Forums | MacLife

resedit wrote:

What Bush did was 100% legal.

In two threads I asked if people would have a problem with this if Bush didn't break the law.
Well, he didn't break the law.

Look . . . once again, you're substituting your "interpretation" of the law as fact.

Why are some Republicans questioning the practice that went on here? I don't care what you say Res, but there isn't a simple reading of that law that allows for the warantless monitoring of Americans.  It simply doesn't.  Why has one of the FISA judges resigned in protest, if this is such a clear-cut legal issue?

Sure - liberal media will claim that he did, but so what?
It was liberal media that tried to make stories out of forged documents - and it was liberals here who refused to believe they were forged even when it was quite clearly demonstrated that they were made with Microsoft Word and not the IBM typewriter.

....and most acknowledged the fact that the documents were fake once such a fact was shown.  What the hell does this have to do with the topic at hand?  If only you were so concerned about the forged documents used to justify claims that made it into Bush's statements concerning Niger . . . used even after the CIA warned against their accuracy! 

Nothing new here - hatred for Bush is more important than the obvious.

Res, there are REPUBLICANS questioning this practice.  Your repeated attempts to deflect attention to facts by crying "you guys hate Bush" is tiring and intellectually dishonest.  How unusual.

bratboy wrote:

Why are Republicans questioning the practice if this is the case?  DIdn't they get the memo?

Because some of them have been taken in by the rehetoric of the extreme left?

Really - that's a very partisan question to ask.
If there was a democrat that agreed it was legal (and there might be, has anyone asked Lieberman?) would that make my point? No? Then what difference does it make if some republicans don't agree?

If all republicans agree with a point - it's cried partisan.
If some don't agree - it's used as evidence against the point.
Please play fair.

resedit wrote:

bratboy wrote:

Why are Republicans questioning the practice if this is the case?  DIdn't they get the memo?

Because some of them have been taken in by the rehetoric of the extreme left?

Really - that's a very partisan question to ask.
If there was a democrat that agreed it was legal (and there might be, has anyone asked Lieberman?) would that make my point? No? Then what difference does it make if some republicans don't agree?

If all republicans agree with a point - it's cried partisan.
If some don't agree - it's used as evidence against the point.
Please play fair.

Oh come on . . . MY 'point' is that its a questionable practice.  YOUR point is that it's "100% legal, no questions asked."

Once again, you're overstating the strength of your opinion.  If some Republicans believe the practice is questionable and that it should at least be looked into, then YES, it is damaging to your claims that the only reason this is an issue at all is because of "Bush hatred."

Czachorski wrote:

Either they will find that managing in this new complex era is not as easy as they think...

No one is claiming it's neither easy nor complex. The problem is that Dubya doesn't care about complexity or nuance -- he's currently doing the equivalent of delicate surgery with a machete.

Well, most complex situations require a complex, well-planned approach. That's all I'm saying. Well-though-out solutions don't seem to be this admin's forté (see Iraq) -- it's more of an impulsive, damn-the-consequences mindset that doesn't appear to be working very well.

Last edited by Sergeant D (2005-12-22 10:27 am)

Czachorski wrote:

I think the Dems are oversimlifying all of the very complex issues in the world today down to a simple blame-bush-foreverything approach, and I think it would a good thing to give them a shot at the reigns.

At the moment, the Dems are kind of forced to simplify issues by the current occupant of the White House and his party.

We haven't had a rational discussion about...well...anything these past five years. If we try a rational approach, we're bemoaned as traitors, aiding and abetting the enemy. Vastly important bills are put to vote hours after they are introduced with no chance for rational debate and if we vote, "No," they rally against us. "We hate the troops," et cetera. If we talk about changes that need to happen in Iraq we're "defeatists" even though current policy is certainly leading in that direction.

We're not going to be able to have a rational discussion about this, either, if the White House gets its way. Already, they're spreading quick shut-down arguments to excuse this behavior and the President has said it's "legal," so I doubt we'll hear much more from him.

Sadly, over-simplified is the way things are going to be for a while.

the last graphs from bratboy's link above:

"Some conservative critics contend that the fault lines within the party are easy to trace. As with so much else, they say, the trail leads to Iraq.

"From the beginning, the folks who thought it was a good idea to go into Iraq have found good reason to think that all other Bush policies, from torture to domestic surveillance, are justified," said Robert Levy, a conservative legal scholar at the libertarian Cato Institute. "This is just one in a litany of ongoing events that have separated the noninterventionist wing of the Republican Party from the neocon wing.""

Last edited by Font/DA Mover (2005-12-22 12:34 pm)