Democrats Obsessed with Bush
The fascination with the president by those on the left is something which we have not seen in the U.S. in quite some time. Indeed, the paranoia being promulgated by liberals is eerily reminiscent of McCarthy-era politics during the Red Scare. I challenge one single individual to come forward who has in any way been affected by Bush's "spying" program. Like most Democratic senators on Capital Hill (Russ Feingold in particular) it appears as if most Democrats enjoy hearing the sound of their own voice.
Advertisement
I challenge one single individual to come forward who has in any way been affected by Bush's "spying" program.
Duh. No one knows.
Do you think it's appropriate for the President to circumvent the courts?
In the absence of judicial review, do you think "informing Congress" is an appropriate check and balance?
Those are the salient questions.
By your title, I can infer that if only the President were to get a blowjob would he would be worthy of "obsession" from the left?
December 20, 2005 9:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
If the president is spying on you cscs, then he has a just reason for doing so. Canada beckons you.
December 20, 2005 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
If a court decides he has just reason, I would accept that.
Do you want to respond to the questions -- is it OK for the President to circumvent the courts to spy on people?
Even after "9/11 changed everything," is it acceptable to do away with basic checks and balances?
December 20, 2005 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
cscs
I do believe the President of the United States should have the ability to monitor the population for clandestine insurgency. I am very confident that the courts will uphold the actions of the president and only a void of partisan rhetoric will be left to fill it; much like the legality of the war which the left tried to argue at the outset of the conflict.
December 20, 2005 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am surprised you are just fine with that much power granted to a single branch of the government, with no oversight.
This whole thing doesn't pass a smell test. He should have had a warrant. If it's a crisis, he can get the warrant after. If the process takes too long altogether, or, for another reason, maybe it's outdated, then he can work to change the law.
Any of those choices would have been better than taking the law into his own hands.
I wouldn't be so sure that Bush comes clean from this one. There are a lot of Republicans not very happy with what he did. Read George Will today...
December 20, 2005 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
cscs
When considering that the 9/11 hijackers, for the most part, trained within our nation's borders (in conjunction with their cohorts in the Middle East) I think it necessary to listen in on selected telephone conversations. Bush has maintained that all civil liberties have been upheld throughout this entire ordeal. Indeed, with the beans having been spilled, it will be fairly easy with an investigation to determine whether or not this is the case. If not, Bush will probably be held accountable. But I have no problem with the government listening to trans-Atlantic telephone calls. After all, if Johnny is talking dirty to his wife Joanie, it's not as if some Federal Agents will be knocking his door down the next morning. It really is the principle of it, not the substantive problems of the case, which is being argued here.
December 20, 2005 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree, and I'm not arguing that we shouldn't spy.
The issue is how much unchecked power is the President (or any one person or body of gov) allowed.
I don't think anyone is arguing that the govt should not be given what it needs to keep Americans safe -- we all agree on that.
But we have to respect the Constitution and the concept of checks and balances. Bush's statement/admittance implies that he's not so interested in apply that check on his power.
December 20, 2005 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
The fascination with the president by those on the left is something which we have not seen in the U.S. in quite some time.
Well we are all glad that you have opened your eyes, and will of course put on some fresh coffee for you to smell this morning.
Indeed, the paranoia being promulgated by liberals is eerily reminiscent of McCarthy-era politics during the Red Scare.
Howso?
I challenge one single individual to come forward who has in any way been affected by Bush's "spying" program.
All the weed in Pennsylvannia won't get this turkey to fly, Gettysburg. Leaving aside the emotional and intellectual aspects of any given problem that conservatives lack the ability to comprehend, let us get right down to the economic and anal retentive impactions of your post which the conservative rhetoric cannot quite mask. In fact let's just leave the Constitution out of it as well, so as not to muddy the waters up with that g*ddamned piece of paper, as W likes to call it.
As per my previous post this morning on Echelon, so the game goes on. By being required to encrypt my communications through electronic media that I wish to keep confidential, I am required to spend my time aquiring an encrypton product, such as PGP, spend the time to learn the operational capabilities of that software, and then further to learn some mathematics and programming skills to alter the encryption algorythm to keep it free from snooping by the various and duly constituted governments of the world. In other words it cost big bucks to talk freely with electronic communications, unless you happen to be one of those people with nothing to hide, which is a nice way of saying that your business belongs to everyone, because in truth you have no business.
Of course I did this with W's daddy, and Clinton too. Apparently you were asleep back then, or you would have noted that the disdain for government spying is a long term bipartisan issue, equally opposed and subverted by the left and the right.
December 20, 2005 9:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
BKL
For the sake of argument I will conclude that you have received a nominal, public school education and that you and your recalcitrant party actually have a grasp on what is happening in the U.S. today. McCarthy essentially made a list of "enemies" (people who he either had personal disdain for, political differences with, etc) and dubbed them "Communists." The goal, although not particularly successful, was to get these blacklisted men and women out of positions of power. The Democrats of today are branding Bush (and most Republicans) as being war mongering, rule-usurping, money hungry fascists. This, of course, is nonsense and like most items on the Democrats' agenda, nothing substantive will ever come of it. Rest assured that the traitors who leaked the story at the New York Times will find themselves before a grand jury and will likely be indicted ala Scooter Libby. A word to the wise: if ever there was an administration not to pick a fight with, it is probably this one.
December 20, 2005 10:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is the best you can do?
There is no "for the sake of argument," here. Gettysburg. You're just trolling.
Rest assured that the traitors who leaked the story at the New York Times will find themselves before a grand jury and will likely be indicted ala Scooter Libby.
If there was a violation of the laws of the land, then so be it, let there be a trial and conviction. I think that is what the discussion was all about anyway wasn't it. Nice hoist on your own petard.
A word to the wise: if ever there was an administration not to pick a fight with, it is probably this one.
In what way? Are you threatening me? Do you think that I should feel threaten by this government, if so in a physical, economic, of liberty of my person, sort of way? Please do enlighten me, Oh Gettysburg.
December 20, 2005 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
BKL
I would suggest not picking a fight with this administration because the men behind the scenes are brilliant and wield more power than you could ever realize.
December 20, 2005 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The fascination with the president by those on the left is something which we have not seen in the U.S. in quite some time. "
....................
Actually we have quite recently, it was the Republicans regarding Clinton. I guess you just have a short memory Gettysburg and have simply forgotten all the paranoid conspiracy theories aimed at the Clintons.
December 20, 2005 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not so much conspiracy after Clinton testified before the grand jury and admitted to lying to the American People.
December 20, 2005 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink