Question for those defending Bush's abuse of power:

[beaconess]

Would you be as defensive about this use of presidential power if it were Clinton, not Bush, asserting it?

If the answer is no, they prove our point - presidential power is not granted based upon who is in office or whether we trust them. We don't confer power and then hope that the president won't abuse it. We have checks and balances to ENSURE that no president, regardless of their party or integrity, can abuse our rights. So if such power can't be trusted in Clinton's hands, it can't be trusted in Bush's or anyone else's.

If the answer is yes, they're lying.

[tuvor]

1. Can you imagine the cries for impeachment if Bill Clinton had done this?

No doubt they'd be screaming "Rule of law!"

And that it's worse than the blow job.

[zanne]

6. I hope congress doesn't wait until 2008 to correct this situation...

I'm looking into my crystal ball again and I'm seeing Congress radically change many of the bills passed by the Republican Congress right before election 08'. I really don't think they're stupid enough to keep these laws in place (Patriot Act, etc.) with the threat of a Democratic administration looming over them. It should be very interesting, though. I'm remembering when Congress did away with the Independent Counsel AFTER they had Clinton impeached.

[beaconess]

8. But if they try to defend Bushs wiretapping, it won't matter since

they'll set a precedent for a Democratic president to claim he can do whatever he wants, even with authorization from Congress.

[dennis4868]

9. They (the media and repubs).....

would have already burned him at the stake....there would be no need for impeachment!

[Deep13]

2. But, but, time of war and stuff.

I just want my Iraqi oil, is that so wrong?

It is?

[chelsea0011]

3. They are smug about parts of the Constituiton that they think

aren't important because it doesn't affect them. The Fourth Amendment about illegal search doesn't matter because most of them think they have nothing to hide. Only criminals get protection from that amendment. If you were to ask most oF the "Bush can do anything crowd", I think most would be against the Miranda Law or the right to an attorney. Who cares about the First Amendment because the press hates Bush. They think it's about time to shut down some of their powers. But as another post stated, try to see what happens if one messes with the Second Amendment? That one affects them greatly.

[46and2]

4. It is well documented

that the NSA under Clinton used Echelon as well to listen to phone conversations. This story will fade away soon enough to be replaced by the next blizzard in the mid-west or quintuplet cloned sheep born in Scotland...

[Peachhead22]

5. Another hypothetical for Bush apologists

Bush won't be in office forever. By Bush's own admission this 'War on Terror' may go far after Bush leaves office. Perhaps decades after. If Bush is successful in his present push to expand Executive wartime powers to include domestic surveillance without any meaningful oversight, what happens when the guy who comes in after him, or after that guy is virulently anti-gun, or is by anyone's definition a tyrant?

You pro-gun folks, or civil libertarians will have given future Presidents the authority to do absolutely anything without oversight or limitation.

[beaconess]

7. Exactly - you don't grant unfettered power and then hope they won't abuse

it. The same people who are defending Bush now would scream bloody murder if this power were exercised by someone they don't like or trust.

The Founding Fathers were very wise - they created a system that protects us from tyranny, in whatever guise it may come in.

[Peachhead22]

11. Precident is a bitch

Beaconess, you put it better and more succintly than I could have.

Another point: Once the precident is set it's fair game for anyone in the future.

[liberal N proud]

10. I actually had an email from a repuke - My pet repuke

that said Clinton did spy on people.
I said Prove it!
He came up with the multinational Echelon project that was set up through legal means to search volumes of data for specific words or phrases.

Claims that all presidents have spied on citizens.

[bush_is_wacko]

12. They probably all have BUT by LEGAL means

I'm not stupid enough to believe average, innocent, Americans haven't caught the attention of our government by saying something stupid on the internet or just typing the correct phrase or word. That might indeed lead to a LEGAL wiretap and monitoring. There are PLENTY of LEGAL ways that could happen. This president stretched his "military force" option way beyond it's limits. He can't even seem to settle on THE ONE THING that gave him that authority. That is really all it takes. One thing that makes it legal. Funny thing is, no one can seem to settle on EXACTLY when our elected representatives handed that right over to him.

[liberal N proud]

13. I drives me nuts to think that people blindly allow their liberties to

be rendered useless.
I can't understand the stupidity at this level. The same but heads were and still are up in arms over the blow job that Clinton got. Now that was a national crime.