Comments on: DID BUSH TAKE THE EASY WAY OUT ON DOMESTIC SPYING?

By: martin

martin — Wed, 28 Dec 2005 12:53:25 +0000

Fact is, it is the president’s prerogative to determine what is “necessary” in this situation. This can be argued based on the meaning of Article II Section 1, precedents dating back 200+ years, and current reasoning offered by many top scholars (including liberals). Now some may choose to argue the opposite point of view. Fine. This would be a test of Executive vs. Congressional power. IMO, in this instance, the only “impeachment” will come when the public comes to understand the willingness of democrat leadership and the NYT to sacrifice national security for political gain. Won’t happen.

By: Steve

Steve — Wed, 28 Dec 2005 12:00:21 +0000

Your question about “the easy way or the most effective way” isn’t an either/or question. The answer to what you asked is, “yes and yes.” Yes it is easier, but I suspect the President’s reasoning is more along the lines of “I have this authority (based on advice of counsel), I don’t need to ask for permission. Therefore, I won’t ask permission so I avoid setting a precedent.” The answer to the second part of the question you asked is “yes, it is more effective.” It is much more timely, since any court review must also go through several lawyers’ reviews. The preparation time is significant - anyone who tells you that it doesn’t need to take long has never gone through the process.

By: diamond

diamond — Tue, 27 Dec 2005 22:43:45 +0000

Rick, regarding Boot, are you blue in the face yet?

By: RA

RA — Tue, 27 Dec 2005 20:52:44 +0000

Bush took the same way out that Carter, Reagan and Clinton took. The difference is they didn’t have traitorous Democrats making America safe for criminals and terrorists to try and make political points with the Cindy Sheehans of the world.

By: Rick Moran

Rick Moran — Tue, 27 Dec 2005 17:50:54 +0000

Boot:

Thank you for proving my point about why we can safely dismiss the opinions of idiots like you on this very important issue.

First, you obviously didn’t read the post - maybe you can’t?

Secondly, thank you for proving my other point about the left - that you don’t believe we are at war. This, of course, would be interesting news to our enemies who walk, talk, and act as if they are at war with us.

Simply denying that basic fact puts you on the bench when serious people examine the very serious issues raised by this program.

By: BBoot

BBoot — Tue, 27 Dec 2005 17:20:32 +0000

I guess I have a hard time with the broadsides of hostility from this site and its denizens against any discussion of your precious president. Perhaps it would do you well to think that Bushy has been pretty much a failure as a leader, managing to achieve election by appealing to factions and partisans of small issues and by using to his own advantage language that implies he holds values suggesting he will act in certain ways when, in fact, he has not and has no intention of doing so.
Bush’s misconception of the ‘War on Terror’ is disasterous. There is no war to have as there is no territory at issue nor any victory to measure. There are terrorists and those who sponsor them. But War? That is a fundamental misunderstanding of the times and their consequences done for the simple reason that Bush is incapable of understanding anything more complex and his primary goal is not achieving any global situation but affecting the American political situaiton to his own benefit.

By: nikko

nikko — Tue, 27 Dec 2005 14:24:43 +0000

Let us examine all the evidence, then make the judgement on these actions. To me, it appears the president is just getting after AQ, big time.

Oh, and–release the Barrett Report.