Is anyone out there STILL a Republican?

[michaeledward]

If a terrorist cell is found in Afghanistan and their phone records indicate they talk every week with a person in America, are you saying that the chances of a judge giving authorization are very low?

Absoluty that is NOT what I am saying.

The FISA courts have approved over 19,000 requests for survaillance. The FISA courts have declined, according to reports, between zero and six, requests for survaillance. The evidence shows that the FISA courts approve the vast majority of requests made for survaillance.

What reason, with consideration of this evidence, is there for the President to not bring these wire tap requests before the FISA court?

The President argued that 'Speed' and 'Agility' is required. - There is a provision in the FISA law to start survaillance, and petition the court for the appropriate warrant after the survaillance has begun.

So, again, What reason is there for the President to not bring these wire tap requests before the FISA court?

The President has argued that it would be inappropriate to somehow make those on whom we are spying, aware of the spying activity, else they change tactics. - The FISA court operates in secrecy. It is unlikely a target would become aware of the warrant through a FISA petition.

 

[Jeff Boler]

Why is it ok for Carter to do it, for Clinton to do it, but not Bush. What's the difference OTHER than you don't like him because he's a Republican?

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Guys, side note here - please verify your email addresses are correct. I've gotten a number of bounces today from folks in this thread indicating they aren't where their email says they be.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Why is it ok for Carter to do it, for Clinton to do it, but not Bush. What's the difference OTHER than you don't like him because he's a Republican?

That's the usual reasoning.

 

[Jeff Boler]

That's the usual reasoning.

No, and i'm not saying that it's necessarily the arguing point. However, I believe it's very hypocrticial for people to bash Bush for things he is doing now, when the same people they support have done it in the past. If this is wrong, then it's wrong on all sides, not just the Republican. But people like the creator of this thread, refuse to discuss the misdeeds of the people he supports.

As a country, we have to get beyond the democrat vs republican mentality. We have enough outside threats to worry about.

 

[sgtmac_46]

No, and i'm not saying that it's necessarily the arguing point. However, I believe it's very hypocrticial for people to bash Bush for things he is doing now, when the same people they support have done it in the past. If this is wrong, then it's wrong on all sides, not just the Republican. But people like the creator of this thread, refuse to discuss the misdeeds of the people he supports.

As a country, we have to get beyond the democrat vs republican mentality. We have enough outside threats to worry about.

Of course not, because political extremists tend to be absolutists in their views of the motives of their allies and enemies. They're allies are always right, and their enemies are demons, who's every purpose and goal is evil. That's why there isn't any room for compromise with extremists.

 

[Phoenix44]

Wait...who said that it was OK for Clinton to lie to Congress? I don't even think it was OK for him to have an affair. But on the other hand, I don't really care about his hummer, because it had no effect on anyone except Bill and Hillary Clinton, maybe Chelsea.

On the other hand Bush's lies have had a huge impact on a lot of people.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Wait...who said that it was OK for Clinton to lie to Congress? I don't even think it was OK for him to have an affair. But on the other hand, I don't really care about his hummer, because it had no effect on anyone except Bill and Hillary Clinton, maybe Chelsea.

On the other hand Bush's lies have had a huge impact on a lot of people.

Why is it that every time someone mentions anything having to do with errors and lies of Clinton, the left wants to reduce it to a 'hummer'. I guess it makes it look as though THAT were the only mistake of his entire presidency, when that is the LEAST of his errors, and quite forgiveable alone.

 

[Jeff Boler]

Oh, Bush Lied. Back to that arguement. Lied about the war in Iraq. Hmm...ok, what US President moth-balled both the intelligence community and the military. Was it Bush? Or his predecessor?

You guys can't throw stones at someone, without taking into consideration the way things were left when he took over office. You love to cry foul, completely ignoring the person who was in office for eight prior to Bush taking over.

In your minds eye....it's only wrong if Bush gets caught. If it's one of our guys, he obviously had his reasons, therefore it justified.

That's a load of BS.

 

[Andrew Green]

<<MOD NOTE: Play nice everyone, Don't let this get personal>>

 

[sgtmac_46]

Oh, Bush Lied. Back to that arguement. Lied about the war in Iraq. Hmm...ok, what US President moth-balled both the intelligence community and the military. Was it Bush? Or his predecessor?

You guys can't throw stones at someone, without taking into consideration the way things were left when he took over office. You love to cry foul, completely ignoring the person who was in office for eight prior to Bush taking over.

In your minds eye....it's only wrong if Bush gets caught. If it's one of our guys, he obviously had his reasons, therefore it justified.

That's a load of BS.

The assumption is that Bush lied at all, which he did not, nor can they even remotely prove he did. What's more, the whole thing wouldn't have been issue if Bush's predecessor had done his job with regards to al-Qaeda during the previous 8 years.

The World Trade Center was attacked right after the beginning of Clinton's FIRST term. For the next 8 years, al-Qaeda attacked and probed the US for weaknesses, attacked our assets all around the world, and realized what kind of response they could expect, so they had free reign to plan 9/11, while Clinton was 'just getting a hummer' in the oral office.

It's about more than just 'hummers' and it should have been to Clinton too.

But, if you ask some on the left, they'll tell you al-Qaeda just magically appeared in January 2001.

 

[michaeledward]

Oh, Bush Lied. Back to that arguement. Lied about the war in Iraq. Hmm...ok, what US President moth-balled both the intelligence community and the military. Was it Bush? Or his predecessor?

You guys can't throw stones at someone, without taking into consideration the way things were left when he took over office. You love to cry foul, completely ignoring the person who was in office for eight prior to Bush taking over.

President Bush had not signed a military authorization prior to the war in Afghanistan. He seemed to do OK with the Clinton Army in Afghanistan.

 

[sgtmac_46]

President Bush had not signed a military authorization prior to the war in Afghanistan. He seemed to do OK with the Clinton Army in Afghanistan.

Hmmm. So Clinton's army was ok to fight a 4th world military? Compelling argument. Thank god some place tough, like Nauru didn't attack us. :rofl:

 

[michaeledward]

And today's argument about why the Wire Taps did not seek appropriate warrant from the courts ....

Cuz the Paper Work would Be Too Cumbersome.

No, kidding.....

The Washington Post reports that Michael Hayden, NSA director said

"getting retroactive court approval is inefficient because it 'involves marshaling arguments' and 'looping paperwork around.'"

I know that President Bush has taken more 'Vacation Days' than any other President, but now even his NSA staff can't be bothered to 'marshal arguments' as to why they choose to violate the 4th Amendment to the Constitution.

 

[sgtmac_46]

And today's argument about why the Wire Taps did not seek appropriate warrant from the courts ....

Cuz the Paper Work would Be Too Cumbersome.

No, kidding.....

The Washington Post reports that Michael Hayden, NSA director said



I know that President Bush has taken more 'Vacation Days' than any other President, but now even his NSA staff can't be bothered to 'marshal arguments' as to why they choose to violate the 4th Amendment to the Constitution.

The only difference between Bush wiretaps and what the Clintons would do is this. Bush wiretapped suspected terrorists. Clinton would have wiretapped suspect Republicans.

Sadly, many here would have considered Clinton justified.

 

[mrhnau]

I know that President Bush has taken more 'Vacation Days' than any other President.

I love this statement LOL. This is the president of the US. A "vacation" does not include sitting by the pool, sipping lemonaid and napping all day long. He keeps a team of people with him, is always updated of current events, world affairs and security concerns. He has foreign dignitaries visit his ranch periodically, and to with todays technology, is there a huge difference between him sitting behind a desk in Texas or a desk in DC?

Lets start looking at how many days congress takes off, or the supreme court. They seem to have alot of recesses. I don't hear you whining about those.

 

[michaeledward]

The only difference between Bush wiretaps and what the Clintons would do is this. Bush wiretapped suspected terrorists. Clinton would have wiretapped suspect Republicans.

Sadly, many here would have considered Clinton justified.

Again, with Clinton. That seems to be the unifying element of Martial Talk Republicans.

But, again, can you justify that statements?

If not, please retract them.

 

[Jeff Boler]

Again, with Clinton. That seems to be the unifying element of Martial Talk Republicans.

But, again, can you justify that statements?

If not, please retract them.

And the unifying element of Martial Talk Democrats is that it's only a wrong action of George Bush makes it's. Who cares what has been done in the past.

You can't just brush history under some rug.

I'm not retracting anything.

 

[mrhnau]

Again, with Clinton. That seems to be the unifying element of Martial Talk Republicans.

Clinton is recent history, and most of us are old enough to remember the specifics. He is also the only Democrat president since Carter (back in late 70's), so he is the only one of recent memory unless you are over 40 (just grabbing a number here). We have also mentioned Rosevelt, Lincoln and Carter. The violations of Clinton were so blatant, that its easy to criticize his actions. Purjury, Ruby Ridge, Waco, Elian Gonzalez, White Water, etc..

I will say this about Rush Limbaugh. He has one quote I like "Democrats are funniest when they are out of power". I have to agree with that one

 

[michaeledward]

The violations of Clinton were so blatant, that its easy to criticize his actions. Purjury, Ruby Ridge, Waco, Elian Gonzalez, White Water, etc..

Ruby Ridge ... began on August 21, 1992.

Bill Clinton was Inaugurated as President in 1993.

Are you blaming this 'blatant violation' on candidate Clinton?