Originally Posted By woody This issue is getting defused rather quickly. Congress is ready to compromise so there is oversight, but no Constitutional challedge to the President's authority. I'm not sure what this means to the critics except you haven't gotten Bush yet. Forget about impeachment. Move on!!! I know they will. I can't wait for the next New York Times exclusive. More secrets to reveal.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Which law?> The 1947 National Security Act. <He notified the leadership of both houses, and both parties, and the leaders, of both parties, of the intelligence committees.> Not good enough. The non-partisan Congressional Research Service concluded that Bush's actions "would appear to be inconsistent with the law." <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-01-19-surveillance-usat_x.htm" target="_blank">http://www.usatoday.com/news/w ashington/2006-01-19-surveillance-usat_x.htm</a> "The Bush administration probably should have informed the members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees of its secret surveillance program initiated after the Sept. 11 attacks, not merely a handful of congressional leaders, according to a report Wednesday by a research arm of Congress. The report by the non-partisan Congressional Research Service (CRS) said that the Bush administration's decision to limit briefings on the electronic surveillance to eight senior lawmakers "would appear to be inconsistent with the law, which requires that 'congressional intelligence committees be kept fully and currently informed of all intelligence activities.' "
Originally Posted By Beaumandy By now we have all heard Bush talk today about the attack this spy program stopped back in 2002. The dems and the libs are now all of a sudden saying they are OK with spying as they see yet another " scandal " and " chimpeachment " opportunity go up in flames. Libs suck when it comes to serious political matters.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "This issue is getting defused rather quickly. Congress is ready to compromise so there is oversight, but no Constitutional challedge to the President's authority" I don't know where you're getting your information, woody. This link seems to say the opposite. <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/09/eavesdropping.ap/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITI CS/02/09/eavesdropping.ap/index.html</a>
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Congress is ready to compromise so there is oversight, but no Constitutional challedge to the President's authority.> That may be (and we'll see what kind of oversight they insist on), but even if they do, any law the Congress passes must also pass Constitutional muster. They could not, to take an obvious example, declare slavery to be legal again, even if it was unanimous. If someone with standing (say, someone who was wiretapped) takes the government to court, this may yet be decided in a way that neither the president nor the Congress would have it. Not saying this will happen, but it could. Probably not for years, though.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>By now we have all heard Bush talk today about the attack this spy program stopped back in 2002.<< Have they mentioned that the NSA program stopped this attack?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <The non-partisan Congressional Research Service concluded that Bush's actions "would appear to be inconsistent with the law."> The Chariman of the House Intelligence Committee says the Demcrat who wrote the CRS memo was incorrect. <a href="http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2006_cr/hoekstra020106.html" target="_blank">http://www.fas.org/irp/congres s/2006_cr/hoekstra020106.html</a>
Originally Posted By Dabob2 And around and around it goes. This guy doesn't like their conclusions so he says it's "biased." Quel surprise. Clearly, this will ultimately have to go to the courts.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <This guy doesn't like their conclusions so he says it's "biased."> Or their conclusions are faulty because of their bias.
Originally Posted By woody >>I don't know where you're getting your information, woody. This link seems to say the opposite.<< Okay, yeah, the White House is cooperating, but, then again, Congress is getting more compliant as well. Bush has now dodged a potential bullet, but I thought he was already winning the PR war.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "Bush has now dodged a potential bullet, but I thought he was already winning the PR war." Winning the PR war? Then you woke up, right?
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "Sure, no one really called for the NSA program to be stopped or defunded." Did you miss this part? "It also came as Rep. Heather Wilson, R-New Mexico, chairwoman of a House intelligence subcommittee that oversees the NSA, broke with the Bush administration and called for a full review of the NSA's program, along with legislative action to update the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act."
Originally Posted By woody And the program goes on.... There's nothing in that paragraph that suggests the NSA program is in jeopardy or Bush's conduct is wrong. It is quite breathless in how it describes the situation. "broke with the Bush Administration" Okay. It does sound dramatic.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By gadzuux In post #23 of this very thread, you responded to my analogy of the oilco CEOs not being sworn in with this comment ... >> You didn't prove the oil company CEO's lied before Congress, let alone that the cut deals before testifying. << At the time I let it pass, because their's no convincing you of something you don't want to believe is true, based on your political biases. You don't want to believe that the federal government is lying and conniving at every opportunity, even in the face of direct evidence. In the case of the oil execs, each one to a man said that they did not meet with the white house to discuss the formation of the new energy policy. Yet the entry logs clearly show that each one entered the white house on the days that the energy policy meetings took place. Now you can dance around the topic and say that "it doesn't 'prove' anything", and that maybe they were there to take a tour or accept a plaque. Or you could add two and two together, and realize that their presence in the building during the meetings, and their pre-arrangements to not be sworn under oath before speaking complete lies might just maybe be connected. You can lead a horse to water . . .
Originally Posted By gadzuux Okay - so #133 got admined before I finished posting my response. The "short version" of #133 was douglas responding to my earlier comment about his expertise in having political biases skew one's perceptions with something along the order of "I know you are but what am I?" Hence my response in #134.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh I'm at a loss why Gadzuux's post that states that I'm biased is okay but mine that states that he is biased gets admined.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <In the case of the oil execs, each one to a man said that they did not meet with the white house to discuss the formation of the new energy policy. Yet the entry logs clearly show that each one entered the white house on the days that the energy policy meetings took place.> That may be how you are interpretting it, but that's not what the record shows.
