Former Vice President Al Gore called Monday for a special counsel to investigate what he charged was clear evidence that President Bush “has been breaking the law, repeatedly and insistently” by authorizing domestic wiretapping without a court review.
Without knowing more, it’s premature to say with certainty that laws have been broken, or to call for a special prosecutor. But Congress needs to address the fundamental and serious issue of whether these warrantless searches were illegal in upcoming Senate Judiciary Committee hearings.
Just how credible and thorough those hearings are could determine whether a special prosecutor is needed.
Gore was right about one thing: Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who would normally decide whether to appoint a special counsel, has an obvious conflict of interest in this case.
Posted by Randy Scholfield
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
50 Comments
GO FOR IT!!! Let the impeachment begin!!!
Well, there it is! Mr. “No governing legal authority” has spoken!
And to think, this idiot could have been president!
Hank
Hans, The crux of the problem is the President is indeed an idiot, and unfortunately , a world-class seond-to-none variety.
gster
To think an “idiot” would be a thousand times better than what we’ve wound-up with.
He’s actually refreshing.
You all think that Bush is corrupt and stupid but he isn’t; he is corrupt and EVIL!
All of you Clinton worshipping leftists should understand that there will be no Starbucks in the concentration camps.
V.L.R.B!!!
Al “Bill Clinton is the greatest president” Gore has no place to speak of anyone else’s govermental (I didn’t know I could use that phone to make fundraising calls) ethics.
It’s a simple question, and because we are a nation of laws it’s the single criteria upon which we should act in any way other than voting:
Were any laws violated?
If no: no harm, no foul.
If yes: let the law take its full course.
One politician’s “lack of ethics” doesn’t excuse anyone else’s law breaking behavior. If Bush broke the law, then he should be impeached.Hank, I can’t believe you think Gore is an “idiot” and Bush is some great hero who no “patriotic” citizen should even question. You’re not that gullible, or are you?
Flike,
Well said. It really is that simple, all the spin and distraction to the contrary.
Hank,
And that lame-ass ad hominem reply affects Gore’s factual claims how? Be precise.
Joe Blow,
Is that all you’ve got? Pretty sad. You need to try harder to kill the messenger, because the issue here isn’t ethics–it’s Constitutionality. Do try to get some more up to date spin.
Ian Santiago,
Am I correct that you’re trying to rally folks on the left to the idea that Bush is evil? Well, you’re a bit late to the party, and I find your views repugnant, but if you’re on board, you’re on board.
Republicans, why is it so hard for you to acknowledge that real Constitutional issues and the doctrine of the separation of powers are at stake here? Why the denial? Are you really that immature? Or do you think the Constiution is an optional document because it’s your guy in the driver’s seat?
Is bowing down before a Sovereign a Republican doctrine? Or are you just power-worshipping neo-fascists?
CF, you don’t want to get into a constitutionality argument with me, believe me.But just for sport….right to privacy, where is that written in the constitution? Not implied, not inferred, written. Gracias.
Privacy may not be expressly written in the Constitution, but it is a right based on precident and has long been respected in most cases by the court.My counter to you would be where in the Constitution to you find the idea of Unitary Executive? Does the 4th Amendment not apply to the President? I could have sworn he took an oath to uphold the Constitution, not re-write it.
“secure in their persons, houses, PAPERS, and effects … ”
The term PAPERS would logically incluse all forms of communication. I don’t think the Framers were familiar with telephones or the internet.
And we’re watching the dismantling of 230 years of our history. We fought a revolution to end the tyranny of an absolute monarch. And now the republicans want to crown a king. Are we winning the war on terrorism yet? How can we say we win if it has cost us our rights and our liberty? We’ve got a bunch of crooks in control of Congress and a madman in the Whitehouse. We’re screwed!
That we’re even having an argument about spying on Americans shows how far we’ve sunk. Bush and NSA were spying on Americans BEFORE 9/11 and 9/11 was just an excuse to continue.http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011306Z.shtml
This has got to stop. It’s against the law and no logical reason exists to put up with this. Bush needs to be impeached.
Bill Clinton, Bush 41, Ronald Reagan, and Jimmu Carter, all used the same authority in investigations relating to national security. We’re not talking about dope dealers or car thieves here. We’re talking about people talking to Al Qaeda and related groups.
If he was listening in on senior citizens trying to figure out how to scam more money out of Medicare well then go ahead and hang him. Otherwise you are just stuck on stupid.
You are wrong heckler. Those other presidents worked WITHIN the law. There IS a proceedure to follow which allows for pre-emptive wiretaps and subsequent notice to the FISA Court. Bush made the decision to violate the law in this regard.
Heckler–that’s exactly where you’re WRONG. Everybody agrees right, left, and center, that if Bush Co. can show a connection to Al Qaeda, they can tap. In fact they can tap 72 hours before they need to get a warrant.
Obviously, the problem is not getting a warrant for terrorists. It’s getting a warrant for NON-TERRORISTS. Those are the people W. wants to tap and those are the people FISA protects.
Here’s Gore’s response to the Attorney General’s LIES–
There are two problems with the Attorney General’s effort to focus attention on the past instead of the present Administration’s behavior. First, as others have thoroughly documented, his charges are factually wrong. Both before and after the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was amended in 1995, the Clinton/Gore Administration complied fully and completely with the terms of the law.
Second, the Attorney General’s attempt to cite a previous administration’s activity as precedent for theirs – even though factually wrong – ironically demonstrates another reason why we must be so vigilant about their brazen disregard for the law. If unchecked, their behavior would serve as a precedent to encourage future presidents to claim these same powers, which many legal experts in both parties believe are clearly illegal.
The issue, simply put, is that for more than four years, the executive branch has been wiretapping many thousands of American citizens without warrants in direct contradiction of American law.
Not only that, but Bush probably spied on ordinary citizens BEFORE 9-11.
“What had long been understood to be protocol in the event that the NSA spied on average Americans was that the agency would black out the identities of those individuals or immediately destroy the information.
“But according to people who worked at the NSA as encryption specialists during this time, that’s not what happened. On orders from Defense Department officials and President Bush, the agency kept a running list of the names of Americans in its system and made it readily available to a number of senior officials in the Bush administration, these sources said, which in essence meant the NSA was conducting a covert domestic surveillance operation in violation of the law.”
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011306Z.shtml
“In the anxious months after the Sept. 11 attacks, the National Security Agency began sending a steady stream of telephone numbers, e-mail addresses and names to the F.B.I. in search of terrorists. The stream soon became a flood, requiring hundreds of agents to check out thousands of tips a month. But virtually all of them, current and former officials say, led to dead ends or innocent Americans.”
“President Bush has characterized the eavesdropping program as a “vital tool” against terrorism; Vice President Dick Cheney has said it has saved “thousands of lives.”
But the results of the program look very different to some officials charged with tracking terrorism in the United States. More than a dozen current and former law enforcement and counterterrorism officials, including some in the small circle who knew of the secret program and how it played out at the F.B.I., said the torrent of tips led them to few potential terrorists inside the country they did not know of from other sources and diverted agents from counterterrorism work they viewed as more productive.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/17/politics/17spy.html
Good post, XXX.
And we’re to believe that Bush Co. only had our best interests at heart and didn’t spy on Democrats strategizing or grass-roots protestors.
Nixon did, but not Bush, never Bush . . .
Ben Huie
Did Clinton go to FISA when he did a no warrant search of Aldrich Aimes home?
Not defending Aimes, or criticizing Clinton, I think you have some facts wrong.
Joe Blow,
I see you think yourself able to pose an intellectual challenge. Sad thing is, you come armed with a faith in ‘literalism’ as an interpretive strategy that, conceptually, is the equivalent of bringing a knife to a gunfight. Although others have already done admirably at shredding your ‘arguments,’ the fact that you called me out while warning me not to respond, leaves me no choice.
I see that you set the bar at strict literalism, and claim to require a higher standard of proof than ‘implied’ or ‘inferred’ to claim a right of privacy in the Constitution. The history of Constitutional law already demonstrates this to be an intellectually bankrupt position; were all those judges wrong for all that time? But that’s beside the point. Instead, I’ll confine myself to this question: if privacy is not assumed, an assumption you claim is unwarranted because the word is never mentioned, does the IVth Amendent to the Bill of Rights or the XIVth Amendment make any sense? For the sake of brevity, I’ll leave aside the IXth Amendment.
For example, I could ask you the following: does the language of the IVth Amendment, which states “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized” make any sense if one does NOT assume that individuals have a right to a private domain, accessible only under extraordinary circumstances?
Do you not understand that the conditional statement here, which predicates the State’s ability to enter the personal sphere only upon probable cause, is based upon the unstated assumption of privacy?
Can you, Joe Blow, make any sense of the Amendment if the implicit acknowledgement of privacy is removed? And if you cannot, then do you have any choice but to attribute to the Framers, Madison in particular, some preunderstanding of a concept resembling privacy? If you disagree, then explain: what sense would the Fourth Amendment make if one did NOT assume privacy? And if the answer is ‘no sense,’ then you find yourself in the unenviable position of asserting that the Framers meant to keep the State out of citizens’ homes on some pretext other than ‘privacy.’ Pray tell, Joe Blow, what pretext would THAT be?
Without privacy, the Amendment loses its rationale. And without this rationale, what would have been the point in formulating it at all?
One could also cite the Fourteenth Amendment, which states, in part, “No State shall… deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” A question, Joe Blow: can one envision a robust conception of ‘liberty’ that does NOT entail a right to privacy?
The bankruptcy of this phony insistence on literalism becomes transparently clear, if, as Nicki excellently suggests above, one turns this interpretive method back on its practitioners.
Please show me Joe Blow, where, in solely literal terms, the Constitution enfranchises the theory of the Unitary Executive that all the self proclaimed ’strict constructionists’ have been espousing and defending recently. Specifically, where does it say the Executive has the right to make law and to evade the dictates of Congressional legislation? There is no textual evidence supporting this view; quite the contrary, in fact, as others have pointed out. And by rigidly insisting on ‘literalism’ as the sole standard of evidence, you deprive yourself of the inferential evidence upon which such a Constitutionally groundless argument would be forced to depend.
That is, the pseudo-standard of a ’strict construction’ rules out the possiblity of introducing the strictly inferential evidence that would support the constitutionality of a Unitary Executive.
‘Constitution in Exile’ types may dislike the facts, but that doesn’t change a thing. The Constition functions ONLY if one understands and reasons through its implied doctrines. Words, Joe Blow, signify concepts. And a concept need not also be explicitly mentioned in order to function. And in fact, one could argue, the most important concepts are the most implicit ones. Smart people understand this.
‘Strict constructionists’ and others like them pretend not to, but when push comes to shove, always find a way to invoke some implicit, unstated assumption to advance their cause. “Bush v. Gore,” anyone?
Joe Blow, I await your response.
Here’s Scott McClellan in today’s White House Press briefing:
In terms of Al Gore’s comments, I think his hypocrisy knows no bounds. It was the Clinton administration that used warrantless physical searches. An example is what they did in the case of Aldrich Ames. And it was the Deputy Attorney General under the Clinton administration that testified before Congress and said, “First, the Department of Justice believes and the case law supports that the President has inherent authority” — inherent authority — “to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes and that the President may, as has been done, delegate this authority to the Attorney General.” This is testimony, public testimony before the House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
The above will be the basis of Alberto Gonzales’s arguments before congress. Don’t forget this is the same Gonzalez who thumbed his nose at Mexico when Texas executed one of their citizens. He argued that since Texas did not enter into the treaties that prevented such actions, they were not subject to these proscriptions. I know they like to think of themselves as “a whole another country” down there – but this reasoning is pretty crazy.
Gore is right, there needs to be an independent prosecutor. Any bets on the liklihood of that?
Joe Blow, I think you just walked into a buzz-saw.
CF, very well done!
“CF, you don’t want to get into a constitutionality argument with me, believe me” -Joe Blow
All of a sudden you’re a constitutional scholar? That is a good one :)
CF, I rarely read long posts but I did read yours. Outstanding.
Heckler,
I believe you are the one who has his facts wrong in claiming that Clinton’s no-warrant search of Aldrich Ames’ house was the same as Bush’s. This is from the AP, and is the sequel to Steven E’s post above:
“McClellan said the Clinton-Gore administration had engaged in warrantless physical searches, and he cited an FBI search of the home of CIA turncoat Aldrich Ames without permission from a judge. He said Clinton’s deputy attorney general, Jamie Gorelick, had testified before Congress that the president had the inherent authority to engage in physical searches without warrants.
“I think his hypocrisy knows no bounds,” McClellan said of Gore.
“But at the time of the Ames search in 1993 and when Gorelick testified a year later, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act required warrants for electronic surveillance for intelligence purposes, but did not cover physical searches. The law was changed to cover physical searches in 1995 under legislation that Clinton supported and signed.”
So, Heckler, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and trust that you didn’t know that the spin you pushing was a deliberate lie by the WH and lil’ Scotty. But now you know.
The difference between Clinton and Bush? Clinton respected the rule of law and the separation of powers. Bush demonstrably does not, and has to misrepresent the actions of former Presidents in order to cover up his own wrongdoing.
XXX and k,
You flatter me. But where, oh where, is Joe Blow? I sure could use a lesson in ‘constitutionality’ right about now.
Witherering retaliation to “Joe’s Blow” CF. Well done. I suspect we shall see no further posts on this from Joes Blow.
But that isn’t unexpected. Heck, look who else we got defending the predident who wasn’t elected. Not to mention that they continue to support him even though he pursued weapons that weren’t, a threat that wasn’t.Well we got blowing Joe. I think CF dismissed him. Hey we got Heckler! Look up heckler in the dictionary. I think it speaks to someone off the stage who disrupts a performance with taunts and distraction. Perfect for you Heck ol boy. Particularly since your posts continue to come straight from Rush Limbaugh talking points. Scroll up readers: that “stuck on stupid” phrase Heck used? Lifted DIRECTLY from Limbaugh.
Wow look who else is here to defend the right of bush to use his “decency” and “integrity” and wants us to trust bush with the authority to spy on Americans. Why it’s HANK! Hey Hank how ya been? Did you figure out yet if you are kindly old Hank the VFW guy? Or are you Nathan, the Marine stationed in Kansas with no Marine base? OR are you both Nathan and hank? Hey maybe the spy powers you trust bush with can help ya sort it out!
Uh folks? I aint here to bash conservatives. (as much fun as that is and as much as I despise them) See? cause as relates to these very important constitutional issues regarding Executive power, real conservatives are on the same side as me. Gore called for a special proseutor. Guess whois also on board with that and who was there for Al Gore’s speech? Bob Barr! Guess who also is on board? Christopher Hitchens!
Now to you lingering “bushies”… (nevermind that your credibility, knowledge, independent thinking, and even your true understanding of the Constitution and patriotism have been pretty much destroyed here) I ask you a question beause I’d really liketo know:
Just how much latitude do you give bush? How far can he go? When is it too much?
Now maybe I just am biased and I just don’t get it because I truly do despise bush and everything that made him. (I was careful writing that. If anyone needs to read it I wanted my spelling and punctuation at least correct) I have to offer that to be intellectually honest.
But what about you Blow? Now Heck I know Rush does your thinking so you go ask him. Hank? If you figure out who YOU are then you can answer too:
Should we afford bush powers of dictatorship? He has expressed in witticism a desire for them. Should we then agree to allow him anything and ask nothing? Is that really what you are advocating here today on Benjamin Franklin’s 300th birthday?—–
J R,
Very timely, what with the reference to Benjamin Franklin, and right on point: what lengths WON’T folks on the Right go to defending the indefensible if it is Bush in the driver’s seat? When will folks like Heckler, who I find to be pretty reasonable, begin to get nervous about this executive power grab?
Like J R, I am still waiting for a satisfactory answer to these questions. A lot of folks are. And Bush’s actions thus far don’t merit investigation by an independent counsel, then what does?
I wonder, which of his father’s friends will bail him out for this current business enterprise of his. Obviously he’s a Christian wanna-be, since he failed to heed the Scripture, especially the parable that says that when one can be trusted to do the right things in small affairs, only then responsibility for big affairs should be granted. Yeah, Bush the Satanic Christian…
“Joe Blow, I think you just walked into a buzz-saw.”
Hehe, well put, XXX, and I agree with you and others about CF’s post.
No time for blogging these days, but I thought I should say that. Ciao!
If I didn’t say so before, welcome back, JR.
We can discuss wire tapping till hell freezes over. Something to consider. A right lost to this conservative dictator is a right lost forever.
Think about it.
With the republicans in charge, if it isn’t one damn thing, it’s another.
“About the only result the administration has been able to dredge up on behalf of the spying program is the claim that the information it gained helped disrupt two plots: one to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge and one to detonate fertilizer bombs in London. But officials in Washington and Britain disputed the connection. And that plot to cut down the Brooklyn Bridge with a blowtorch has been trotted out so many times that it would be comical if the issue were not so serious.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/18/opinion/18wed1.html?hp
The left wing bloggers seems to have declared victory, at least in your own minds. Too bad that’s as far as it goes.
Quote from a story regarding a 1-12-06 poll by Fox News.
“By 58 percent to 36 percent, Americans think the president should have the power to authorize the National Security Agency (NSA) to monitor electronic communications of suspected terrorists without getting warrants, even if one end of the communication is in the United States. Furthermore, six in 10 say they are personally okay with the NSA monitoring their international telephone calls.”
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,181462,00.html
Seems that most Americans trust the President with the power he claims is inherent. They apparently don’t mind the President pushing the enveleope a bit in an effort to protect the country. Since I am not a constiutional scholar, I will give the president the benefit of the doubt, as will most Americans not emotionally affected with the “hate Bush” virus.
Only if it is shown that the wiretaps went beyond that, will this end up even being a political negative, much less an impeachable offense. Sorry guys.
I’m really glad we have XXX to tell us how to protect ourselves.
Otherwise, we would know anything.
Thank you, oh, wise one.
By the way, your crown is slipping.
Thanks for teaching me that line.
And thanks for not drooling or bumping into me, Steve. By the way, that’s got to be your longest post. Am I getting to you?
I really enjoy our conversations, even though your side seems to be mostly monosyllabic.
“Thanks for teaching me that line”
See, we’re making progress. Who says a moron isn’t trainable?
Ok, let’s try something else simple, Steve.
Go get the ball…Fetch!
“Otherwise, we would know anything”
Oh Steve, we’re going to have to work on your english usage! I can’t have my pet fool sounding like a fool.
Bad Steve!
Outlander, a poll from Fox? Well I’m sure we can’t question their voracity. Fair and unbalanced.
I wonder what an independent poll would say? How about Zogby? They’re considered impartial.
“By a margin of 52% to 43%, Americans want Congress to consider impeaching President Bush if he wiretapped American citizens without a judge’s approval, according to a new poll commissioned by AfterDowningStreet.org, a grassroots coalition that supports a Congressional investigation of President Bush’s decision to invade Iraq in 2003.
The poll was conducted by Zogby International, the highly-regarded non-partisan polling company. The poll interviewed 1,216 U.S. adults from January 9-12.”http://www.democrats.com/bush-impeachment-poll-2
And notice, this poll is more recient than yours.
Outlander, you have to do better than that!
Isn’t it amazing XXX, how they can come up with such conflicting results. I notice your link is to democrats.com. No chance of bias there, huh. I suppose that we will believe who we want to believe.
Zogby is no different than any other pollster. Results depends upon the question, how it is asked, and to whom. Also, the Zogby poll is January 9-12. It is not more recent, since the Opinion Dynamics Corp poll commissioned by Fox News is January 10-11.
“56 percent of respondents in an AP-Ipsos poll said the government should be required to first get a court warrant to eavesdrop on the overseas calls and e-mails of U.S. citizens when those communications are believed to be tied to terrorism.”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060107/ap_on_go_pr_wh/eavesdropping_ap_poll
Thanks the kudos CF And XXX. I’ve been away due to family illness. On my late fathers behalf, I am back now.
I asked a question. As I predicted, Joes blow, Hank/nathan, and Heck Limbaugh chose not to answer.
Got here late Outlander? So I ask you. How much is enough? How far will you go to defend bush? See deal is I used to BE a conservative. In some ways, I still am. DO I have to teach you “neocons” what conservative means?
You folks in the dwindling bush ranks might do well to actually stop and think! Someone, I don’t know who, said that “Patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels”. Now you best reflect on that. It is ever too easy to wave the flag and implicitly trust the leader and allow him everything and follow him anywhere. (Newsreels from 1930’s Germany are very educational in this) But true patriotism in the spirit of our founding fathers DEMANDS that we question our government.
If bush is the paragon of virtue that a little less than half of this nation continues to believe he is, he ought to WELCOME questions as to what he is doing and why. He should be welcoming investigations as to his actions and not questioning the patriotism of those who ask for those investigations.
You’re right, Outlander, it depends on how the question was asked. This about the Fox Poll:
“There was a big problem with the poll question — it failed to say that President Bush was conducting the wiretapping without a warrant.”
I know it bothers you to link to a site with democrat in the name. Here’s the poll reported in the newspaper.
http://regulus2.azstarnet.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=240
Republicans are so slippery!
XXX: I’m looking again at the poll and it does specifically mention “without getting warrants”.
Look, I don’t want to get hung up in poll results. They show that the country is split. No surprise there.
My point is again, that unless the wiretaps went a lot further than monitoring the conversations with suspected Al Qaeda members or sympathizers, I don’t think it is going anywhere politically.
JR: I don’t have any idea where you are coming from, but I don’t dispute the wisdom of questioning the actions or motives of our leaders.
What I do mind is jumping to conclusions without all the facts. That happens here quite often. We have people on this blog ready to impeach the president for doing what he thought necessary to protect the country. That is not a selfish act. IF he crossed the line in doing so, we will find out. The fact that the question has come up shows that our system is working. But don’t expect the average American to consider it a big deal.
Nixon thought he was doing the right thing for the country too. If the house had not been led by the opposition party, no-harm, no-foul would have been the order of the day in the 70’s too.
The FACT is that the president threw a big drag net and spied on american citizens without warrants and without using the legal methods already available.
Outlander, how will we know how many good americans were harmed by this? Do you think Scotty is gonna come to the microphone, hat in hand, and say, “gee, here are the people who were wronged”?
The Bush apologists set up more of their loopy logic that no one can sue unless they were spied on, but no one can find out who was actually spied on because, well, that is for us to know and you all to find out.
I cant wait for the next gun hating president to tap the phones of gun owners so he knows where to send the authorities to seize them just in case the owner might be a terrorist. It sure would be different if the jackboot were on the other foot, eh outlander?
Of course, the average person will think it is no big deal.
Ksfarmgirl: Surely you can come up with something better to illustrate a point than to compare gun owners in mass to Al Qaeda terrorists and their supporters!
“Outlander, how will we know how many good americans were harmed by this? Do you think Scotty is gonna come to the microphone, hat in hand, and say, “gee, here are the people who were wronged”?”
I don’t know. Have you heard of anyone complaining that they’ve been harmed?
If you will actually read my posts instead of just going off you will notice that I don’t object to investigation of and getting to the bottom of the issue. What I don’t support is jumping to conclusions without the necessary facts.
Well isn’t that interesting, Outlander? I read the pdf of the poll at the Fox website and sure enough, questions 30 and 31 both specify “without warrant”. But you miss the point. The difference comes when the question is about spying on AMERICANS without a warrant, and that’s the whole point. I don’t have any problem with spying on terrorists, warrant or not. I DO have a problem with the government spying on Americans.
“I don’t think it is going anywhere politically.”
You could be right. Personally, I hope we break it off in Bush’s @ss for this, but there may not be the political will. A lot of Americans are scared to death right now, and we know fear is a powerful emotion. I have a lot of friends that are conservative, and they tell me that they don’t care about civil liberty, they just want to be safe. That’s a little hard for me to accept, but there it is. If the majority of Americans are willing to sacrifice their liberty for security, then you’re right. This will go nowhere.
Still, having fought for your liberty and seeing my friends die to secure your liberty, I’m sure you’ll understand my disgust at seeing people so willing to surrender liberty.
What good is the constitution if you are dead….
Ann,What good are you if the costitution is dead?
Ann, there was a time when Americans defended the Constitution. You may not believe it, but in the not too distant past, Americans were willing to die in it’s defense. But that was before half of the country turned into sniveling cowards. Ann, would you believe that people who used to defend the Constitution were called “Patriots”?
Just out . . . USA Today poll – Do you think a special prosecutor should be, or should not be appointed to investigate this matter (wire-taps)?
58% yes, should39% no, should not
based on random poll of 500 adults, Jan. 20-22, 2006. Margin of error +/- 5 percentage points.
He can rename his crime any way he wants, it does not appear the American public is buying that crap.
corrupt lobbyists, perverts, child molesters, drug dealers etc, ignorant(malicious liberals)…Fear wire taps. I do not. for the safety of my family and our country, listen on.
“Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither” -Benjamin Franklin