Bush: Black Is White

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
121

[quote]Valor wrote:
Not to change the subject…

But is this as illegal as Clinton selling the whitehouse to China? selling nuclear tech to China and N. Korea? Telling lies under oath?

Just a thought.

Maybe Bush was/is wrong (and anyone who knows me knows I’m no fan of Bush) but at least he did it for the right reasons…as oppossed to Clinton selling the Whitehouse and American Security down the pooper.[/quote]

I think the Clinton/China deals were far and away the worst thing he did but it gets no press.

He gets impeached for lying about a stupid blowjob but selling secrets to China is basically ignored.

It just shows how crooked politics is.

They just want to play “gotcha” over meaningless issues and ignore the dirty dealing on both sides.

122

[quote]Valor wrote:
Not to change the subject…

But is this as illegal as Clinton selling the whitehouse to China? selling nuclear tech to China and N. Korea? Telling lies under oath?

Just a thought.

Maybe Bush was/is wrong (and anyone who knows me knows I’m no fan of Bush) but at least he did it for the right reasons…as oppossed to Clinton selling the Whitehouse and American Security down the pooper.[/quote]

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!!

It was all about the blowjob, that’s it! nothing more! Clinton’s shit never smelled sweeter! He was the greatest president ever! He felt our pain!

123

Valor,

I’m going to have to agree wholeheartedly with BigFlamer.

You haven’t gotten the message. If we only focus on “the blowjob” we allow ourselves to ignore the real issues.

If I thought about it, it would be clear to me that acting above the law by denying a fair trial to Paula Jones is a real problem if you are also the Chief Executive for Enforcing Laws. Also, pressuring staff/security to cover-up your lies is also a crime. Oh, he was using resources that you paid for.

If I really squinted my brow, I could even become concerned about some of the whispers of even more heinous crimes against women that may have been obscured.

Hey, but it’s fine (as long as you are a democrat).

Thanks, now try to get with the program!!!

JeffR

124

As usual, you claim way more than your authorities provide – you’d get marked down in legal writing or reprimanded by the judge for trying to pull a fast one.

I’m busy, but a few really quick points.

First, a great quote from In re Sealed Case: “We take for granted that the President does have that authority [to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information] and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President?s constitutional power.” In re Sealed Case, 310 F.3d 717, 742 (FIS Ct. Rev. 2002)

Second, Keith doesn’t mean what you claim it means. the Supreme Court?s 1972 holding in United States v. United States District Court (found at 407 U.S. 297 ( http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=407&page=297 ), and commonly called the “Keith case”) that “domestic security surveillance” was subject to the warrant and reasonableness requirements of the Fourth Amendment. The group at issue in Keith was a group of domestic terrorists, with no connection to foreign powers – thus not implicated by the President’s Commander in Chief power to deal with agents of foreign powers. The Court emphasized that its Keith holding addressed only “the domestic aspects of national security” and did not reach “the activities of foreign powers or their agents.” So, exactly inapplicable as precedent to what the President is claiming as inherent power.

Lastly, your claim of the holding in Youngstown v. Sawyer (the “Steel Seizure”) case is incorrect. First, note that you’re referencing a concurrence by Justice Jackson, not the majority holding. Second, the Jackson concurrence did not say that “the president does not have the power to defy congress.” It set up an analytical framework by which it suggested we should analyze disputes among the branches regarding separation of powers issues. In that case, Jackson is basically putting down some shorthand analysis to let the USSC be deferential to the two political branches, and only really get down to analyzing the underlying law if there is a big fight or something is obviously Constitutional. The first zone is when both branches affirmatively agree. The second is where one is silent while one is acting. The third is when they affirmatively disagree. Amazingly enough, the Jackson concurrence maintains the most scrutiny should be applied when the two branches are in active disagreement.

In that particular case, the majority, not applying Jackson’s rationale, decided Truman had overstepped the bounds of his CiC power in seizing domestic steel mills because a strike interfered with munitions/war materials manufacture during the Korean War.

It’s an interesting intellectual framework that Jackson set up – but what it most certainly does not imply is that the President is always wrong when Congress disagrees with the President in disputes over the relative reaches of the power of each branch.

Now go read this, which I don’t think you’ve done yet:

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/nsa/dojnsa11906wp.pdf

[UPDATE: Link was bad before, but I fixed it]

125

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

I’m busy, but a few really quick points.

First, a great quote from In re Sealed Case: “We take for granted that the President does have that authority [to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information] and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President?s constitutional power.” In re Sealed Case, 310 F.3d 717, 742 (FIS Ct. Rev. 2002)

[/quote]
foreign intelligence. The issue at hand is STILL domestic intelligence. Good. Lord.

The issue at hand is STILL domestic surveillance. Hence case mentioned.

uhggh.
no time right now. Off to buy TV with wife.

126

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:

I’m busy, but a few really quick points.

First, a great quote from In re Sealed Case: “We take for granted that the President does have that authority [to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information] and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President?s constitutional power.” In re Sealed Case, 310 F.3d 717, 742 (FIS Ct. Rev. 2002)

100meters wrote:

foreign intelligence. The issue at hand is STILL domestic intelligence. Good. Lord.[/quote]

No, you’re missing the point. It qualifies as foreign intelligence, and is under the President’s inherent powers to deal with foreign intelligence, if it deals with “agents of foreign powers.”

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:

Second, Keith doesn’t mean what you claim it means. the Supreme Court?s 1972 holding in United States v. United States District Court (found at 407 U.S. 297 ( http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=407&page=297 ), and commonly called the “Keith case”) that “domestic security surveillance” was subject to the warrant and reasonableness requirements of the Fourth Amendment. The group at issue in Keith was a group of domestic terrorists, with no connection to foreign powers – thus not implicated by the President’s Commander in Chief power to deal with agents of foreign powers. The Court emphasized that its Keith holding addressed only “the domestic aspects of national security” and did not reach “the activities of foreign powers or their agents.” So, exactly inapplicable as precedent to what the President is claiming as inherent power.

100meters wrote:

The issue at hand is STILL domestic surveillance. Hence case mentioned.[/quote]

Same point as above, but more starkly made here. It’s the “acitivies of foreign powers or their agents” that is key. International or foreign-based terrorist organizations come under this definition, so communications with agents of international terrorist organizations would fall under this as well.

That’s OK, take your time - but I can’t guarantee a quick reply.

127

To whom it may concern, being briefed about something does not necessarily equate to having oversight over it.

Having oversight generally means some ability to control or react. This was certainly absent as has been demonstrated by the inability to speak to anyone about what they had been told.

Here are some document titles from the federal energy regulatory commission web site (go to http://www.ferc.gov and search on oversight):

  • Energy Market Oversight and Enforcement

  • FERC: Market Oversight and Investigations

  • Terms of Reference for Bilateral Electric Reliability Oversight Group

  • Final Rule Requiring Holders of Market-Based Rates to Report Changes in Status Will Enhance Market Oversight

Oversight is generally about having an ability to influence or control an activity in some way. Being informed of some portion of an activity in no way represents effective oversight.

To argue otherwise is pure political hackery.

Good job!

128

[quote]100meters wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
Hey 100 meters,

I was not making a legal argument, but a constitutional one. You remember the Constitution, don’t you? I know you liberals have a problem with this document, but IT is the law of the land!

Now, about making stuff up – is it that when people don’t agree with you “100 meters” that you just accuse them of making stuff up? I stated two constitutional principles. Which of these principles that can be found in the Constituion has been made up? Hmmm?

Perhaps if you read the Constitution and had less of an allegience to Socialistic, left-wing ideology, you could see what I am talking about…

You stated 2 points, but did not make a constitutional case in regards to the domestic surveillance without warrants program.

For laughs you said:
"(1) George W. Bush is our President.

(2) George W. Bush is the Commander n Chief of the U.S. Armed forces."

Neither points say anything about domestic surveillance without warrants. The supreme court on the other hand has previously ruled the President must obtain warrants for domestic eavesdropping.

In fact they ruled 8-0 in the Keith case that the president did not have the authority to do so.

The freedoms protected by the Fourth Amendment “cannot properly be guaranteed if domestic security surveillance may be conducted solely within the discretion of the executive branch,‘’ wrote Justice Lewis Powell, a Nixon appointee.”

Even if the case involves national security (as Nixon claimed) the president still had to seek a warrant based on probable cause.

The supreme court has also said (YOUNGSTOWN CO. v. SAWYER) the president does not have the power to defy congress.

Ok, so you’re kind of dead wrong. And making stuff up.

Of course, this is constitutional stuff, and as a Republican, you really don’t care about the constitution do you? Cause your party kind of likes to piss on it remember?
[/quote]

Of course, how could I be so retarded? If 100 meters says its right, then of course it is right? You are always right. Right?

You do forget, however, that the branches of government are co-equal with powers granted to each that cannot be taken from them.

I will say it again, in time of war the President is the President (period). The Supreme Court cannot grab his authority to protect the country.

Lastly, I will repeat – if he committed a High Crime or Misdemeanor then impeach him. Otherwise shut up and pray that someone from your side will run in 2008 that will make sense and have a chance to win by supplying ideas instead of just being critical.

And, finally, your comment about Republicans not respecting the Constitution is laughable. It has been you liberals who have trampled upon our founding document by having the Federal Judiciary legislate since you couldn’t get your agenda passed in Congress – you know that place that the Constitution says should make the laws.

Remember, “emanations from penumbras?” Sounds like real respect for our written Constituion doesn’t it?

129

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

steveo5801 wrote:
Hey 100 meters,

I was not making a legal argument, but a constitutional one. You remember the Constitution, don’t you? I know you liberals have a problem with this document, but IT is the law of the land!

Now, about making stuff up – is it that when people don’t agree with you “100 meters” that you just accuse them of making stuff up? I stated two constitutional principles. Which of these principles that can be found in the Constituion has been made up? Hmmm?

Perhaps if you read the Constitution and had less of an allegience to Socialistic, left-wing ideology, you could see what I am talking about…

100meters wrote:

You stated 2 points, but did not make a constitutional case in regards to the domestic surveillance without warrants program.

For laughs you said:
"(1) George W. Bush is our President.

(2) George W. Bush is the Commander n Chief of the U.S. Armed forces."

Neither points say anything about domestic surveillance without warrants. The supreme court on the other hand has previously ruled the President must obtain warrants for domestic eavesdropping.

In fact they ruled 8-0 in the Keith case that the president did not have the authority to do so.

The freedoms protected by the Fourth Amendment “cannot properly be guaranteed if domestic security surveillance may be conducted solely within the discretion of the executive branch,‘’ wrote Justice Lewis Powell, a Nixon appointee.”

Even if the case involves national security (as Nixon claimed) the president still had to seek a warrant based on probable cause.

The supreme court has also said (YOUNGSTOWN CO. v. SAWYER) the president does not have the power to defy congress.

Ok, so you’re kind of dead wrong. And making stuff up.

Of course, this is constitutional stuff, and as a Republican, you really don’t care about the constitution do you? Cause your party kind of likes to piss on it remember?

As usual, you claim way more than your authorities provide – you’d get marked down in legal writing or reprimanded by the judge for trying to pull a fast one.

I’m busy, but a few really quick points.

First, a great quote from In re Sealed Case: “We take for granted that the President does have that authority [to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information] and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President?s constitutional power.” In re Sealed Case, 310 F.3d 717, 742 (FIS Ct. Rev. 2002)

Second, Keith doesn’t mean what you claim it means. the Supreme Court?s 1972 holding in United States v. United States District Court (found at 407 U.S. 297 ( UNITED STATES v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT | FindLaw ), and commonly called the “Keith case”) that “domestic security surveillance” was subject to the warrant and reasonableness requirements of the Fourth Amendment.

The group at issue in Keith was a group of domestic terrorists, with no connection to foreign powers – thus not implicated by the President’s Commander in Chief power to deal with agents of foreign powers. The Court emphasized that its Keith holding addressed only “the domestic aspects of national security” and did not reach “the activities of foreign powers or their agents.”

So, exactly inapplicable as precedent to what the President is claiming as inherent power.

Lastly, your claim of the holding in Youngstown v. Sawyer (the “Steel Seizure”) case is incorrect. First, note that you’re referencing a concurrence by Justice Jackson, not the majority holding.

Second, the Jackson concurrence did not say that “the president does not have the power to defy congress.” It set up an analytical framework by which it suggested we should analyze disputes among the branches regarding separation of powers issues.

In that case, Jackson is basically putting down some shorthand analysis to let the USSC be deferential to the two political branches, and only really get down to analyzing the underlying law if there is a big fight or something is obviously Constitutional. The first zone is when both branches affirmatively agree.

The second is where one is silent while one is acting. The third is when they affirmatively disagree. Amazingly enough, the Jackson concurrence maintains the most scrutiny should be applied when the two branches are in active disagreement.

In that particular case, the majority, not applying Jackson’s rationale, decided Truman had overstepped the bounds of his CiC power in seizing domestic steel mills because a strike interfered with munitions/war materials manufacture during the Korean War.

It’s an interesting intellectual framework that Jackson set up – but what it most certainly does not imply is that the President is always wrong when Congress disagrees with the President in disputes over the relative reaches of the power of each branch.

Now go read this, which I don’t think you’ve done yet:

Hey Barrister,

Good post, but don’t think you will convince him. Remember, 100 meters is always right (at least to himself) :slight_smile:

130

I feel bad for 100meters. He does a boatload of work researching, cutting and pasting and he still is not able to answer a simple question.

How can Rockefeller and Graham both be briefed and Rockefeller immediately writes a letter questioning the legality of wiretapping without warrants while Graham claims they didn’t talk about it and any “illegal” stuff wasn’t discussed?

Does that make Graham stupid or a liar?

131

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
I feel bad for 100meters. He does a boatload of work researching, cutting and pasting and he still is not able to answer a simple question.

How can Rockefeller and Graham both be briefed and Rockefeller immediately writes a letter questioning the legality of wiretapping without warrants while Graham claims they didn’t talk about it and any “illegal” stuff wasn’t discussed?

Does that make Graham stupid or a liar?[/quote]

Jesus!Again! How dumb can you pretend to be? There could be possibly many legal implications involved in FISA a branch devoted to foreign intelligence, turning its attention to “foreign” communications transmitted through domestic communication centers. This is beside the point on not being briefed that the NSA was already spying for 2 years on americans without warrants before Rockefeller is briefed (again in that 2 years late brief he’s probably still not told we’ll being spying large scale on americans without warrants)

132

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
I feel bad for 100meters. He does a boatload of work researching, cutting and pasting and he still is not able to answer a simple question.

How can Rockefeller and Graham both be briefed and Rockefeller immediately writes a letter questioning the legality of wiretapping without warrants while Graham claims they didn’t talk about it and any “illegal” stuff wasn’t discussed?

Does that make Graham stupid or a liar?[/quote]

Zap,

Good point – and here’s the answer. It is because both of these great statesmen are loyal leftist Democrats who don’t give a you-know-what about this issue. It is all about trying to bring Bush down. If Clinton did this – of course Clinton was too “preoccupied” in the Oval Office to do anything about terrorism – they would not be screaming their left-leaning heads off.

Don’t bother about 100 meters – I refuse to answer him. He apparently is under the delusion that he is always correct and smarter than the boatload of White House lawyers advising the President of what his constitutional powers are.

I just wish 100 meters would not stoop so low as to use my Lord’s Name in vain. Of course since this is America he is free to do so, but he is also free to go to hell if he doesn’t not repent and get right with God.

Good post!

133

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
I feel bad for 100meters. He does a boatload of work researching, cutting and pasting and he still is not able to answer a simple question.

How can Rockefeller and Graham both be briefed and Rockefeller immediately writes a letter questioning the legality of wiretapping without warrants while Graham claims they didn’t talk about it and any “illegal” stuff wasn’t discussed?

Does that make Graham stupid or a liar?

Zap,

Good point – and here’s the answer. It is because both of these great statesmen are loyal leftist Democrats who don’t give a you-know-what about this issue. It is all about trying to bring Bush down. If Clinton did this – of course Clinton was too “preoccupied” in the Oval Office to do anything about terrorism – they would not be screaming their left-leaning heads off.

Don’t bother about 100 meters – I refuse to answer him. He apparently is under the delusion that he is always correct and smarter than the boatload of White House lawyers advising the President of what his constitutional powers are.

I just wish 100 meters would not stoop so low as to use my Lord’s Name in vain. Of course since this is America he is free to do so, but he is also free to go to hell if he doesn’t not repent and get right with God.

Good post!
[/quote]

Your Lord?? It doesn’t appear that you are a christian so I’m curious as to who this lord is?

Boatload of whitehouse lawers.
Who are the boatload?(or did you mean canoe)Uhh… because as you know (maybe you don’t) a “small coterie” was actually in disagreement, with this and other admin policies. See this article previously posted for some insight:
Palace Revolt

“Zap, good point.”
How is it a good point?
He made up something (Like “boatload”) that’s disputed by the public record, the congressional research service, and the congressmens’ own words.

Does this article make it seem like congress has been informed in any detail on this program and others?

I hate to quote WashTimes but…

Oh and remember Clinton’s admin told Bush’s that terrorism would be a top priority. Remember that? And remember what Bush admin did in response? Lower the priority of terrorism (that whole pre 9/1l - isolationist mentality) And since 9/11 hasn’t terrorism gone up by like record amounts? (answer: yes, so much so, that the admin just can’t release the annual terrorist reports anymore). To me an effective campaign against terror would lower terrorist attacks (which is what I’m for–less terror/ists). I’m guessing you think the opposite?

134

[quote]100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
I feel bad for 100meters. He does a boatload of work researching, cutting and pasting and he still is not able to answer a simple question.

How can Rockefeller and Graham both be briefed and Rockefeller immediately writes a letter questioning the legality of wiretapping without warrants while Graham claims they didn’t talk about it and any “illegal” stuff wasn’t discussed?

Does that make Graham stupid or a liar?

Jesus!Again! How dumb can you pretend to be? There could be possibly many legal implications involved in FISA a branch devoted to foreign intelligence, turning its attention to “foreign” communications transmitted through domestic communication centers. This is beside the point on not being briefed that the NSA was already spying for 2 years on americans without warrants before Rockefeller is briefed (again in that 2 years late brief he’s probably still not told we’ll being spying large scale on americans without warrants)[/quote]

You really are sad.

All spin, no answer.

135

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
I feel bad for 100meters. He does a boatload of work researching, cutting and pasting and he still is not able to answer a simple question.

How can Rockefeller and Graham both be briefed and Rockefeller immediately writes a letter questioning the legality of wiretapping without warrants while Graham claims they didn’t talk about it and any “illegal” stuff wasn’t discussed?

Does that make Graham stupid or a liar?

Jesus!Again! How dumb can you pretend to be? There could be possibly many legal implications involved in FISA a branch devoted to foreign intelligence, turning its attention to “foreign” communications transmitted through domestic communication centers. This is beside the point on not being briefed that the NSA was already spying for 2 years on americans without warrants before Rockefeller is briefed (again in that 2 years late brief he’s probably still not told we’ll being spying large scale on americans without warrants)

You really are sad.

All spin, no answer.[/quote]

Let me get this straight:

  1. the CRS says congress not briefed to legal standards, admin probably broke law by not briefing.

  2. Congressmen saying we weren’t briefed/ or not briefed on domestic wiretapping without warrants using reasonable suspicion instead of probable cause. They write letters saying so at the time. One letter is dated years after program began. (Congress “briefed” but 2 years later?)

  3. The NSA doesn’t want Tice to talk to congress because program too top secret - yet congress has been “briefed”?

4.For the AUMF congress explicitly said no to requests by admin for actions like NSA’s warrantless wiretaps on americans, yet congress magically approved them when they voted for the AUMF?

  1. You present no (as in none, nothing) evidence to the contrary that congress was fully briefed/ had oversight.

  2. you cover by saying I’m sad.

Very weird.

136

[quote]100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
I feel bad for 100meters. He does a boatload of work researching, cutting and pasting and he still is not able to answer a simple question.

How can Rockefeller and Graham both be briefed and Rockefeller immediately writes a letter questioning the legality of wiretapping without warrants while Graham claims they didn’t talk about it and any “illegal” stuff wasn’t discussed?

Does that make Graham stupid or a liar?

Jesus!Again! How dumb can you pretend to be? There could be possibly many legal implications involved in FISA a branch devoted to foreign intelligence, turning its attention to “foreign” communications transmitted through domestic communication centers. This is beside the point on not being briefed that the NSA was already spying for 2 years on americans without warrants before Rockefeller is briefed (again in that 2 years late brief he’s probably still not told we’ll being spying large scale on americans without warrants)

You really are sad.

All spin, no answer.

Let me get this straight:

  1. the CRS says congress not briefed to legal standards, admin probably broke law by not briefing.

  2. Congressmen saying we weren’t briefed/ or not briefed on domestic wiretapping without warrants using reasonable suspicion instead of probable cause. They write letters saying so at the time. One letter is dated years after program began. (Congress “briefed” but 2 years later?)

  3. The NSA doesn’t want Tice to talk to congress because program too top secret - yet congress has been “briefed”?

4.For the AUMF congress explicitly said no to requests by admin for actions like NSA’s warrantless wiretaps on americans, yet congress magically approved them when they voted for the AUMF?

  1. You present no (as in none, nothing) evidence to the contrary that congress was fully briefed/ had oversight.

  2. you cover by saying I’m sad.

Very weird.

[/quote]

You really are incredibly dense.

Graham and Rockefeller were both briefed. Rockefeller walked out of briefing and wrote a letter expressing concerns warrants were not being used.

Graham claims the subject never came up.

This does not make you wonder in the least? You take them both at their word even though their stories obviously conflict?

Then you try to make a point that these briefings were not briefings?

What the fuck are you smoking?

137

[quote]You really are incredibly dense.

Graham and Rockefeller were both briefed. Rockefeller walked out of briefing and wrote a letter expressing concerns warrants were not being used.

Graham claims the subject never came up.

This does not make you wonder in the least? You take them both at their word even though their stories obviously conflict?

Then you try to make a point that these briefings were not briefings?

What the fuck are you smoking?[/quote]

Zap,

I really don’t think you are hearing what 100m is saying.

Nobody is arguing that a briefing did not occur. However, what was covered in exactly which briefing is a bit hard to tell.

It’s funny how you think that the democrats are perfectly willing and capable of lying about these issues, but that nobody in the administration would or that nobody making up talking points would.

Aren’t you the one saying you should be suspicious of both sides equally?

138

[quote]vroom wrote:
…

Zap,

I really don’t think you are hearing what 100m is saying.

Nobody is arguing that a briefing did not occur. However, what was covered in exactly which briefing is a bit hard to tell.

It’s funny how you think that the democrats are perfectly willing and capable of lying about these issues, but that nobody in the administration would or that nobody making up talking points would.

Aren’t you the one saying you should be suspicious of both sides equally?[/quote]

I am suspicious of both sides. If I thought this program was being used as a form of domestic repression rather than simply spying on our enemies I would be extremely pissed.

It looks to me Bush is pulling out all the stops in the war and I am giving the benefit of the doubt.

It also looks like some Dems will stoop to undercutting our war effort to make political gains.

139

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
vroom wrote:
…

Zap,

I really don’t think you are hearing what 100m is saying.

Nobody is arguing that a briefing did not occur. However, what was covered in exactly which briefing is a bit hard to tell.

It’s funny how you think that the democrats are perfectly willing and capable of lying about these issues, but that nobody in the administration would or that nobody making up talking points would.

Aren’t you the one saying you should be suspicious of both sides equally?

I am suspicious of both sides. If I thought this program was being used as a form of domestic repression rather than simply spying on our enemies I would be extremely pissed.

It looks to me Bush is pulling out all the stops in the war and I am giving the benefit of the doubt.

It also looks like some Dems will stoop to undercutting our war effort to make political gains.
[/quote]

Ok first, Bush is doing a horrible job at fighting terror (see Iraq for details or 2005 terrorists attacks around the world report). Second, I’m saddened to see you are still making stuff up, which would explain alot of the misconceptions you have.

You made up:
“Rockefeller walked out of briefing and wrote a letter expressing concerns warrants were not being used.”

Uhh…Where in the hell did you get that? I posted his letter, no concern about warrants. You totally fabricated that. I mean you completely made that up and then ask weirdly:

“This does not make you wonder in the least? You take them both at their word even though their stories obviously conflict?”

How can one really wonder about something that hasn’t happened in the real world?

Not to mention Graham said he was NOT briefed on wiretaps without warrants on americans.

I mean you can read, right?

140

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
vroom wrote:
…

Zap,

I really don’t think you are hearing what 100m is saying.

Nobody is arguing that a briefing did not occur. However, what was covered in exactly which briefing is a bit hard to tell.

It’s funny how you think that the democrats are perfectly willing and capable of lying about these issues, but that nobody in the administration would or that nobody making up talking points would.

Aren’t you the one saying you should be suspicious of both sides equally?

I am suspicious of both sides. If I thought this program was being used as a form of domestic repression rather than simply spying on our enemies I would be extremely pissed.

It looks to me Bush is pulling out all the stops in the war and I am giving the benefit of the doubt.

It also looks like some Dems will stoop to undercutting our war effort to make political gains.
[/quote]

Undercut an incompetent admin’s attempt at a “war”. Hilarious. And of course it would be a bipartisan effort wouldn’t it?