I’m saying it’s irrelevant and a distraction to bring it up.
Why? If Pres Bush did nothing different from past presidents, why is it an issue now?
This just proves that what our revered leader did was necessary. The judicial system is obviously deeply infiltrated by terrorist sympathizers.
If past criminals were not prosecuted, does that mean all future criminals should not?
Because if it is illegal, it doesn’t matter if past presidents got away with it. Furthermore it is a distraction because both Carter and Clinton’s EO concerned foreign surveillance. Bush has authorized domestic surveillance.
I know it’s a bit of a hijack to bring this up, but the Google ad is for “Humor Writing Workshops.” For some reason, that makes me giggle like a schoolgirl.
Thank you, Debaser. Merry Christmas!
Although it is interesting to note that the Clinton and Carter orders specifically excluded surveillance where there was a “substantial likelihood” that Americans would be affected.
Nope. Debaser hit it dead center. I’m simply asking the question.
Except for his being totally off the mark with regard to his statements of alleged “fact” (Clinton and Carter did this too, liberals are therefore hypocrites, any criticism of Bush is irrational hatred), that is.
But you both can plead ignorance, if not simple laziness and myopia, though. Just be more careful before paraphrasing blogs here - you know by now how well *that * shit works.
Believe it, amigo. I asked a question, that’s all. I notice that you have chosen to attack what you think my intentions were in asking the question, rather than answering the question. Isn’t that a form of ad hominem attack, in and of itself, which indicates that you can’t answer the question in the first place?
The question has been answered by way of pointing out the falseness of its premises. It’s like you’d asked “Why is the sky green? Why do all you people hate to admit it’s green?”
Well, I’ll give the benefit of the doubt.
Now, do you have comments about the actual subject of this thread, Bush’s wiretaps? Since you admit your previous comment has fuck-all to do with it or it’s a fallacy?
No… protest… over ECHELON?
Oh, good lord. Oh, good sweet lord. I remember the howls of protest there, and it DID comply with FISA.
Remember how we were going to info-swap with the Aussies to spy on Americans, in theory, and the protests over that even theoretical situation?
That said… yo, this is still ten times worse, buddy.
Clinton and Carter, in Clothahump’s cites, authorized surveillance and similar programs in foreign places, apparently in **compliance with relevant laws ** (FISA). I still disagreed with Clinton’s Echelon program. Carter was before my time.
Bush has authorized domestic surveillance, ignoring relevant laws and probable Constitutional prohibition, when there are already appropriate means to achieve his ends (eg FISA warrants), including being lax as to targetting purely domestic calls. He then lied about it (“any time you hear about a wiretap…”).
I’ve watched how you operate. I don’t buy your “innocent question” shtick for one second. It’s a failed gotcha, nothing more. Batting your eyes at me won’t help.
I’m not your amigo.
Behold the power of a functioning (at least partially) liberal media - we are able to swiftly deliver smack downs of conservative bullshit lying using the truth. I love it! Nice try, assholes. When come back, bring your ass - I know I just saw it handed to you.
I just wanted to point out, as shown nicely by Atticus, MilTan and others, that Debaser and ** Clothahump** are wrong – what Bush has been doing, and no doubt continues to do, is very different from the practices of his predecessors. I know that the “Clinton did it too!” defense is hard to resist, even if the facts aren’t quite there, so I’ll forgive them this time.
Doesn’t this remind you of anything? “Of course Iraq has WMDs. We KNOW where they are, but it classified information; it’s not like the President can be forthcoming with such descriptive details.”
But he didn’t use his WEINER! That’s what matters.
Nope. Not really.
What do you think is more likely, some random guy from another country killing you or your own government deciding to make your life miserable because you once bought a raffle ticket for the Wrong Cause?
Of course, I don’t live my life in fear because “someone” is going to get me, so maybe that’s why I’m against rewriting and rewiring everything about our country because “9/11 changed everything”.
It was LUCK. Do you cringe at the idea of getting into a Ford Explorer because it MIGHT have some Firestones on it?
All the money on “saving us from the terrorists” - if that were put into, say, more and better law enforcement and emergency response personnel how many more people woud survive the generally bad things that life throws at all of us?
What’s more likely, there, SHAKES, terr’rist killing you or your ass getting capped in a mugging? Anthrax or you burning to death because someone in your house fell asleep with a cigarette in their hand?
But terr’ists are “the them” and “the them” are just sooo easy to be afraid of. Because people are telling you to be afraid. Are they telling that because you’re concerned for you or because it benefits them?
-Joe