<p>Did anybody catch Bush’s radio address this morning? Unbelievable.</p>
<p>The gist - “Trust me: I’ll ONLY spy illegally on the bad guys.”</p>
<p>This administration gets scarier by the moment. And he has the gall to pretend he has a PASSION for Democracy and wants to spread it worldwide.</p>
<p>Impeach the creep.</p>
<p>Yes, I did catch it, and found it very reassuring. One of the things I’m thankful for as this year ends is that our current government wasn’t elected by the slack-jawed dupes who supported the other guy. Four years without a terrorist attack on our homeland. Four years of rollng up the terrorists on their own turf. Four years of ignorant political spin from a Democrat party that no longer can even pretend to have the interests of this country at heart. There’s hard work being done all over the globe, thanks to GW Bush and our armed forces. God bless this president, and God bless our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines.
<a href=“http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/12/17/D8EI32N00.html[/url]”>http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/12/17/D8EI32N00.html</a> (In case anyone’s interested in what the president actually said).</p>
<p>yes, but what about this country??? He’s second in presidents who have lost the most jobs - i believe it was hoover in the depression era who was first. This country is so protected now, but what about what happened on 9-11? They missed that one. Having supported him in the 2000 election i am dissapointed by what (or more importantly what he hasn’t) done for our country. If anything, his speech was reassuring that he’s an idiot. </p>
<p>Unfortunately, the election occured at a lucky time for him. Recent gallup poles suggest he would not be re-elected if the election was to be held today. People finally opened their eyes. Damn!</p>
<p>Everybody, go to google.com
Type in “failure” (without the quotes though)
hit “i’m feeling lucky”</p>
<p>weenie: I try not to hear him or see him. He emits so much negative energy. (like Delay)</p>
<p>Liberals are impossible to please and should be ignored. After giving President Clinton a pass for his 8 years of incompetence, they blame President Bush for his 8 months of failing to connect the dots. When he tries to connect the dots by trying to determine how many terrorist cells are in American by eavesdropping on possible terrorists, they blame him and ignore the fact that Senator Rockefeller was one of the judges on the “secret” court. I could care less about the civil rights of terrorists, I am more concerned about my government protecting my life and the lives of my family and friends. Quite frankly, I would be furious if the President was not trying to intercept the calls of terrorists. In case you people did not get the memo, we are in a war with people who wish to kill us and who live among us.</p>
<p>simba: I hear ya there.</p>
<p>driver: Is it our turn yet to declare someone unpatriotic? If so, I want to go first! You are “reassured” giving away your rights as an American citizen. Perfect.</p>
<p>How can American’s defend spying on citizens’ without warrants? Where is the outrage over the Bush administration’s manipulation of our free press? We are giving away our freedoms to force feed them to Iraqis. That makes a lot of sense.</p>
<p>Weenie:</p>
<p>What’s it going to take for you to know that we’re at war? One of your children being blown up on a airplane? A cloud of radioactive dust floating over your city/town? I lost three good friends and my next door neighbor on 9/11. Their families know we’re at war. And our enemy isn’t wearing a uniform - they are insidious and we need to take appropriate out-of-the-box actions. </p>
<p>Do you really think Bush broke the law? He briefed the appropriate Congressional Committees on what he was doing? Imagine if some of the international communications we interecepted were orders for another attach by an al-Qaeda cell in the U.S. and Bush didn’t intercept it? That idiot Jamie Gorelick on the 9.11 Commission and one of Clinton’s henchpeople in the Justice Department made sure that the CIA and FBI couldn’t share information. </p>
<p>Get real. There are literally hundreds of thousands of Islamofascists who would push the button - without any hesitation - to set off a nuclear weapon in the US. We didn’t create them by invading Iraq. They’ve been around and you and yours are at as much risk as the rest of us who actually take the threat seriously.</p>
<p>And gomestar - what have you been smoking? Our economy is chugging along. Our unemployment rate is effectively a “full-employment” rate. The world is going through a process of globalization and the US is succeeding. And wages are finally starting to rise. And all this even though we are fighting a war in Iraq and Afghanistan, Katrina and Wilma, the jump in oil prices. My only problem with Bush is too much spending.</p>
<p>Well said razorsharp and driver. The war on terrorism has taken a couple of broadsides this week. Let’s hope that Bush has the conviction to stick to his word of continuing the intelligence gathering. It’s amazing how many people are willing to put their own and the lives of fellow citizens on the line to score cheap political points.</p>
<p>edit: hat tip to BigGreen also</p>
<p>Joe Lieberman for Secretary of Defense. A Democrat who actually has a brain!</p>
<p>
Even better, he’s a Democrat with a conscience, i.e., a man with enough personal integrity to break with the party of charlatans’ massive distortion campaign. The days of a Democrat party with leaders such as Sam Nunn, Henry Jackson, et al. is sadly gone. There aren’t words to measure the contempt I feel for the the current Democrat leaders.</p>
<p>History proves that it is precisely at the time of war (and other difficult times such as economic) that people need to guard their freedoms and rights most closely.</p>
<p>Are you all content to ward off a terrorist strike at absolutely any cost? Even the cost of those things that our great country is built upon? Conservative republicans appear ready and willing to give it all away (in spite of their rhetoric – small government, individual rights, blah blah, lies, more lies…).</p>
<p>And I wouldn’t get too comfortable about the 4 year no-attack period. Al Quaeda’s record is that they can go a long time in between attacks. In fact, in some diabolical way, the longer they go the scarier it feels.</p>
<p>From Wikipedia and in response to Peacenik: </p>
<p>The Constitution is not a suicide pact is a political phrase that was coined by Justice Robert H. Jackson in his dissenting opinion in Terminiello v. Chicago, a 1949 free speech case in the USA. The majority opinion, by Justice William O. Douglas overturned the disorderly conduct conviction of a priest whose anti-Semitic, pro-Nazi rantings at a rally had incited a riot. The court held that Chicago’s breach-of-the-peace ordinance violated the First Amendment.</p>
<p>Jackson’s 24 page dissent was in response to a 4 page ruling. He concluded: “The choice is not between order and liberty. It is between liberty with order and anarchy without either. There is danger that, if the court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact.”</p>
<p>A few thoughts:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>George Bush swore to uphold the Constitution of the US. That Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. That prohibition has long been interpreted as requiring probable cause, and a warrant issued by a court, before the government snoops on the private conversations of its citizens.</p></li>
<li><p>Under the US Constitution, Congress acts as a body. Briefing a couple of members of Congress about a president’s decision to ignore the Constitution does not mean Congress has consented to these actions. But even if it did, Congress has no more authority to ignore the 4th Amendment than the President has.</p></li>
<li><p>Information obtained through illegal eavesdropping (directly or indirectly) is inadmissible in court. So what do you do with the information you obtain this way? Declare another citizen to be an “illegal combatant,” and imprison him without trial, or right to counsel?</p></li>
<li><p>Bush has forfeited any claim to being a conservative, or a “strict constructionist,” by these actions. The logic of his argument seems to be that there are no limits whatsoever on presidential power. If we can ignore the 4th Amendment, why not ignore the rest of the Bill of Rights? Who needs the 14th Amendment? Who needs due process? Who needs elections, for that matter? They’re nothing but a distraction from the business at hand, which is war! </p></li>
<li><p>The man needs to be reined in, immediately. I’m confident that there are a significant number of actual conservatives in the Republican party who will stand up and say “no” to this imperial presidency.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>It never ceases to amaze me to see how little it takes to scare some Americans into abandoning the principles which separate our nation from the rest and run to a Daddy figure who promises to protect them from the evil swarthy boogeymen. “They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security” - and, I might add, are unlikely to keep either for long.</p>
<p>Also “Trust Me” I won’t actually torture anyone, but I need them to think I might torture them to perform a proper interrogation. At least that one didn’t fly. </p>
<p>It amazes me that people still think we are in Iraq fighting the “War on Terror.” Where were all these terrorists and what were they doing before we got there? How many car bombs went off in Iraq before we were there? Please don’t tell me they were all in Afghanistan at Camp al qaeda planning the next attack.</p>
<p>“swarthy” bogeymen? That’s an absurd shot, even from you, Kluge. Must we always play with race cards?</p>
<p>As for all these alleged Constitutional violations, well, I haven’t seen any. Unreasonable searches (or wiretaps) are still unconstitutional. Some of you would be willing to see our government and its constitution defeated–allegedly in the name of preserving it. Lincoln faced the same problem–the similarities are jarring. And there are an awful lot of Vallandighams here on CC.</p>
<p>1.Constitutional Issues.
When does one part of the Constitution supersedes another part? Will one branch of government cede its prerogatives to another branch of government? If a branch gives up their prerogatives without challenge will that set a longstanding precedent?</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Confirmation hearings are really going to be tough on candidates from here on out. </p></li>
<li><p>More polarization of the electorate which also means moderate legislators will could have a tougher go. With more weight given to supreme court by default. </p></li>
<li><p>If our debate is strong within, the debate from without is stronger</p></li>
</ol>
<p>“Jarring similarities”:<br>
(a) 20 guys with box cutters buy one-way tickets, hijack planes, and fly them into buildings, killing 3,000; Wacked out dictator of distant foreign country posing no threat to the US nonetheless apparently requires (?) our invasion of his nation. Domestic impact considered so small that it’s deemed appropriate to cut taxes for the wealthy.
(b) half the nation secedes, hundred of thousands of Americans die, political and economic future of the Union in doubt.</p>
<p>I guess by those standards of “similarity”, Brad Pitt and I are twins.</p>
<p>“As for all these alleged Constitutional violations, well, I haven’t seen any. Unreasonable searches (or wiretaps) are still unconstitutional.”</p>
<p>I thought that was the whole point of the 1978 law that the President has decided to ignore - to allow a court to make a determination in advance whether the search or wiretap was unconstitutional, so that they wouldn’t have to defend their actions after the fact. According to the Justice Department, they’ve never been turned down by a court when they’ve asked, so what exactly is it that the Administration is hiding? You can’t “judge” an action to be an unconstitutional violation if you haven’t been permitted to see it at all. And I don’t need to see it - that’s what the courts are for.</p>
<p>Driver and fundingfather, what does George Bush have to do before you no longer support him?</p>