S
- Status
W
WanderAimlessly
Guest
They have been calling for his impeachment from his first day in office, so what else is new. This is just another inane attempt at a power grab since they cannot get power through the elections.
PF
J
Jay74
Guest
I won’t blindly defend everything Bush does, because I disagree with him a great deal. Having said that, however, the people calling for his impeachment are the same people who would be saying “he didn’t do enough to stop it” if we were attached again. It doesn’t matter what he does.
G
geezerbob
Guest
I have been a Bush supporter but am becoming less and less happy about his second term performance. Until just recently, he appeared completely out of touch with reality, probably because he doesn’t read newspapers or watch television news, relying instead on his staff to keep him informed. Staff apparently told him what they thought he wanted to hear rather than the truth and that showed in his speeches and actions.
On this particular issue, it appear that he is on shaky legal ground. The very limited electronic eavesdropping that he authorized was probably very necessary, but the way it was handled may well have been an interpretation of a law that was stretched to the point of becoming illegal. Again, he probably got bad advice from his staff who looked for ways to give legitimacy to what he wanted to do. It will be very interesting to see how this plays out because, for once, his critics may have a legitimate complaint.
On this particular issue, it appear that he is on shaky legal ground. The very limited electronic eavesdropping that he authorized was probably very necessary, but the way it was handled may well have been an interpretation of a law that was stretched to the point of becoming illegal. Again, he probably got bad advice from his staff who looked for ways to give legitimacy to what he wanted to do. It will be very interesting to see how this plays out because, for once, his critics may have a legitimate complaint.
G
gilliam
Guest
Even if it was illegal, which I don’t think it was, it was not done maliciously or for personal gain, but to protect the United States of America in fulfillment of his duties. IMHO it is no where near what is required for grounds for impeachment.
I know the Dems want the White House, but this ain’t the way to go about it.
I know the Dems want the White House, but this ain’t the way to go about it.
A
Al_Masetti
Guest
There is something else to become aware of and to be alert for the signs of… (not grammatical, sorry)… and that is the “bureaucratic wars” which are destroying this country,…
For example, there is “stovepiping” which means NOT sharing information between one agency and another. FBI and CIA do not talk.
Agencies are staffed with political appointees who then undermine the policies of the next administration.
Military groups IN THE FIELD!! have staffs OFFICE weenies as compared with actual field operations grunts] of 1000 people… what do the office super clerks and “Powerpoint Rangers” do with their time???
Read David Hunt’s recent book… “They Just Don’t Get It” or Richard Marsinko’s books Red Cell I and Red Cell II. (Marsinko was one of the SEAL founders and organizers… when he wrote a non-fiction memoir, the CIA gave him a terrible time, so all of his following books were “fiction”. ) Both Hunt and Marsinko talk and write extensively about adverse impact of bureaucracy with examples.
The CIA has a history of extreme political manipulations going back as far as the Eisenhower - Stevenson political campaign… they briefed Ike but refused to brief Stevenson because he wasn’t “cleared”. During the Kennedy - Nixon campaign, they gave false information to Kennedy (telling him there was a missile gap between the US and the USSR). Kennedy publicly revealed this information which caused a furor that the Russians were ahead of us… Nixon KNEW the truth… there was no missile gap, the top secret U-2 overflights had proved there were NO operational Russian missiles and only one small site near Moscow, but he felt honor-bound to keep silent.
The current Wilson / Plame controversy with respect to Niger and WMD’s and yellowcake purchases by Iraq is just another attempt by the CIA bureaucracy to influence domestic and international politics. THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO PROVIDE USEFUL INFORMATION TO THE PRESIDENT. Not try to manipulate public and congressional opinion with false and / or misleading information.
The folks at the N.Y. Times broke this story about the NSA to help sell a book. It is old news (going back to the 1990’s, actually), with information provided to Congress years ago, about a classified operation in wartime. Believe it or not, the U.S. actually IS at war. ] But the media and superannuated student radicals in Congress are trying to use this as a lever to remove a President who occupies a position they want for someone else.
For example, there is “stovepiping” which means NOT sharing information between one agency and another. FBI and CIA do not talk.
Agencies are staffed with political appointees who then undermine the policies of the next administration.
Military groups IN THE FIELD!! have staffs OFFICE weenies as compared with actual field operations grunts] of 1000 people… what do the office super clerks and “Powerpoint Rangers” do with their time???
Read David Hunt’s recent book… “They Just Don’t Get It” or Richard Marsinko’s books Red Cell I and Red Cell II. (Marsinko was one of the SEAL founders and organizers… when he wrote a non-fiction memoir, the CIA gave him a terrible time, so all of his following books were “fiction”. ) Both Hunt and Marsinko talk and write extensively about adverse impact of bureaucracy with examples.
The CIA has a history of extreme political manipulations going back as far as the Eisenhower - Stevenson political campaign… they briefed Ike but refused to brief Stevenson because he wasn’t “cleared”. During the Kennedy - Nixon campaign, they gave false information to Kennedy (telling him there was a missile gap between the US and the USSR). Kennedy publicly revealed this information which caused a furor that the Russians were ahead of us… Nixon KNEW the truth… there was no missile gap, the top secret U-2 overflights had proved there were NO operational Russian missiles and only one small site near Moscow, but he felt honor-bound to keep silent.
The current Wilson / Plame controversy with respect to Niger and WMD’s and yellowcake purchases by Iraq is just another attempt by the CIA bureaucracy to influence domestic and international politics. THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO PROVIDE USEFUL INFORMATION TO THE PRESIDENT. Not try to manipulate public and congressional opinion with false and / or misleading information.
The folks at the N.Y. Times broke this story about the NSA to help sell a book. It is old news (going back to the 1990’s, actually), with information provided to Congress years ago, about a classified operation in wartime. Believe it or not, the U.S. actually IS at war. ] But the media and superannuated student radicals in Congress are trying to use this as a lever to remove a President who occupies a position they want for someone else.
D
davy39
Guest
Gee, it just so happens that the congressman is a Democrat. What a coincedence! Democrats have been calling for Bushs impeachment since his first day in office. Are people so stupid that they don’t believe that there are people in this country that are our enemies, and they want to bring this country to it’s knees? Get your heads out of the sand or wherever.
W
WanderAimlessly
Guest
Stupid? No.
Blinded by a complete hatred of Bush? Yes
PF
B
beckers
Guest
Dem’s need to relazie one thing—BUSH is not running for re-election. They keep attacking him but the people of the US are getting sick of it. They yell wolf so many times that nobody listens. They need to start talking about issues not attacking!
D
davy39
Guest
Well said!
S
SamCA
Guest
Maybe, but in this case they’re clearly right. Bush has openly admitted to doing something which is unambiguously, inarguably against the law. Dude, even Richard Nixon’s lawyer has called Bush “the first President to admit to an impeachable offense.”
T
Troy7
Guest
Ah…the sweet aroma of Impeachment! Fingers crossed! 
S
SamCA
Guest
On what possible grounds could it not be illegal? The law explicitly states that wiretapping without a warrant is a crime. Where is the wiggle room here?
First of all, I see no reason to accept automatically that this was done for the good of the nation – because if it was, why not do it through the legal procedures already in place? The “we needed to do it without taking time for a warrant” argument is nonsensical. The FISA court has a whole procedure in place for emergency wiretapping, wherein you don’t need to get the warrant for days after you’ve already begun, as long as you get it eventually.
The fact that they did this without going through the court strongly iimplies that the court wouldn’t have granted the warrants. Since the court has rejected a total of 4 warrants in the entirety of its existence, why exactly might the administration have doubted they’d get the warrants if it really was for the good of the country?
That said, even if it was for the good of the country, that doesn’t make it one bit less illegal. And breaking the law with good intentions is every bit as impeachable an offense as doing it out of raw, Freddy Krueger evil.
S
shockerfan
Guest
Bush must defend us from terrorists but he can’t wiretap them, interrogate them, kill them, track them, etc.
On one had we have people who would love to kill us, slice the necks of our children, bomb our cities, poison our water, etc. On the other hand, we have people in our country who not allow any real action to take place to prevent these things. They even passed laws to prevent the CIA from talking to the FBI.
Libs seem to support the following:
On one had we have people who would love to kill us, slice the necks of our children, bomb our cities, poison our water, etc. On the other hand, we have people in our country who not allow any real action to take place to prevent these things. They even passed laws to prevent the CIA from talking to the FBI.
Libs seem to support the following:
- Total comfort for all detainees
- Access to free lawyers for all detainees
- Throwing soldiers in jail for killing terrorists
- The continual attack on the moral of our soldiers by implying that they are terrorists (John Kerry) or that they can’t win (Howard Dean)
- Open borders - no border guards
- Re-defining “torture” to mean anything stronger than denying detainees access to HBO (I’m sure they will add that to the list soon
- Spelling out an exact “timetable” so that terrorists can better plan their activities
- Never allowing the acknowledgement that those who want to kill us are all MUSLIM EXTREMISTS
E
estesbob
Guest
Actually what he did is not inarguably and unambiguously against the law. In fact there appears to be strong legal basis for what he did and, BTW, has vowed to continue to do. The USSC has always given the Presdient wide latitude when acting in time of war. Congress authorized him to use any means necessary to protect the country after 9-11 and he adhered to his Consititutinal duty to keep them adivsed of what he was doing.
In short, Dude, he didnt do anything wrong.
E
estesbob
Guest
War powers act and the congressional resolution after 9-11 make it perfectly legal. Clinton did the same thing with NO congressional resolution.
S
Semper_Fi_1
Guest
There is no impeachable offense. Dems just wish there was. Seems to be yet another example of the Dems preaching “Do as we say, not as we do.”
T
Troy7
Guest
I aint a dem, nor a liberal and am drooling at the thought of a possible impeachment.
S
Semper_Fi_1
Guest
Won’t happen. He did nothing illegal. There’ll be some clawing for it in the beginning, the when the Republicans bring it to the floor for an actual vote, the person who introduced the bill won’t actually sign it (re: Murtha). Clinton wiretapped people without warrants when it was ILLEGAL and he never got impeached for that.
I don’t know why more people can’t see that this is just more politicking at the expense of our national security. Dems trying to gain points from their support base for '06.
J
Jay74
Guest
They should have learned that lesson from the Republicans. They overcriticized Clinton so much, even over irrellevant things, that they were too sick of it to listen to worthy criticism.
- Status