Originally Posted By TomSawyer Beau, the either/or argument that Bush should be able to do whatever he wants regardless of the Constitution or else he has no power to fight terrorism just isn't true. There's nothing about getting warrants that would prevent him from conducting intelligence operations and fighting terrorism. And he doesn't even have to get a warrant before tapping if there is something imminent - he just has to get it within a couple of days. What side would you have been on in 1775, Beau? The side that said that the government had the right to search private property and communications without warrants, or the side that said that people had a right to demand checks and balances on government searches?
Originally Posted By iluvdisneyland "<So you're saying you are a more reliable source than CBS News and CNN?> Yes." OK, I was just interested...
Originally Posted By cape cod joe To Beau and France comment: I boycotted France at Epcot until our most recent trip over the New Year's as our 12 year old daughter got "stuck" with writing a term paper on France and she wanted to find out more about it. France used to be such a great country as I'm a man of history and remember so well WW11. How about Germany, Canada, etc? It gets to a point where you have to let go or you'll have emotional luggage against every country.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan And emotional luggage does not fit in the overhead bin or under the seat in front of you. Okay, I took the whole analogy too far again, didn't I?
Originally Posted By cape cod joe To Toon or is it 2oon? Not the emotional luggage MOST of us disneyphiles carry for sure!!!!!!!!!!!! They'd need a bigger plane.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>To Toon or is it 2oon? << It's actually Beatrice, but he usually answers to 2oony. /just kidding about the Beatrice part
Originally Posted By cape cod joe Huck, I mean Tom: Does your jocund demeanor indicate that you're an intellectual lightweight? Or can you just meander around serious subjects while interjecting the sublime? BTW by the way----------leave Beatrice alone as she's on an apparent cerebral hot streak!!!!!!!!!!
Originally Posted By cape cod joe It's a small world, It's a small world>Can't you hear my horrifying voice, Boston accent and all that Rachel, my daughter is so embarrassed by when I sing at all the disney places like Carousel of Progress! Mele---------I just checked your profile and you are indeed Huck for your e mail. Maybe someone else is Beatrice and not Toon!?
Originally Posted By bboisvert <<Washington defeated Cornwallis when the French prevent the English fleet from reinforcing Cornwallis at Yorktown.>> <<France still sucks>> Sounds like George Washington would disagree with you. <<your (sic) the guy who will claim Bush is breaking the law and trampling on peoples civil rights by using these measures.>> It's not just me. There are quite a few Republican "moonbats" in Congress that want to investigate this too. <<So if we get hit by terrorists, it's Bush's fault.>> No, if we get hit by terrorrists, it's the terrorrists fault. If we provoke them, it's our fault.
Originally Posted By gadzuux The white house responded today to criticisms leveled against them, and they came out with the usual bluster and arrogance that has become their hallmark. To wit - McClellan said that hillary clinton's comments were "out of bounds" and "way out of line", and that gore's comments accusing bush of "breaking the law repeatedly and insistently" were hypocrisy that knew no bounds. Apparently the bush white house doesn't seem to understand that they represent US, and that criticism is allowed and expected. What does "out of bounds" and "way over the line" mean anyway? Is senator clinton wrong for being critical of the white house's actions? Of course not - they just don't like being called to account for their own crimes and actions. Is gore wrong for calling a spade a spade? Of course not - notice that the white house comments don't actually dispute what gore is saying. But the "hypocrisy" charge is rich, especially coming from them. Clinton was a major supporter of amending FISA to require warrants for foreign intelligence searches and wiretaps. So the hypocrisy charge is, at best, empty name-calling rhetoric, and at worst a specious lie - which also is no surprise coming from this administration.
Originally Posted By woody Clinton did exactly what Bush did and the Democratic Party said absolutely nothing. The Clinton Administration asserted their "inherent authority" to do warrantless wiretaps. Evidently, Gore missed this, thus the hypocrisy. Hillary said "plantation". That's out of bounds. "criticism is allowed and expected" It happens both ways. In America, you level a criticism and you can get criticized for it.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Is senator clinton wrong for being critical of the white house's actions?> She's not being critical; she's demagoging. She's not pointing out specific problems and suggesting solutions; she's criticizing for the sake of criticizing, and she's doing so in ways that imply things that the Republicans are not guilty of. So yes, she's wrong, but she's more than wrong. She's out of bounds and way over the line. <Of course not - notice that the white house comments don't actually dispute what gore is saying.> That's because Mr Gore doesn't make any sense. What is he saying? I read his speech, and he contradicts himself, besides stating several things that are just plain wrong. There were so many things wrong with his speech that it would have take too long for Mr McClellan to list them all.
Originally Posted By gadzuux Presumeably they're objecting to gore's statement that accuses bush of "breaking the law repeatedly and insistently". He says this because it's generally understood that circumventing the judges and courts that are specifically in place for the white house to gain authority for wire taps and intel gathering on US citizens is "illegal". And that's what bush has been doing "repeatedly and insistently". It's a crime against us, the american public. It's also a violation of the constitution that bush has sworn to uphold. Yeah, they'll tell you that THIS president has sweeping executive powers not heretofore granted to any other president, and some dupes will believe anything he says (won't they douglas?). But facts are facts. The bush administration doesn't like facts. They don't answer to them. They don't answer to the public either. Instead of a straightforward response to the charges, they decry the information being made public in the first place. Apparantly this still works with some folks. We'll see. There will be an investigation into the matter. The GOP will seek mightily to be yet another investigation of themselves, but anyone with an ounce of integrity already knows that the panel conducting the investigation needs to be independent of the administration that's being accused of wrong-doing. As an aside, why do you suppose they circumvented the court? Again, it doesn't take a PhD to realize that they suspected that their requests would be denied on the grounds that they did not show probable cause, and were 'fishing expeditions'. These rules are in place to protect you, me and every other american. Some people place an extraordinary faith in bush protecting us. God knows why.
Originally Posted By woody "The bush administration doesn't like facts. They don't answer to them." What happened to secret information? US Attorney General Roberto Gonzales did answer the charges on Larry King. You should learn to listen. "There will be an investigation into the matter." Yes, I heard there will be investigations. There may be several. First, on the leaking. Then, by Congress. "why do you suppose they circumvented the court?" You got the probably cause correct because terrorism threats are based on contacts, not the investigation of why a crime occurred. No crime has occurred yet. The President is supposed to act on intelligence. If there is no intelligence on terrorist plans, there is no way to stop an attack. Another reason is speed. The data changes very quickly. "Some people place an extraordinary faith in bush protecting us. God knows why." LOL!!! I guess when another attack occurs, that's when we should ask why it happened. Then we will blame Bush for not doing his job. Warrants are hard to get. That's the basic fact.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "US Attorney General Roberto Gonzales did answer the charges on Larry King. You should learn to listen." ALBERTO Gonzales. If you're going to be smarmy, at least get the name right.
Originally Posted By woody Alright. My mistake. Read the transcript. ------------ <a href="http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0601/16/lkl.01.html" target="_blank">http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRA NSCRIPTS/0601/16/lkl.01.html</a> ALBERT GONZALES, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES: Well, I didn't see the speech of the former vice president. What I can say is that this program from its inception has been carefully reviewed by lawyers throughout the administration, people who are experienced in this area of the law, experienced regarding this technology and we believe the president does have legal authorities to authorize this program. I would say that with respect to comments by the former vice president it's my understanding that during the Clinton administration there was activity regarding the physical searches without warrants, Aldrich Ames as an example. I can also say that it's my understanding that the deputy attorney general testified before Congress that the president does have the inherent authority under the Constitution to engage in physical searches without a warrant and so those would certainly seem to be inconsistent with what the former vice president was saying today.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> I guess when another attack occurs, that's when we should ask why it happened. Then we will blame Bush for not doing his job. << What makes you think that? He didn't accept any responsibility for the last attack, and there's no reason to think he'll accept it for the next one either.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> ... and we believe the president does have legal authorities to authorize this program. << Of course they do. Anybody that believed otherwise wouldn't be in the white house today. In fact, that's largely WHY gonzales is where he is today. The bush administration shopped this idea through several attorneys until they found one that said "sure, go ahead".
