Port flap got you down? You think we are not supporting you? Never fear Dubai Dubya! The port flap is just a distraction, we Republicans got your back:
We will draft legislation to make your spying legal, whats that? You say you think you were doing the right thing anyhow? No problem, we are not even going to investigate and check if the wire tapping was illegal:
:mad:
For less than that the last Democratic administration was investigated many times over. These Republicans that recently showed (what I believe is) a fake concern for the rights and security of Americans, now are willing to show how spineless are when confronted with a president that very few Americans trust now.
What is really funny is that they put super important guys like Mark McGwire under oath, but lesser folks like torture boy can testify without the need to be under oath. Such quaint things are not for this administration.
Meanwhile, MSNBC’s scroll continues to misspell FRIST. As a proper Tennessee English teacher and former copy editor, I should send in a scolding email. But I don’t wanna.
And still MORE meanwhile, documents at the National Archives that used to be declassified are now classified again. That started with Clinton, but Bushy has excelerated the process. (Sorry, no linky. Heard it on TV news last week.)
Can we call for an investigation of the lack of investigation? Just wait until January!
Reading the generally bollixed-up close-captioned mute TVs while panting on the treadmill is probably not the ideal method of receiving one’s news, but I am under the impression that I saw a broadcast news report on how a bunch of Republicans (no kiddin’) have drafted legislation that pins Dubya’s ears back w/regards to the spying, spelling out specifically what authorizations must be obtained beforehand and how often they must be reviewed/renewed. And they are caucusing with Democrats, apparently.
(Or was this perhaps the Comedy Channel or something? Anyone else see such a thing?)
That could be. I know that Bush has at least agreed to include more members of Congress in the briefing meetings than he did in the past. It was only 8 in the past (4 from each party).
Blame the people. Where was the outrage when this program came to light? As it was, the Chimperor was able to frame the debate in terms of “spying on terrorists” and “protecting the American people.” If civil liberties mean that much to Americans, they should be raining fire and brimstone on their representatives.
I don’t recall the specifics, but yeah, something like this is going on. Pisses me off to no end; I saw Lindsey Graham (I think) and Olympia Snowe saying that this was a triumph for Congress – the President had to have checks on what he can/cannot do. But, there’ll be no investigation (yay, majority party!) and the so-called “checks” amount to recurring 45 day renewals of warrant approval (still totally secret, with just a few more Congresscritters “in the loop”). I don’t recall them specifically addressing requiring warrants any more than is already in place, but then the evening news isn’t very thorough about these things. I’ll be happy if someone corrects and/or fills in the gaps of my understanding of the matter.
Way to grow cojones; although I suppose that’s not really the objective (which appears to me to be more of the “how can we make this look like we’re outraged but not do anything truly substantive”). I note also that I got the impression this was a total Republican effort with little to no Democrat voice. Consider me underwhelmed.
Errr, guys? You may not liek it, but this has been going on for years under multiple administrations (at least 5 presidencies), with no objections raised by either party. The Democrats didn’t seem to have any problem with it until they belatedly realized that it could be used as a philosophical club against GWB. Given that they were kept informed, and that Bush bent over backward to get the approval of the Justice dept (and note that in fact it did point out several problems, which were addressed promptly by shutting down that part of the program) their objections look hollow.
So the Senate decides not to investigate the silly matter and Republicans are going to end the blather over the matter by making wholly legal in open text of the law, thus not relying anymore on lawyer’s interpretation. There may be objections to whether this kind of program is good. And such a debate would be worthy. But this is one of the flat-out most ridiculous phony made-up scandals I’ve seen yet.
The people quite explicitly want the executive branch to be able to spy on our enemies, a power the executive has traditionally enjoyed and employed.
Given all of that, the sensible course is to explicitly make legal what was arguably legal in the first place, and thus make it forever a subject that neither side can use as a club in a partisan argument.
Oddly enough, I agree with this statement, if not the underlying sentiment. The people are indeed “to blame.” And in a representative, republican democracy, that’s how it should be. The people want the executive branch to be able to conduct such surveillance, as Mr. Moto cogently observes above. That’s how we make laws – we discern the will of people, and effectuate it.
Now, this move settles the issue of what’s legal and what is not legal. A working assumption by Bush becomes codified into law, in much the same way that the 25th Amendment finally codified John Tyler’s claim that the death of Harrison made him President, and not just a guy upon whom the powers and duties of the office now rested.
I hate to do this (sort of), but most of what you’ve said is contrary to my understanding. To reiterate, I’m not trying to be a pain in the ass (nor just an ass); I’d appreciate it if you would relieve me of my ignorance…
cite?
cite?
cite?
cite?
I should point out that I hadn’t read the article before my previous post, which clarifies what I said, but with even more details. Sorry about that.
What happened in this case is the President decided to ignore the law and do what he wanted, and then wait for his Congress to ratify that action after the fact. That’s NOT how a representive democracy is supposed to work.
Again, if Congress changes the law and allows the President’s actions (whatever they are, because we won’t find out the details now that there is no investigation), it will settle what is legal after codification. It does nothing about what the President has been doing for the past 5 years.
Yeah, our “enemies”…winkwinknudgenudge. Or anyone the administration decides is an enemy. Or suspects is an enemy. Without any real oversight except by administration cronies.
Just admit that all of this talk from Republicans about valuing the Constitution and American values and rights and liberties and small government is nothing but empty pandering designed to make you seem like “patriots” when, in fact, you don’t give a shit about any of these things and would just as soon see us in a police state as long as it was run by Republicans.
Y’know, I suppose it’s not right to just toss off a whole bunch of cite requests. So, I’ll add a little bit…
cite? My understanding is that the so-called “wall” between foreign and domestic spying was a direct justification here. (Warrantless) wiretapping of US citizens was reconginzed as unconsitutional and had distinctly not been done by administrations since Nixon.
cite? My understanding is that they (referring to Democrats) were not informed (unless you want to say that a few people, both Democrat and Republican, under strict classified status, constitute informing “them”).
cite? My understanding is that Gonzales’ point of view directly coincided with the President’s.
cite? See previous question; I’m not aware that any parts of the program have been shut down (unless you mean “shut down” the way it was used for the Total Information Awareness program).
As I said before, any clarifications and corrections would be welcome.
I object to this characterization. The President did not ignore the law; he followed his interpretation of the law. Absent a court decision, that’s precisely what the Executive Branch is supposed to do. You don’t like what he did, so you try to characterize it as utterly certain that it was illegal. You don’t mention that both the Justice Department and some legal scholars have endorsed the President’s view.
So what? What the president was doing was not illegal. It was only illegal in your, and your brethern’s, fevered imagination.
