Defiant Bush admits breaking law

[Steve Bartman's my idol]

Which one? The National ID card or the Devil's advocate post?

 

(I'm 100% serious about National ID cards!)

[Texsox]

Which one? The National ID card or the Devil's advocate post?

 

(I'm 100% serious about National ID cards!)

 

Devil's advocate.

 

I'm still concerned about potential abuses of the national ID card, but leaning towards believing they are a good thing, or at least necessary.

 

What worries me is the potential for abuse. As long as it isn't much more than combining a Social Security card, with a driver's license, and a Passport, I'm ok with it.

[southsider2k5]

And how the HECK that you know for sure southsider2k5?

 

8 years of his Presidency?

[WilliamTell]

George W. Bush has never lied about anything since he was defeated into office back in 2000.

 

If you can't win in your home state like Al Gore didn't in Tennessee, that says something. I love it how many topics always come back to the 2000 election. A Republican is always going to have a hard time with the Democrats and vice versa, Bush has had it more from the get go because he "cheated" his way into the office.

[Balta1701]

I guess the only argument (to play Devil's advocate) is...if you have nothing to hide, why worry about your phone being tapped?

 

:banghead

Again, I still don't think that's even the issue yet. Aside from my credit card number/personal info, I really don't have anything to hide. I'm not sure I'd be happy if my phone was tapped, but that's beside the point.

 

The point is this...the law is very clear on the procedures that were needed to be followed to obtain those taps legally. If the President felt there was a problem with those procedures, there are obvious things he could have done - i.e. heading to Congress and asking them to change the law. If Congress was willing to give him the ability to enlist librarians in the fight, and invade the wrong country, given his political capitol in 2002, he could easily have gotten changes passed in that law if he chose to.

 

He deliberately chose to defy the law. The President could very easily have asked to have the law changed if he truly felt it was necessary for national security (by every single rational explanation, it wouldn't have been). But he instead chose to break it.

 

That decision has nothing at all to do with protecting Americans, fighting Al Qaeda, or anything else. It has everything to do with either establishing a precedent of the President being able to use the authorization to fight Al Qaeda to nullify whatever law the President chooses or even more simply a general disrespect for the law of the nation itself. This was not a move against Al Qaeda. Using wiretaps against Al Qaeda is not the issue. The issue is the President's move to violate U.S. law and his attempt to justify that. Whichever reason they have for it...whether they're attempting to actually set a precedent, or they just don't respect the law...they're both terrible.

 

I really don't have anything to hide as far as I know. But if the President wanted to tap my phone, all I'd ask is that they follow the law. That's all. (Btw, Hillary Clinton is a Cubs fan right?...do we want risk her having that power a few years down the road?)

Edited December 19, 2005 by Balta1701

[White Sox Josh]

Bush has been one of our worst presidents yet. He has been that bad. I am sure he is a nice guy but i am counting down until HE GONE!

[Heads22]

If you can't win in your home state like Al Gore didn't in Tennessee, that says something. I love it how many topics always come back to the 2000 election. A Republican is always going to have a hard time with the Democrats and vice versa, Bush has had it more from the get go because he "cheated" his way into the office.

 

If people are voting for someone jsut because he's from the state, we've got problems. Would Bush have won Massachusetts if he was from Boston?

[FlaSoxxJim]

Let me add this interesting bit of infortmation. Not only is Sen. Feingold at the forefront of those taking GWB to task for his disregard of the law and the US Constitution, he was also asking questions that are nor pregnant with meaning back during the confirmation hearings of Alberto "Abu" Gonzales for Attorney General.

 

SEN. FEINGOLD: I -- Judge Gonzales, let me ask a broader question. I'm asking you whether in general the president has the constitutional authority, does he at least in theory have the authority to authorize violations of the criminal law under duly enacted statutes simply because he's commander in chief? Does he -- does he have that power?

 

Gonzales' eventual answer:

 

MR. GONZALES: Senator, this president is not -- I -- it is not the policy or the agenda of this president to authorize actions that would be in contravention of our criminal statutes.

 

And even in the event of a circumstance that resulted in the president contravening the law, Gonzales had this to say with regard to notification:

 

SEN. FEINGOLD: Finally, will you commit to notify Congress if the president makes this type of decision and not wait two years until a memo is leaked about it?

 

MR. GONZALES: I will to advise the Congress as soon as I reasonably can, yes, sir.

 

Deceitful, arrogant bastards from top to bottom.

 

Of course, Everybody Does It®

 

[Reddy]

this whole thing is NOT a question of "would you mind if"

 

this is a president breaking a f***ing law! (not that he hasnt before but this is the first that he has admitted to and that people seem to care about)

 

can anyone put aside their political bias and see this for what it is? our president feels he is above the law and that is something that is unacceptable. he should be impeached because hey, lemme tell ya, this is just slightly worse than lying about an affair...

[kapkomet]

Hey...

 

 

I missed everyone.

 

I'm not sure what I think of this yet. I hate the thought of it, and I'm against blasting through the Constitution for it.

 

But Flaxx, hypothetically, what if you or your family were a target, and they could glean information to stop it? Meaning, say your favorite mall was a target. And your wife was shopping in there, and through a wire tap, they gained information and arrested the assholes who could or would do this? What then?

 

This issue has happened 30 times... out of how many TRILLIONS of phone conversations since 9/11? Yet, the left wants to make this the biggest issue since ... 9/11.

 

It's wrong... but how wrong is it?

 

I can't quite wrap my head around that yet.

[Reddy]

Hey...

 

 

I missed everyone. 

 

I'm not sure what I think of this yet.  I hate the thought of it, and I'm against blasting through the Constitution for it.

 

But Flaxx, hypothetically, what if you or your family were a target, and they could glean information to stop it?  Meaning, say your favorite mall was a target.  And your wife was shopping in there, and through a wire tap, they gained information and arrested the assholes who could or would do this?  What then?

 

This issue has happened 30 times... out of how many TRILLIONS of phone conversations since 9/11?  Yet, the left wants to make this the biggest issue since ... 9/11.

 

It's wrong...  but how wrong is it?

 

I can't quite wrap my head around that yet.

 

 

he who willingly sacrifices liberty for security deserves neither security nor liberty.

 

that quote comes from Ben Franklin - ya know, one of those dudes who helped do that whole declaration of independence and constitution thing... heard of him?

 

oh by the way, Ben was also a Quaker. did you guys know that Quakers are one of the groups that has been tapped by the government?

 

Yeah... pretty unamerican if ya ask me

[Texsox]

Kap, we can always come up with a scenario where we would give up every right and freedom we have. We could get rid of probable cause, we could make everyone guilty until proven innocent, we could profile and round up anyone that matches that profile, we could round up every gun in America and execute anyone caught with one. Any of those scenarios would be plausible if it would save your life, your wife, or your soon to be baby. But that isn't what makes America strong. It isn't the beacon we shine to the world. It isn't the America we cram down the throats of any country we can.

 

I'm thinking out loud here, but somewhere there is a lesson and inspiration in that tens of thousands of American soldiers have died to preserve these freedoms. Are we spitting on their graves to give those freedoms up so easily? They are heroes and we are the weakest, spineless, ungrateful citizens that inherited those rights and freedoms.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Hey...

 

 

I missed everyone. 

 

I'm not sure what I think of this yet.  I hate the thought of it, and I'm against blasting through the Constitution for it.

 

But Flaxx, hypothetically, what if you or your family were a target, and they could glean information to stop it?  Meaning, say your favorite mall was a target.  And your wife was shopping in there, and through a wire tap, they gained information and arrested the assholes who could or would do this?  What then?

 

This issue has happened 30 times... out of how many TRILLIONS of phone conversations since 9/11?  Yet, the left wants to make this the biggest issue since ... 9/11.

 

It's wrong...  but how wrong is it?

 

I can't quite wrap my head around that yet.

 

It seems that the wind is knocked out of hypotheticals like this when you take into consideration everything that has been said about the ease in which emergency sire taps and such can be procured just as long as the peperwork seeking formal authorization is filed within 72 hours.

 

Why would protocol, the law, and the Constitution not be upheld by the President if he could still have accomplished what he wanted to within legal/constitutional channels? Unless he has decided that the law and the Constitution are beneath him.

[kapkomet]

It seems that the wind is knocked out of hypotheticals like this when you take into consideration everything that has been said about the ease in which emergency sire taps and such can be procured just as long as the peperwork seeking formal authorization is filed within 72 hours.

 

Why would protocol, the law, and the Constitution not be upheld by the President if he could still have accomplished what he wanted to within legal/constitutional channels?  Unless he has decided that the law and the Constitution are beneath him.

So he's just being a f***ing asshole? That's it? No other reason?

 

Conversation's over, I think, because that is what this always turns into.

 

(paraphrasing)...

 

George Bush did this because he's a f***ing prick asshole who takes a f***ing s*** with the US Constitution. No other motive, just wants to piss and s*** on it.

 

(end)

 

As I said, I'm not sure what to think yet, because truthfully I haven't read up on it (been away a lot)... on the surface, it's BS... but I'm really disheartened by the rhetoric that says he did this for NOTHING but to be a dick against the US Constitution.

[Texsox]

So he's just being a f***ing asshole?  That's it?  No other reason?

 

Conversation's over, I think, because that is what this always turns into.

 

(paraphrasing)...

 

George Bush did this because he's a f***ing prick asshole who takes a f***ing s*** with the US Constitution.  No other motive, just wants to piss and s*** on it.

 

(end)

 

As I said, I'm not sure what to think yet, because truthfully I haven't read up on it (been away a lot)... on the surface, it's BS... but I'm really disheartened by the rhetoric that says he did this for NOTHING but to be a dick against the US Constitution.

 

You are usually the first one to list f***ing asshole and Bush in the same sentence. :headshake

[Mercy!]

You are usually the first one to list f***ing asshole and Bush in the same sentence.  :headshake

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

..... as well as "f***ing prick asshole" I believe.

 

So tell me again, what was the big deal about just calling Mr. Bush the Penis-in-Chief? Not that I'd ever do such a thing, of course. But it does sound more respectful, if you ask me.

[FlaSoxxJim]

So he's just being a f***ing asshole?  That's it?  No other reason?

 

 

You tell me then, Kap. Read up on it, when you get the time, and come up with the cogent reasons necessitating this behavior that all of the legal minds not in George's pocket can't seem to come up with.

 

And I don't think it's just about his being an asshole (which he is of course). I deal with assholes every day of my life. I doubt any of them will ever find themselves in a position where they can by executive fiat disregard the statutes and the 4th and 2nd amendments with impunity to illegally authorize spying on American citizens, and to be so brazen about it as to not only say he'll continue to do it but to also blame the whistleblowers and the MSM for being the root of the problem.

 

Despite 5 years of being pretty much bulletproof, the president is now in legal jeopardy. GWB is in play.

Edited December 19, 2005 by FlaSoxxJim

[Reddy]

You tell me then, Kap.  Read up on it, when you get the time, and come up with the cogent reasons necessitating this bbehavior that all of the legal minds not in George's pocket can't seem to come up with.

 

And I don't think it's just about his being an asshole (which he is of course).  I deal with assholes every day of my life.  I doubt any of them will ever find themselves in a position where they can by executive fiat disregard the statutes and the 4th and 2nd amendments with impunity to illegally authorize spying on American citizens, and to be so beazen about it as to not only say he'll continue to do it but to also blame the whistleblowers and the MSM for being the root of the problem.

 

Despite 5 years of being pretty much bulletproof, the president is now in legal jeopardy.  GWB is in play.

[EvilMonkey]

Let me add this interesting bit of infortmation.  Not only is Sen. Feingold at the forefront of those taking GWB to task for his disregard of the law and the US Constitution, he was also asking questions that are nor pregnant with meaning back during the confirmation hearings of Alberto "Abu" Gonzales for Attorney General.

Deceitful, arrogant bastards from top to bottom.

 

Of course, Everybody Does It®

 

 

Feingold would get his panties in a bunch if the President said "Bless you" after someone sneezed. I seem to recall seeing that leaders of both parties were notified quite often of the goings on, and noone seemed to want to voice an objection then. Or at least not publicly.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/12/17/...D8EIA4MG0.shtml

 

Bush said leaders in Congress have been briefed more than a dozen times. Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., told House Republicans that those informed were the top Republican and Democratic leaders of the House and Senate and of each chamber's intelligence committees. "They've been through the whole thing," Hoekstra said.

 

Not saying that it is OK because some Dems knew it was going on, but wondering why they didn't say anything if they thought this was so bad? To get all indignant like they didn't know this was happening is simply pure politics. Sure, Pelosi SAYS she had reservations at the time. You know that is a lie, because if she did, her pure hatred for Bush would have sent her running to the NY Times, or leaking a memo somewhere. Why did they not insist on hearings for this? They insisited for hearings over Iraq, this certainly seems just as important.

[Mercy!]

I think this quotation in USA Today from a former general counsel of the National Security Agency makes an important point:

The Supreme Court has never precisely determined the line between presidential powers in wartime and legal protections, said Elizabeth Rindskopf Parker, dean of the University of the Pacific McGeorge School of Law and a former general counsel for the NSA. She called Bush's order "a serious mistake" on political and practical rather than legal grounds. "Whether or not his theory is correct, the thing that is most important ... is that you must go forward in a way that ensures you have public confidence and trust," Parker said.

I almost posted yesterday that there was a whiff of Watergate in the air, but it seemed a silly comparison. Now, I'm not so sure. Although their motives may have been different, both Nixon and Bush have demonstrated a real lack of understanding of why their actions are dangerous for our democracy, and an amazing contempt for the law.

 

I think people are going to say in the future, as they did about Nixon, why do you suppose he was so stupid? So far, no one has shown a need for Bush to circumvent the FISA process.

[Rex Kickass]

Ah yes, the great debate.

 

Bush is a prick/Democrats are pricks.

 

Everyone knows where I stand with our President. I voted for other candidates in both elections, and worked actively to defeat him last year. I think that he has generally been a disaster. And before you tell me that I'm biased because I'm a democrat, I also think that JFK was a disaster. And that Bill Clinton sold me out in 1996. (I didn't vote for him either)

 

But I will say this. The law is pretty damn clear and pretty damn accomodating to make sure that surveillance in absolute time of necessity is taken care of. You need to get a warrant within 72 hours from a secret court which almost always agrees to the warrant.

 

I don't know why Bush decided to circumvent this seemingly easy process. I'd like to hear his justifications for it. I don't know why he'd need to circumvent this process. I will say this. Any president who apparently wipes his ass with the constitution like Bush may well have done for three years deserves to not have his job. Give me a legitimate reason for why he did what he did, and I'll give our President the benefit of the doubt. But, given that the law in this matter bends over backwards already - I don't know how I can.

 

This is an inexcusable abuse of power, if what I understand about this story is true.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Not saying that it is OK because some Dems knew it was going on, but wondering why they didn't say anything if they thought this was so bad? To get all indignant like they didn't know this was happening is simply pure politics.  Sure, Pelosi SAYS she had reservations at the time.  You know that is a lie, because if she did, her pure hatred for Bush would have sent her running to the NY Times, or leaking a memo somewhere.  Why did they not insist on hearings for this?  They insisited for hearings over Iraq, this certainly seems just as important.

 

As far as Pelosi running to the NYT, well it doesn;t appear that it would have done much good seeing as the NYT appeased the administration an sat n the story for a year. Potentially saving the 2004 election for GWB in the process, btw.

 

As for you intimation that Pelosi could have just "leaked a memo" somewhere, as if that were her modus operandi, please list for me the memos Pelosi has leaked to the press thus far so I can better understand this point. Thank you.

Edited December 19, 2005 by FlaSoxxJim

[EvilMonkey]

As far as Pelosi running to the NYT, well it doesn;t appear that it would have done much good seeing as the NYT appeased the administration an sat n the story for a year.  Potentially saving the 2004 election for GWB in the process, btw.

 

As for you intimation that Pelosi could have just "leaked a memo" somewhere, as if that were her modus operandi, please list for me the memos Pelosi has leaked to the press thus far so I can better understand this point.  Thank you.

 

My point merely being that her hatred of all things Bush should have led her to find some way to make her reservations known if they were that strong. Instead, she waits until the cat is out of the bag, then says 'oh yeah, I was worried about that, I told him!'.

[YASNY]

I had to bail out before reading all of this thread. But, I just want to say one thing to all you people bashing our President....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm in complete agreement with you.

Edited December 19, 2005 by YASNY

[southsider2k5]

Gonzales is saying Bush's actions are legal... This ought to be an interesting fight.

 

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle....PING.xml&rpc=22