an opposing theory to evolution, why not?
Abortion- Don't really care.


[/ QUOTE ]

Can't tell you are a red-blooded Republican can we.

The scientific academies in almost every country of the world say global warming is a fact. Bush and Rush Limbaugh disagree. Wonder who is right?? Global warming is not in dispute - what is disputable is what the effect will be. But that is another topic.

[New001]

[ QUOTE ]

but the most important is the Iraq war. we need a strong leader right now.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why is the Iraq war more important than every other domestic or foreign issue to our country? And, how much difference does a "strong leader" make in that war?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The war on terror- YES
Foreign Policy- YES
Protecting the environment by NOT signing Kyoto treaty-Yes
Global warming ( wich doesn't exist )- not applicable
Energy Policy-Yes
Privatization of Social Security- Yes
Health Care-Yes, it isn't the gov't's responsibility to provide it.
Immigration-The fence should have been built a long time ago.
Tax cuts for the rich(e.g. "supply side economics") Yes
Because he has faith in God-Sure
Health Care-Absolutely.
Giving billions to Africa to fight AIDS- HELL NO
Teaching ID in science class as an opposing theory to evolution, why not?
Abortion- Don't really care.


[/ QUOTE ]

Can't tell you are a red-blooded Republican can we.

The scientific academies in almost every country of the world say global warming is a fact. Bush and Rush Limbaugh disagree. Wonder who is right?? Global warming is not in dispute - what is disputable is what the effect will be. But that is another topic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pardon me, I was trying to keep it short. The debate is whether it is man made or sun made. Right now, the evidence points to being caused by the sun and not by my gas guzzling ozone poluting SUV.

What is the evidence that you have to claim that President Bush and Rush Limbaugh say that it doesn't exist? Is it because the President refuses to hamstring the american economy by signing the Kyoto treaty?

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
Pardon me, I was trying to keep it short. The debate is whether it is man made or sun made. Right now, the evidence points to being caused by the sun and not by my gas guzzling ozone poluting SUV.


[/ QUOTE ]

Name one respected scientific organization from any country that claims that global warming is do to the sun vs. burning of fossil fuels. Note: I am not talking about single scientists here.

Many of Bush's earlier speeches completely discredited global warming. Now, because the evidence is irrefutable he uses your definition of a naturally occurring condition.

[andyfox]

"I'm not talking about the Reps doing the same thing to Clinton or claiming one action is more justified than another. You're making the assumption that what I would condone for Bush I would condemn for Clinton. I'm not partisan enough for that to be the case."

I wasn't talking about your personal viewpoint. I was addressing your surmisal about why Bush might have chosen to handle things the way he did.

"HA! Yeah, because the wake of 9/11 has really stopped them in the past...."

In the wake of 9/11, the president had a 90% approval rating. The initiative authorizing the use of force breezed through Congress. The Patriot Act went through easily as well. Had Bush called in the Democratic leaders and said here's what I'm going to do, he wouldn't have had any trouble at all. It's only in the wake of the invasion of Iraq that his troubles in the polls have mounted. His 90% approval rating tumbled and he would have lost the election if John Kerry could have walked and chewed gum simultaneously.

"I realize, and as far as my personal interpretation goes, Bush didn't violate the spirit of the law."

Which law are we talking about here, FISA?

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
China can't be intimidated. That's why the US is so frightened of China. It cannot be intimidated. In fact, they're already establishing relations with Iran and in fact even with Saudi Arabia.

[/ QUOTE ]
The most significant oil refinery investment (or "downstream expansion" as the lingo would have it) of the last two decades has been the joint venture between Saudi Aramco and the Chinese.

link (http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&amp;item_no=44196&amp;version=1&amp;templa te_id=48&amp;parent_id=28)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

but the most important is the Iraq war. we need a strong leader right now.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why is the Iraq war more important than every other domestic or foreign issue to our country? And, how much difference does a "strong leader" make in that war?

[/ QUOTE ]

Wouldnt a strong leader have sent our troops to Iraq with the proper gear.

Our boys, who make 15k per year had to ask their parents to spend thousands of dollars on body armor. Great leadership.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Pardon me, I was trying to keep it short. The debate is whether it is man made or sun made. Right now, the evidence points to being caused by the sun and not by my gas guzzling ozone poluting SUV.


[/ QUOTE ]

Name one respected scientific organization from any country that claims that global warming is do to the sun vs. burning of fossil fuels. Note: I am not talking about single scientists here.

Many of Bush's earlier speeches completely discredited global warming. Now, because the evidence is irrefutable he uses your definition of a naturally occurring condition.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where and when did the President say that it didn't exist?

Why not give credibility to single scientists? Is it because they aren't part of a wacko left-wing agenda?

Here is a small list of "Individual Scientists" that I came up with in less than 5 minutes using Google.
NASA Scientists David Lind and Judith Lean.
Dr. Sallie Baliunas Astrophysicist at Harvard-Smithsonian Institute for Astrophysics,(National expert on global climate change).
Dr. Madhav Khandekar- PHD in Meteorology and top climate scientist with Environmental Canada for 25 years.
Richard Willson- Columbia University Researcher.

There were more, but I HAVE to go to work so I can SUPPORT a welfare recipient somewhere. Try it and look for yourself, it really isn't that hard.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
The administration agrees with your reason for opposing Hussein. WMDs and 9/1 were excuses, not reasons for the invasion. They thought they were making the world safe for us to prosper in it. They see the Middle East as the key to remaking the world in their image.

[/ QUOTE ]


Do you or anyone really think that the Middle East, and the world of this nascent century, can work in (or even with) the Middle East's current paradigm? Well yeah, I guess the jihadists do, but they're insane.

If there's a portion of the world that needs to be remade, it's the Middle East. The past and present paradigms of the Middle East are a perfect prescription for oppression, corruption, war and disaster--and not just for the Middle East, but for much of the world as well (e.g., nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, for just one HUGE future disaster)

Remake faster, please.

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
In the wake of 9/11, the president had a 90% approval rating. The initiative authorizing the use of force breezed through Congress. The Patriot Act went through easily as well. Had Bush called in the Democratic leaders and said here's what I'm going to do, he wouldn't have had any trouble at all. It's only in the wake of the invasion of Iraq that his troubles in the polls have mounted. His 90% approval rating tumbled and he would have lost the election if John Kerry could have walked and chewed gum simultaneously.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? What you said was that the Dems wouldn't play politics with these wiretaps "in the wake of 9/11". I took that to mean that you consider us to still be in the wake of 9/11. Regardless of why he has lost bi-partisan support, the fact remains, and you admit it here (right?), the Dems are not unwilling to play politics with something like this. I don't really see what you're trying to say, the "wake of 9/11" was your comment, not mine - my original point was that by going around the courts it's more likely that the Bush administration was trying to dodge the political heat than that they actually feared the court would reject their request.

What exactly do you think Bush was trying to hide? Do you think he was eavesdropping on teenage girls and wacking off? I'm serious though, what are you actually getting at?

I don't mean to sound confrontational, I'm just confused what your point is.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Huh? What you said was that the Dems wouldn't play politics with these wiretaps "in the wake of 9/11". I took that to mean that you consider us to still be in the wake of 9/11. Regardless of why he has lost bi-partisan support, the fact remains, and you admit it here (right?), the Dems are not unwilling to play politics with something like this.

[/ QUOTE ]

WTF is "playing politics", anyway? I really have little to no conception of what this means, despite how much I hear it.

...okay, that's not entirely true; I think I know what people mean when they say it, but someone humor me anyway and explain what 'playing politics' is. Feel free to PM me if this is an inappropriate thread hijack (not that this thread was very narrow to begin with, though).

[ALawPoker]

When I say "play politics" I generally mean "take a stance because of the benefit it will do to your political party or agenda, regardless of the consequences (or lack thereof) that the stance has for the country as a whole." It is often characterized by alterior motivations. Other people might have different interpretations of it, but that's mine.

I'm not saying this is an exclusively Democrat thing to do, I'm just answering the fine gentleman's question.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
When I say "play politics" I generally mean "take a stance because of the benefit it will do to your political party or agenda, regardless of the consequences (or lack thereof) that the stance has for the country as a whole." It is often characterized by alterior motivations. Other people might have different interpretations of it, but that's mine.

I'm not saying this is an exclusively Democrat thing to do, I'm just answering the fine gentleman's question.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that's a fine definition.

Let's just to be clear, though: why then, do Democrats 'play politics' with the War on Terror?

Perhaps you have a different response; but the seemingly obvious answer is, of course, their base demands they oppose President Bush's policies -- that's part and parcel of legitimate politics, right? We elect leaders to enact our will? Isn't that what we hope our elected leaders do? I'm generally assuming we could cite polling data which shows an uber-majority of Democrats strongly oppose most, if not all of President Bush's policies.

So, I assume when we're eventually done with this conversation, we'll discover that the charge of 'playing politics' is esentially legitimate politics, as I have yet to hear a charge of 'playing politics' that had much substance to it -- at least, in the way that those who levy such a charge want it to; as the charge of 'playing politics' is an attempt to some attach nefarious motives to what is an essentially legitimate action.

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Pardon me, I was trying to keep it short. The debate is whether it is man made or sun made. Right now, the evidence points to being caused by the sun and not by my gas guzzling ozone poluting SUV.


[/ QUOTE ]

Name one respected scientific organization from any country that claims that global warming is do to the sun vs. burning of fossil fuels. Note: I am not talking about single scientists here.

Many of Bush's earlier speeches completely discredited global warming. Now, because the evidence is irrefutable he uses your definition of a naturally occurring condition.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where and when did the President say that it didn't exist?

Why not give credibility to single scientists? Is it because they aren't part of a wacko left-wing agenda?

Here is a small list of "Individual Scientists" that I came up with in less than 5 minutes using Google.
NASA Scientists David Lind and Judith Lean.
Dr. Sallie Baliunas Astrophysicist at Harvard-Smithsonian Institute for Astrophysics,(National expert on global climate change).
Dr. Madhav Khandekar- PHD in Meteorology and top climate scientist with Environmental Canada for 25 years.
Richard Willson- Columbia University Researcher.

There were more, but I HAVE to go to work so I can SUPPORT a welfare recipient somewhere. Try it and look for yourself, it really isn't that hard.

[/ QUOTE ]

I noticed you could not come up with one single scientific organization from ANY country in the world. Use google all you want. I suppose every scientific organization in the world is part of a left-wing pinko conspiracy. Individual scientists can be just as crazy as you. The peer reviewed organizations are the ones the world respects.

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When I say "play politics" I generally mean "take a stance because of the benefit it will do to your political party or agenda, regardless of the consequences (or lack thereof) that the stance has for the country as a whole." It is often characterized by alterior motivations. Other people might have different interpretations of it, but that's mine.

I'm not saying this is an exclusively Democrat thing to do, I'm just answering the fine gentleman's question.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that's a fine definition.

Let's just to be clear, though: why then, do Democrats 'play politics' with the War on Terror?

Perhaps you have a different response; but the seemingly obvious answer is, of course, their base demands they oppose President Bush's policies -- that's part and parcel of legitimate politics, right? We elect leaders to enact our will? Isn't that what we hope our elected leaders do? I'm generally assuming we could cite polling data which shows an uber-majority of Democrats strongly oppose most, if not all of President Bush's policies.

So, I assume when we're eventually done with this conversation, we'll discover that the charge of 'playing politics' is esentially legitimate politics, as I have yet to hear a charge of 'playing politics' that had much substance to it -- at least, in the way that those who levy such a charge want it to; as the charge of 'playing politics' is an attempt to some attach nefarious motives to what is an essentially legitimate action.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well said, but I disagree. Let me make sure I understand your point by putting it in simple words: Playing politics results in doing the will of what the people you represent would want done anyways, so even if it's just a game to the politicians, they end up doing what's expected of them regardless.

Is that basically what you're saying?

I would disagree with you on the basis that an elected official's job is (well, should be) to do more than reflect the raw will of the people he represents. There's a reason we don't simply have a national vote on every issue -- we didn't have a national vote to decide to go to war -- we elect officials because it is impractical for every citizen to be fully informed on every issue. Dems would oppose Reps (and vice versa) on just about everything, even without putting much thought into the issue at hand; for our elected officials to do the same thing is to surrender to partisanship. Ideally our elected officials would critically analyze each issue, but the reality is they have to stay fairly loyal to their base even when their base is in the wrong. It's too bad, because more good could be done if there wasn't partisan dead weight pulling on every issue.


This may be getting off topic now, so PM me if you see fit.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Pardon me, I was trying to keep it short. The debate is whether it is man made or sun made. Right now, the evidence points to being caused by the sun and not by my gas guzzling ozone poluting SUV.


[/ QUOTE ]

Name one respected scientific organization from any country that claims that global warming is do to the sun vs. burning of fossil fuels. Note: I am not talking about single scientists here.

Many of Bush's earlier speeches completely discredited global warming. Now, because the evidence is irrefutable he uses your definition of a naturally occurring condition.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where and when did the President say that it didn't exist?

Why not give credibility to single scientists? Is it because they aren't part of a wacko left-wing agenda?

Here is a small list of "Individual Scientists" that I came up with in less than 5 minutes using Google.
NASA Scientists David Lind and Judith Lean.
Dr. Sallie Baliunas Astrophysicist at Harvard-Smithsonian Institute for Astrophysics,(National expert on global climate change).
Dr. Madhav Khandekar- PHD in Meteorology and top climate scientist with Environmental Canada for 25 years.
Richard Willson- Columbia University Researcher.

There were more, but I HAVE to go to work so I can SUPPORT a welfare recipient somewhere. Try it and look for yourself, it really isn't that hard.

[/ QUOTE ]

I noticed you could not come up with one single scientific organization from ANY country in the world. Use google all you want. I suppose every scientific organization in the world is part of a left-wing pinko conspiracy. Individual scientists can be just as crazy as you. The peer reviewed organizations are the ones the world respects.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here we go again, the classic liberal attack. Anything that doesn't go along with their belief has no credibility. FYI one of the "respected organizations" you are asking for such as "The United Nations eleventh Conference of Parties Climate Meeting" (since you lib's love the UN so much) wouldn't even let Dr. Khandekar into the meeting because they didn't like his belief that the sun has more to do with it than man does.

The scientists at the Armagh Observatory make these claims as well.

BINGO! Does anyone see a correlation here between the UN and bocablkr's stance on the issue?

Furthermore, how ironic is it that we are having this conversation and only two of the 15 countries that signed on to it are on pace to make the required cuts in greenhouse gases? LOL! Does it sound a little hypocritical to anyone?

I am PROUD that we haven't signed on to it and will NOT support a presidential candidate that does endorse it. All it will do is hamstring the American economy.

bocablkr, why can't you debate the issue with me in a civil manner instead of becoming so emotional and calling me crazy? Is it because that is all you lib's have when confronted on the issues?

[andyfox]

I don't know if we can remake the Middle East. If we can, it's not going to be done well by the group currently running things in Washington, because they are an arrogant, ignorant bunch. They are certainly capable of causing a lot more trouble than, for example, the relatively impotent madman currently running Iran.

That said, I think honest people can disagree with my second sentence above. That you and I, basically 180 degrees opposite on the war in Iraq, agree with the sentence you highlighted from my original post should awaken some eyes to the probability of the three sentences you didn't highlight also being true.

[andyfox]

No need to apologize, let me try being clearer.

I originally said, "As for the phone tapping, the administration could have accomplished whatever it wanted going through the FISA court, which has approved tens of thousands of wiretaps while rejecting only a handful. The fact that they didn't lends one to believe they have something to hide."

You replied, "Most likely it was that they knew the Dems would play politics with it if they found out the administration was requesting permission to spy. So they hoped they could get away with it."

The policy of wiretapping without getting FISA approval started, apparently, directly after 9/11. Directly after 9/11, the president got whatever he wanted. Had he gone to the congressional leadership and said, listen guys, I'm afraid we're gonna get hit again if we have to keep going to the FISA court, I'm gonna bug some guys who we know are terrorists without getting FISA approval, I'll keep you posted on what's happening, my sense is they would have gone along. The administration claims they kept the congress informed, but it's hard to tell exactly what they told them and how honest they were. Even Frist said he was told what was appropriate for him to be told. I interpret that somewhat enigmatic comment to mean that Frist knows they didn't tell him some things.

I have no idea what Bush was trying to hide. What I do know, from his comments about the wiretapping, from the attorney general's comments about inherent presidential power, and from the vice president's comments about restoring the presidency to its rightful position of power, it that they feel they can interpret the spirit of the law without honoring the letter of it.

I don't see how going around the court would be dodging political heat. There would have been no heat had they gone to the court. It's SOP, done by presidents of both parties for a long time. The only heat that would be generated would be if they didn't go to the court.

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
bocablkr, why can't you debate the issue with me in a civil manner instead of becoming so emotional and calling me crazy? Is it because that is all you lib's have when confronted on the issues?


[/ QUOTE ]

Happy to debate you any time on the issue. You have not named a peer reviewed organization from any country in the world. Do you know how many countries are in the world? Are they all part of some UN conspiracy?? By-the-way I am not even close to being a liberal except on social issues.
Conservative on some issues and middle of the road on others.

You are just parroting the party line when it comes to environmental regulations and it effects on industry. It has been shown that environmental regulations actually create jobs instead of losing them. The other health and environmental benefits are just a plus. They said the clean air and water act would destroy some industries - didn't happen. The recovery of the Great Lakes region has added hundreds of thousands of jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars into the economies of the Great Lake states.

Down in Tampa the local power company spent almost a billion dollars converting their plant to more efficient natural gas instaed of fighting the environmentalists. A billion dollars. Did it hurt them??? Nope. They recovered it in 3 years because they were so much more effiecient. The CEO, a republican could not believe it. They are more profitable now than ever before. The area residents no longer complain of breathing and sinus problems. And they ended up added almost a billion into the economy. Rush and his ditto heads don't know what they are talking about.

[Borodog]

3 words for you: Broken Window Fallacy.

Also, giant power companies LOVE lobbying for more strict environmental controls that require them to spend billions. Do you see why?

I'll give you a hint: what happens to their smaller competitors who can't afford the government-mandated conversions in order to comply with the new regulations?

[MMMMMM]

Good thoughtful post Andy.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
bocablkr, why can't you debate the issue with me in a civil manner instead of becoming so emotional and calling me crazy? Is it because that is all you lib's have when confronted on the issues?


[/ QUOTE ]

Happy to debate you any time on the issue. You have not named a peer reviewed organization from any country in the world. Do you know how many countries are in the world? Are they all part of some UN conspiracy?? By-the-way I am not even close to being a liberal except on social issues.
Conservative on some issues and middle of the road on others.



You are just parroting the party line when it comes to environmental regulations and it effects on industry. It has been shown that environmental regulations actually create jobs instead of losing them. The other health and environmental benefits are just a plus. They said the clean air and water act would destroy some industries - didn't happen. The recovery of the Great Lakes region has added hundreds of thousands of jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars into the economies of the Great Lake states.

Down in Tampa the local power company spent almost a billion dollars converting their plant to more efficient natural gas instaed of fighting the environmentalists. A billion dollars. Did it hurt them??? Nope. They recovered it in 3 years because they were so much more effiecient. The CEO, a republican could not believe it. They are more profitable now than ever before. The area residents no longer complain of breathing and sinus problems. And they ended up added almost a billion into the economy. Rush and his ditto heads don't know what they are talking about.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is good stuff. Attack, attack and attack some more rather than listening to another opinion. You are right, the rest of us shouldn't even post because you are the only intelligent one in the room, the one of "supreme knowledge", LMAO.

What "peer reviewed" organization have you provided that does? Again, I will repeat, what difference does it make if you have as many scientists say the sun causes it as you do members of some organization that says man causes it? You still haven't provided for me where it was that the President said it didn't exist.

If what you say is true down in Tampa, then that's splendid.

You can believe that man is responsible for all the global warming you want to. I guess mankind is responsible for the hurricanes too? I will continue to say that the sun is responsible for the majority of it. I will also say that the Kyoto Treaty is a joke and will hurt America.

It is quite evident that neither of us is changing the other's opinion.


"You cannot make a poor man rich by making a rich man poor".

[ALawPoker]

Oh, I didn't realize the unwarranted wire-tapping started back then. If that's the case, then I agree with you, he should have felt he had nothing to hide and would not have been trying to dodge political heat (at least, logically we can assume so).

I will say though, that considering how much of a no-brainer it would have been for the courts, the failure to use them was more likely due to incompetence/lack of knowledge in procedure/lack of regard/etc. (all of which, wrong), than it was a trampling of our rights.

[bocablkr]

Steve,

Do you know how to google. Just put in 'bush denies global warming' and see what you get. Below are some examples. I also have already told you that every single National Academy of science in every country that has one claims global warming is do to fossil fuel consumption. The National academies are among the most respected scientific oraganizations around the world.

Yes, globe is warming, even if Bush denies it

The Bush administration's mantra on climate change is this: The science is not yet in to prove a link between man's gas-and-coal guzzling habits and rising global temperatures that are causing glaciers to shrink, polar ice caps to melt and seas to rise.
Yet, as USA TODAY's Dan Vergano reported Monday, not only is the science in, it is also overwhelming. Last week, the National Academy of Sciences and 10 other leading world bodies said there is "significant global warming" that requires urgent action.
Another report last week further undercut claims of bad science: The New York Times disclosed that former oil industry lobbyist Philip Cooney, chief of staff of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, altered global warming reports to downplay links between emissions and climate change.

Bush Again Denies Climate Change By Antony Barnett

05 April, 2004 by the
Observer/UK

George W. Bush's campaign workers have hit on an age-old political tactic to deal with the tricky subject of global warming - deny, and deny aggressively.

Bush: Global warming is just hot air
The planet's getting hotter, ecosystems are going haywire, government scientists know it -- and still the president denies there's a problem. Guess which industry continues to fuel his campaign?

[CORed]

I'm certainly not suggesting that there should be no wiretapping of terrorists. I'm simply suggesting that it should be done under the laws that are already in place, which even allow the retroactive issuing of wiretaps on communications with foreign parties.
Bush wants an unfettered right to wiretap anybody he classifies as a "terrorist" with no review or controls. He has asserted the authority to imprison any U.S. citizen classified as an "enemy combatatant" without trial, and has done so (Padilla). It is becoming increasingly apparent that the "war on terror" is a convenient excuse for a massive increase in presidential power and usurpation of civil liberties. Bush has asserted that the fact that we are "at war" (which, legally, we are not) trumps every conceivable check on his authority. Some time in 2008, he will likely assert that it's just too dangerous to elect a new president while we are "at war" and unilaterally cancel the election, so he can remain in control until the "war on terror" has been won. The biggest threat to this country is not lurking in a Middle East desrt somewhere, he is sitting on th Oval Office.

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
It is becoming increasingly apparent that the "war on terror" is a convenient excuse for a massive increase in presidential power and usurpation of civil liberties.

[/ QUOTE ]

What exactly does Bush have to gain from a "usurpation of civil liberties"? "Hey let's start a war so that I can run some wire taps and take away people's civil liberties!"

[ QUOTE ]
Bush has asserted that the fact that we are "at war" (which, legally, we are not) trumps every conceivable check on his authority.

[/ QUOTE ]

What he has said about the wire taps is that their secrecy was essential for their effectiveness, hence not wanting to go through a court process. Whether or not you buy it, it's certainly conceiveable that his actions are intended for our protection; saying he's asserted that he can go unchecked whenever he wants is a big jump.

[ QUOTE ]
The biggest threat to this country is not lurking in a Middle East desrt somewhere, he is sitting on th Oval Office.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then I guess democracy sucks.... why are you living here?? That was some A+ rhetoric though, well done.

[ QUOTE ]
What he has said about the wire taps is that their secrecy was essential for their effectiveness, hence not wanting to go through a court process. Whether or not you buy it, it's certainly conceiveable that his actions are intended for our protection; saying he's asserted that he can go unchecked whenever he wants is a big jump.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh yeah, that FISA court leaks like a sieve. (rolls eyes) Do you even believe this stuff or are you just typing off of some talking points?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The biggest threat to this country is not lurking in a Middle East desrt somewhere, he is sitting on th Oval Office.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then I guess democracy sucks.... why are you living here?? That was some A+ rhetoric though, well done.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, clearly you have decided that democracy sucks since you support unchecked executive power. But "why are you living here??" Is that really the best you can do? Sorry, you get an F.

[andyfox]

"it's certainly conceiveable that his actions are intended for our protection; saying he's asserted that he can go unchecked whenever he wants is a big jump."

I agree with the first part. He may have acted in what he thought were national security interests. Let's assume that he did.

I don't see the big jump that you see in the second part of your statement though. The arguments that he, the attorney general, and the vice president have made assert that he has inherent powers under the constitution to act in the national interest. And that those powers permit him to wiretap, without a warrant, when he sees fit. They are saying precisely that he can go unchecked whenever he wants.

[ALawPoker]

"The arguments that he, the attorney general, and the vice president have made assert that he has inherent powers under the constitution to act in the national interest. And that those powers permit him to wiretap, without a warrant, when he see fit. They are saying precisely that he can go unchecked whenever he wants."

Well I would agree that he has asserted that he has the power to go unchecked, whenever he wants, as long his actions are necessary to national security.... and if that is the case, I don't have a problem with it.


Elliot, I'm just telling you the administration's stance on it (as far as I know). Do I really believe it? Sure. But I haven't informed myself on this subject as much as an uber-partisan Democrat looking for any reason to complain. Perhaps you're better informed. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[andyfox]

"Well I would agree that he has asserted that he has the power to go unchecked, whenever he wants, as long his actions are necessary to national security.... and if that is the case, I don't have a problem with it."

Fair enough. But I sure have a problem with it. Unhchecked power is dangerous. All tyrants claim they are protecting "national security" when doing their dirty deeds. I'm not saying Bush is a tyrant, I'm saying unchecked power is a road to tyrannical actions, paved with good intentions or not.

The FISA court has been quite generous in its interpretation of national security, approving thousands of wire taps while turning down only a handful. Bush could have wiretapped anyone he wanted to and had 72 hours to get approval thereafter. All such requests have not suffered from the court not being able to give approval because of time constraints, as a member of the court is always in Washington for just such reason. There is absolutely no national security reason--security, time, strong possibility of wiretaps being refused by the court--for Bush going around FISA.

That leads to the possibility that there are other reasons for it. Without imputing illicit motives to the administration, one can simply listen to what they are saying. And what they are saying is that the president's powers have been eroded and they want them "restored." So there we are on the road to tyrannical actions/ an imperial presidency.

[ALawPoker]

Damn it. If you keep writing things that coherently you force me to agree. /images/graemlins/crazy.gif