Not surprising is the recent ed/op in Barrons, Bush’s real base, wall street turning against him. Afterall, we know all the corruptions, inside trading etc. that takes place here and they arent going to like this administration listening in and getting the goods on them. It switchs from Bush being beholding, to them- being afraid.

Trust me, insider trading is a norm in this country And I can’t help but think that many in this country are going to pay the price for it in some small way with more tax cuts in the new year…

Not surprising is the recent ed/op in Barrons, Bush’s real base, wall street turning against him. Afterall, we know all the corruptions, inside trading etc. that takes place here and they arent going to like this administration listening in and getting the goods on them. It switchs from Bush being beholding, to them- being afraid.

If this is indeed true, that our War On Terror has taken a hit, then I ask this of the President:

Provide the American public with precise instances, and even names, of those people that have been caught planning attacks — people who were stopped due directly to his wire-tapping program.

We have the ability to find the names of all the people who were killed in the attacks on 9-11. We also have the ability to find the names of those persons who orchestrated the attacks on that day. All of these names are available on the internet. Simple Yahoo searches can find them.

So, don’t just tell us that this program is saving lives by stopping attacks. Don’t just use the over-used scare tactics of terror and increased attacks. Don’t just tell us the program is for our own good.

The story is out… phones were tapped… so what were the results? Do the wire taps snuff out a REAL terrorist attack, and if so, when? And by whom? Or is that a matter of so-called “national security”?

And I apologize…I meant Dept of Censorship like you said. However, the two things do kind of go hand in hand, no?

Actually, Dept of Opportunism might be an even better descriptor for the Times deciding to publish this story now.

Evidently, there’s a new book coming out in a few days by this Times reporter with more to munch on politically.

Seems like the Times might be looking to go hand in hand with publishing profits?

A recent poll says 53% of Americans would support impeachment if the president falsified intelligence to mislead us into the Iraq war

I’m disappointed that number is as low as it is. If it could be proven that he deliberately falsified intelligence to justify the war, he should be impeached. It shows how little the people think of the govt anymore.
Apparently, 47% are ok with the president lying to them.

Note that I used the word “IF” above. I haven’t seen proof of deliberate lying yet. But I’d rather not start another BUSH LIED debate.
It’s all so tired and worn out.

I’m hoping that 2006 will change the Senate to about even, and reverse the Republican majority in the House, and then impeachment will have a chance.

Much like the Republican congress was guaranteed to impeach Clinton on any tiny little thing they could come up with (after HOW many millions of dollars of investigation into a blowjob?), it would be inconceivable for this yes-man Congress to impeach Bush, no matter how egregious and disgusting the illegal activities he has been involved in.

http://www.impeachbush.org has over 600,000 signatures supporting impeachment. A recent poll says 53% of Americans would support impeachment if the president falsified intelligence to mislead us into the Iraq war (which of course he did). That poll was prior to the wiretapping scandal.

In addition, much uproar has occurred because some of the targets of investigation by the FBI are obviously political opponents with no history or evidence whatsoever of any violent or terrorist leanings. Gay activist groups, environmental groups, anti-poverty groups, even some Catholic peace organization have all been targeted (source is a DailyKOS article and 365gay.com)

A terrifying and in my opinion entirely accurate article at MyLeftWing discusses parallels between the actions and media control of this administration and that of Nazi Germany in the 1930′s – it is not too far off. And of course parallels to the 1950′s McCarthyism witchhunt have been valid and obvious for years.

http://www.myleftwing.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=34A8DB61D5C009D18F44E71E4DF23B77?diaryId=4728

And listen, I’m not talking about some sort of ideal here, but I am talking about a reasonable expectation given current laws that we have in this country because of past bad behavior by our government.

How do you define freedom?

It just seems to me that many people want W to break some law, so that they can bring him down.

I agree that some do. I don’t. And I don’t agree with the way the left acts either. But that’s not what we’re talking about here. This isn’t a matter of left v. right. That’s the way it’s being portrayed, but this is actually a matter of right v. wrong.

And I apologize…I meant Dept of Censorship like you said. However, the two things do kind of go hand in hand, no?

I just can’t seem to see everything in absolutes. There has to be some lattitude in what is necessary. If they had been wiretapping everyone that had said the word “Allah”, I would be complaining as loudly as everyone else here. But, based on the context that it was used, and since there is yet no evidence of abuse, I see no problem with it. I don’t feel this has effected my freedom in any way. We’re nowhere near big brother yet.

It just seems to me that many people want W to break some law, so that they can bring him down. While W has done much to piss me off too, I don’t agree with the way the left want’s him to do away with him at any cost.

What is your definition of “freedom?”

The only thing I know for sure is whoever leaked this is guilty. Unless security clearances are vastly different now from when I had mine.

And ford, if you’re not convinced that Bush hasn’t done something illegal yet, just read this column by George Will.

To sum the column up, Bush violated the law, unless you think that the President has a right to do whatever he or she wants in order to secure our safety. Personally, I don’t think Bush does since it’s unknowable whether or not this type of spying has helped us be safer. That’s the Catch 22 with all of these tactics, and I’d much rather err on the side of keeping our civil liberities intact, since it seems like there are many more common sense ways to combat terrorism both here and abroad.

And what bothers me is that it seems like you’d be okay with a Department of Propaganda in our current day Ford. But let me ask you this…how far would you go? And how do you justify something that you can’t measure?

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007703

Among the highlights:

“What we really have here is a perfect illustration of why America’s Founders gave the executive branch the largest measure of Constitutional authority on national security. They recognized that a committee of 535 talking heads couldn’t be trusted with such grave responsibility. ”

“The courts have been explicit on this point, most recently in In Re: Sealed Case, the 2002 opinion by the special panel of appellate judges established to hear FISA appeals. In its per curiam opinion, the court noted that in a previous FISA case (U.S. v. Truong), a federal “court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue [our emphasis], held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information.” And further that “we take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power.” ”

“The allegation of Presidential law-breaking rests solely on the fact that Mr. Bush authorized wiretaps without first getting the approval of the court established under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. But no Administration then or since has ever conceded that that Act trumped a President’s power to make exceptions to FISA if national security required it.”

I would add that if Bush HADN’T broken protocol to catch a terrorist, he’d be grilled even harder for the inaction.

“But everyone should note the irony that both the Times and Washington Post claimed to be outraged by, and demanded a special counsel to investigate, the leak of Valerie Plame’s identity, which did zero national security damage. By contrast, the Times’ NSA leak last week, and an earlier leak in the Washington Post on “secret” prisons for al Qaeda detainees in Europe, are likely to do genuine harm by alerting terrorists to our defenses.”

The Times (and apparently, most people here) have jumped to the conclusion that something illegal has happened. I’m not convinced of that yet. Something that was probably helping in the WOT has been compromised thanks to the press.

Even though we would all like to know everything that the govt is up to, it doesn’t mean that we NEED to know. I imagine many of you people would’ve imploded during WWII when there was a Dept of Censorship. Guess what, when it wasn’t needed anymore, it went away. There is such a chasm between the parties now, that the Dems would never let a Republican idea stand for very long (and visa versa).