This ought to shut up all the moonbat trolls who were just last week ranting on about how Bush did something illegal vis a vis "illegal wiretapping", trying their best to make the case that he somehow broke the law... hahahahaahahaah

Egg on their faces again!

I haven't read the article yet, but from what you post...
"If a court refuses a FISA application and there is not sufficient time for the president to go to the court of review, the president can under executive order act unilaterally, which he is doing now,"

That is IF a court refuses an application. That says nothing about when they don't WANT to send in an application.

That is just my initial response, but I haven't read it all yet.

Court judges yesterday told members of the Senate Judiciary Committee that President Bush did NOT act illegally when he created by executive order a wiretapping program conducted by the National Security Agency (NSA).

The Bold is exactly what we here at B4B has been saying for weeks now.

Can we now move on to the next best, yet to be named, thing that President Bush has done/not done so the Feingold can censure him?

Just wondering out loud.

Too bad Paul did not read the entire article. If he did, he would have noticed the following:
-They could not speak specifically to the NSA listening program without being briefed on it.
-Spying on suspected international agents (does not address domestic agents).
-The judges, however, said Mr. Bush's choice to ignore established law regarding foreign intelligence gathering was made "at his own peril," because ultimately he will have to answer to Congress and the Supreme Court if the surveillance was found not to be in the best interests of national security.
-The panel of judges unanimously agreed that the law should have been changed before now.

Also, as was stated above, the opinion was based on submitted FISA requests. As we all know, no requests were submitted, and that has and still is the problem. Without submitting a request, there is no oversight.

Sack of lies,
You MOONBATS want to slow down the war on terror even more, thus aiding the ENEMY more, while W wants to speed the process up even more. A better plan no doubt!

Moonbats, as stated, the President, Commander in Chief, can act unilateraly under EXECUTIVE order. How might your plan be better? FYI, unilateraly means by himself. As granted in the Constitution!

. Barney,
"…if the surveillance was found not to be in the best interests of national security." (it says "if")

Congressional representatives have seen the program, and unanimously agree that the program is in the interest of national security. This, therefore is not an issue.

Congress and the White House agree that FISA should be changed to adapt to a technological environment, you must have missed the part about, “president would be remiss exercising his constitutional authority by giving all of that power over to a statute."
The rest of your comments are merely picking fly sh*t out of the pepper.

Keep trying to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat and you’re likely to pull back a bloody stump.

The five judges testifying before the committee said they could not speak specifically to the NSA listening program without being briefed on it, but that a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act DOES NOT override the president's constitutional authority to spy on suspected international agents under executive order.

Merry Censure and Happy Impeachement! Congress cannot make a law to overide the Constitutional authority of a President. Period. End of story and ANY hope we had, getting the Democrats to impeach and censure Bush is now toast. Damn, all that time I spent writing Demcorats is now wasted.

Let's get on to the next diaster made up by the left.

Funny how you failed to mention that while the judges said Bush was within his powers, they also said "Mr. Bush's choice to ignore established law regarding foreign intelligence gathering was made "at his own peril," because ultimately he will have to answer to Congress and the Supreme Court if the surveillance was found not to be in the best interests of national security."

So what in the hell are you blathering about? That doesn't sound like a ringing endorsment to me.

Bane, you write: Congressional representatives have seen the program,… I’m sorry but they have been briefed on the program. No one outside of the administration knows the exact nature or scoop of the spying, and the ex FISA judges repeatedly say international agents. The president does have the power to eavesdrop on foreign conversation (on foreign soil), but not when it ends or begins on US soil. At least not the portion of the conversation from the person legally on US soil.

vero,...Let's get on to the next diaster made up by the left.....WASHINGTON - President Bush said Wednesday that Saddam Hussein, not continued U.S. involvement in Iraq, is responsible for ongoing sectarian violence that is threatening the formation of a democratic government.

I thought the continuing violence was caused by the MSM? I wish this guy would make-up his mind. I do not know who to blame now?

Sew I wish you would! Sew your mouth shut, you clown. So sorry Blogs for Butt-holes, but the Constitution cannot be amended by arrogant public officials who don't wish to bother with it. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and if the American people allow it to be violated at will, then they will deserve the loss of liberty that will surely follow. We do not need to become a dictatorship just to catch terrorists. Nor does a declaration of war which Bush, by the way, doesn't have, suspend the Constitution.

The main concern is that, once the government becomes so intrusive, there is no way to prevent continued erosion of individual rights.

I think the answer requires at least in part considering what the occupant of the presidency says in the aftermath of wrongdoing or rectification. On its face, if Bush and his band of clowns are totally unapologetic and continue to maintain that as a war-time President I can do anything I want, I don’t need to consult any other branches, that is an impeachable offense.

It’s entirely more dangerous than Clinton’s lying under oath because it jeopardizes our democratic dispensation and civil liberties for the ages. It would set a precedent that, would lie around like a loaded gun, able to be used indefinitely for any future occupant.

AND THE TRUTH, SHALL SET YOU FREE!

Bush is protecting you, and the sad part about it is Russ Feingold wants to censure the man!

Democrats are so braindead, when will they EVER get it?

Barney,
“I’m sorry but they have been briefed on the program. No one outside of the administration knows the exact nature or scoop of the spying”

Now, I know you’re sorry, but how does this gainsay what I wrote? The judges stated that “ if the surveillance was found not to be in the best interests of national security” the Administration would have to answer to Congress, Congress feels it is in the interest of national security. So this is a non issue.

I don’t know where you’re drawing that information (not when it ends or begins on US soil) I don’t see that in the Constitution. It is, after all, the enumerated duties in the Constitution that the Administration, and now one of the authors of the FISA law are citing as the authority for the NSA program.

Stupid,
How do you do that? Fire off a non-stop barrage of platitudes with no correlation to facts whatsoever?
You are amazingly dull-witted.

If I ever need a lawyer before a jury, I'll go with a Dim/Lib lawyer. 47% of jurists would be Dims, and a Dim/lib lawyer could easily convince them of any nonsense we might need! The more nonsensical the presentation, the better.

By the way, the Dim/Lib Yale law school team was shut down 8-0 before the Supreme Court. Too funny! Good thing that was not a jury trial, and for once Ginsburg decided to uphold the law, nor her agenda. That must have been an overwhelming case. Yale law school must be horrible.

Bane in my A**, I think if we’re going to be intellectually honest here, which for you would be a very tall order, Bush's illegal wiretaps fall within the kind of thing that Alexander Hamilton was referring to when impeachment was discussed.

So you elephants better gather up your prayer beads and hope the dems don't clean house in Nov, cause payback is gonna be a serious BITCH! It will be titled Silence of The Republicans Lambs part 666!

Hey bane, I got another poll for you:Independents now make up 34% of the population. When asked if they lean in a certain direction, their answers pushed the Democrat numbers to 49% with Republicans at 42%. One year ago, the parties were dead even at 46% each.

This shift indicates, Gallup says, why its polls show Democrats leading in this year's congressional races.

I know that you were waiting for this.

Richard Nixon once said in an interview that, "if the president does it, it can't be illegal." Sound familiar?

He found out that wasn't true. The Bush abomination may need a reminder.

Stupid said, “I think”
That, right there should be cause for frivolity,

You speak in conundrums, “wrongdoing or rectification” “the occupant of the presidency” “democratic dispensation” What is that? Is that some Moonbat code-speak? Hilarious, it’s like listening to ½ of an Abbot & Costello routine.

“would lie around like a loaded gun”

People who mix metaphors aren’t batting with a full deck.

You kill me, you’re really a conservative poking fun at the moonbats, admit it, you crazy guy, you!

Barney,
Did you actually make it a full 24 hours without citing another poll?

Well, bring Mr. Gallup in here and we’ll discuss it.

Barney, You believe in Gallup polls do you? What did Gallup say the election results were going to be on Nov. 2, 2004? You didn't learn anything from the fact that the pollsters were wrong, did you?

I found a different view on the same story from the AP: The judges stressed that they were not offering their views on the NSA operation, which they said they knew nothing about.

But they said the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court has operated capably for 28 years and is fully able to protect civil liberties and give the administration all the speed and flexibility it needs to execute the war on terror.

The administration contends the president has inherent war powers under the Constitution to order eavesdropping without warrants.

"I am very wary of inherent authority" claimed by presidents, testified U.S. Magistrate Judge Allan Kornblum. "It sounds very much like King George."

King George! Ouch, that has to hurt

moonbats bow down, face mecca and pray that Bush saves your butts.

You know you don't deserve it, but he is a nice guy just doing his job.

We're ready now for the 'next' thing you want to throw at him, and censure him for. Keep the blanket censure of Bush open, it's good for you to have a place to vent.

Keep relying on those polls, seems they said Hanoi Kerry would win right?

Hey Stupid Imperalist,

Lets try to cut through your obvious hatred for the President and look at the specifics of the NSA signals intercepts.

Five seperate Federal Courts have held that the President is within his Constitutional power to perform signals intercepts to gather foreign intelligence. And they weren't talking about President Bush. They were talking about previous President's who were authorizing exactly the same program that President Bush has authorized. So, if these federal courts have ruled that the program is legal, that means its legal. DO YOU UNDERSTAND?

Do you know that the Bush administration has gone to the FISA courts over 3,500 times in the last two years and gotten warrants? Do you know that in some of these cases, the initial detection was a result of the signal intercepts? Do you know that because of the signal intercepts, the plot to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge was foiled?

Did you know that the signal intercept program is reviewed by the Department of Justice every 45 days and renewed only if the parameters of the program are being met? Did you know that selected members of Congress have been briefed on the program at least 12 times in the past 3-4 years? So much for "I can do anything I want, I don’t need to consult any other branches". He has consulted Congress.

Admit it, this is all because you hate the President and still cannot believe he defeated Al "I invented the Internet" Gore in 2000 and John "I'm a war hero" Kerry in 2004. Not to mention payback for the impeachment of President Clinton for perjury, lying under oath, and obstruction of justice. If Clinton did nothing wrong, why was he found in contempt of court and disbarred? Just wondering.

This is from the NY Times. It seems that the judges are in favor of judicial/congressional oversight, which I believe is what the democrats want while the republicans want to operate in secrete without oversight.

“Judge Baker and three other judges who served on the intelligence court testified at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in support of a proposal by Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, to give the court formal oversight of the National Security Agency's eavesdropping program. Committee members also heard parts of a letter in support of the proposal from a fifth judge, James Robertson, who left the court last December, days after the eavesdropping program was disclosed.”

Aren't you guys ever tired of always being wrong?

Barney,
Did the AP or NYT's versions of the judges’ testimony say that Mr. Bush was engaged in "illegal wiretapping"? No?

Game-set-match!

Speaking of working within the law. This just in on Drudge "Congresswoman McKinney Punches Police Officer... MORE... Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) punched a U.S. Capitol Police officer today after he mistakenly pursued her for failing to pass through a metal detector, HOTLINE reports... The entire incident is on tape. The cop is pressing charges and the USCP are waiting until Congress adjourns to arrest her, a source claims... Developing... " oopsie daisy

Bane, the judges did not say it was legal either. Ball in your court.

Straw man alert!

"while the republicans want to operate in secrete (sic) without oversight"

Barney,
Isn't Arlen Spector a ... dare I say it? a republican?

Barney,
If it's not in violation of law it's legal, res ipso loquitor.

Bane, why don’t let the judges speak for themselves?

Judge Baker said he felt most comfortable talking about possible changes to strengthen the foreign intelligence law. "Whether something's legal or illegal goes beyond that," he said, "and that's why I'm shying away from answering that."

Judge Robertson said.
He did not weigh in on the ultimate question of whether he considered the N.S.A. program illegal. The judges at the committee hearing avoided that politically charged issue despite persistent questioning from Democrats, even as the judges raised concerns about how the program was put into effect.

RE: "The main concern is that, once the government becomes so intrusive, there is no way to prevent continued erosion of individual rights."

It seems to me the liberal Democrats are more concerned about the "erosion of the rights of criminals and terrorists" than they are about protecting the lives of American citizens... just like liberals and the ACLU seem to be more concerned about protecting the "rights of criminals" than the rights of their victims!

If Al Qaeda calls, just hang up the phone. NSA is only looking for terrorists calling their American members and supporters. The overwhelming vast majority of Americans do not have to worry about NSA catching them talking to a terrorist; although, liberals do agree that it is all perfectly legal as long as one of their judges gives the go ahead. It's amazing how the only people the liberals seem to trust are judges... especially those activist judges they rely on to unconstitutionally impose their liberal agenda, values, and lifestyle on the American people!!!

It's not likely, however, that Al Qaeda will be calling anyone over a public phone after NSA's secret efforts to catch the terrorists and protect Americans was exposed to the world. It's time we put those individuals in jail who revealed the program. I wonder how that investigation is going.

When this issue is finally resolved, hopefully in President Bush's favor, Republicans and Conservatives should make as big of a media spectacle as possible, repeating over and over, day after day to the American people just what the Democrats propaganda efforts are all about. Most Americans don't pay that much attention or even hear the news on a daily basis, but if it is repeated often enough and long enough, they do. It will take a lot of effort and time to undo the damage caused by the liberals and Democrats on this and other issues.

The Republicans should have long ago started attacking the Democrats directly. The liberal Democrats have basically declared a war of hate and propaganda on President Bush, Conservatives, Republicans, Christians, and other traditional Americans who do not share their liberal beliefs, opinions, and lifestyles. It's time Conservatives and Republicans respond aggressively to it in kind. In fact, they should have gone on the offensive when President Bush first took office and liberal Democrats started their propaganda war.

And it shouldn't be up to President Bush to wage the propaganda war with the Democrats. It's time we start hearing stronger words from the Republican members of Congress, and hear them over and over until the message begins to sink in to the American people and offset the daily drum of liberal Democrat rhetoric and propaganda!

AAR

bane, I think it is ipsa, and not ipso (ipso facto).

Barney,

Did Mr. Bush have the constitutional right to order the NSA signals intercepts?

Damn spankey he did.

Keep reaching into those jaws of defeat, but don't look behind you, your troops have abandoned the field.

Barney,
Are you really going to correct my spelling? I wouldn't go there if I were you. Or at least do it in "secrete"

Barney,

The main thing you won't be able to get away from is the fact that you on the left lept on this NSA program like a starving leopard on a cheeseburger...you thought for certain that this was THE THING which would bring about your dream of dreams, President Bush impeached.

All we've heard from you and the other lefties is how President Bush CLEARLY broke the law with the NSA program and the he MUST be brought to account or all of our liberties are threatened....this panel of judges, at the least, puts a gigantic dent in your absurd position on the NSA's signals intelligence program.

Perhaps, just perhaps, you might want to let go of your hatred of President Bush and start to assess him based on the merits? It might work - you know, treat him like man, rather than as Satan incarnate.

"Funny how you failed to mention that while the judges said Bush was within his powers, they also said "Mr. Bush's choice to ignore established law regarding foreign intelligence gathering was made "at his own peril," because ultimately he will have to answer to Congress and the Supreme Court if the surveillance was found not to be in the best interests of national security."

Well, OF COURSE. What, do you really think Bush is a dictator? President Bush has acted scrupulously within the bounds of his authority as Commander in Chief and if he stops doing that he'll have to worry about being impeached, yes. Until then, you moonbats can just stuff it.

AAR,
Bravisimo, Hear hear!

Barney boo....your butt is being protected too. Keep up with your squirming and hated of our president. I know you think he himself is our illegal president....so I figure you have a lot more to get over than being pro enemy.

Today the dems came out for 'Real' security, which is pretty thin don't ya think, coming from a bunch of cut and runners and anti any kind of fighting the enemy. When asked what strength there is in their 'redeployment' policy, not one cept Pelosi could answer with a straight face. Only because if you look closely her face is always 'straight' and uncontortable...a word which means she can't screw her face but just everything else that comes into her path... ha ha

Mark, I have stated from the start that I want oversight. Our government was designed with checks and balances. No one branch has unlimited/unchecked powers. We are a nation of laws that everyone must obey. There must have been a reason why article one is on the legislature and article two is on the executive (in order of importance?).

These Dim/Libs are like mercury, always attempting to slip away after their latest effort disappears in a cloud of dust. Now they're just concerned about oversight! What was/is all the chatter about censure/impeachment? What about Bush lied, impeach Rove, DeLay. Plame? All gone in a cloud of dust.

However we are grateful and happy. Good luck in 06/08 and thanks for the ammo, all on video!

The difference between foreign enemies and "domestic" enimies during times of war is thin. Every one of the Confederate soldiers imprisoned and killed or wounded during the Civil War was by definition a United States citizen. Their declaration to the contrary was in fact the official reason for the war. Once you take up arms against the United States - it does not really matter whether you are a citizen or not.

The Watergate affair has led some people to use Nixon for the standard of controls that must be used against the President. These people are wrong. Linciln is the standard. In the name of the United States - he killed hundreds of thousands of American citizens. Look for the courts to think this way also. They do not suffer the MTV generation problem of only being able to think 5 minutes into the past or future.

of course - typos again

This is a big loser for the Demorats. They should get off of it ASAP.

The President was briefing members of both parties of Congress!

What else do you want him to do, brief HARRY REID and Nancy Pelosi so they can leak it to terrorists so they can stop using regular telephones and by disposable phones?!

Oh wait...the NYT already did that...

I thought the continuing violence was caused by the MSM? I wish this guy would make-up his mind. I do not know who to blame now?

Barney, you stupid toad, you fell for the misrepresentation you were fed by your butt-boy, Chris Matthews, your butt-boy, Tim Russert, and your butt-boy, Matt Lauer.

All these MSM kooks got defensive when Laura Ingraham spanked David Gregory and lizard-head Carville on the Today Show last week. Nothing was said accusing the MSM of causing violence--the MSM was called out for not giving a complete picture when reporting on Iraq. When the President gave his press conference, he basically told them the same, without actually saying it.

The press had their pee-pee's spanked, and true to form, they acted like spoiled children. They can't handle the truth, just like you, Baloney.

And they continue to do what they do best, when it comes to Iraq and the GWOT. Anyone who relies on the MSM is a complete Barney...I mean, a complete moron...

Amazing the number of Federal judges we have right there on B4B that totally disagree with all the other Federal Judges

Odd, these are the same folks that are master accountants and lawyers and vote for Liberals

odd indeed

Barney boo....your butt is being protected too.

dickiedee, I am protecting you with the aluminum foil in my windows. You haven't been attacked by tyranagoblins lately have you? Your welcome.

Oh, and Baloney? You corrected bane's spelling? You stupid moron, go back and check your posts in this thread alone; I saw evidence of third-grade writing in each one. You misspell profusely, and you misuse dashes 90% of the time.

Face it, Baloney--you'll never get to the fourth grade writing like that...

RE: "Amazing the number of Federal judges we have right there on B4B that totally disagree with all the other Federal Judges."

Not really amazing at all...

Most Conservatives and Republicans understand the intent of those who founded this nation and who wrote the constitution.

Most Conservatives and Republicans believe that our legislatures make our laws -- not activist liberal judges.

Most Conservatives and Republicans understand that we amend the constitution or change our laws if necessary, but we don't continue to appoint and flood the judiciary with activist judges so those judges can implement the liberal agenda and philosophy.

Just because a person is a judge doesn't make them or their opinion right; otherwise, all decisions would be unanimous decisions. We wouldn't have decisions reversed on appeal. We wouldn't have split decisions where the votes of one or two judges force and impose laws on the American people.

Just because one or two judges happen to be in the position to impose their decision on the majority of Americans doesn't make them any smarter or more correct that those who disagree!

That's why it is imperative that we clean the liberal activist judges from the judiciary and replace them with judges who do support the objective and intent of the constitution and our laws!

AAR

Like outlawing people's chosen behavior!

Barney, you still haven't answered why Iraq was burying their air force in the desert...why not?

Cat got your tongue?

Warriornation,

I think he's off licking his wounds after having been severely smacked down. ;-)

Yes, they buried all of your precious validation in the desert. That's where it is, it isn't that it doesn't exist, it's that it's buried, in Iraq, in the middle of nowhere where no one can or would find it, that's where you validation is, that's where it is.

You righties are too funny. The point of the original post was to stick it to the Dems because Matt said the FISA judges said this was all legal.
WRONG!
That is not what they said.

So instead of actually talking about the facts of the post every single one of you just resort to calling us all names. You people are all too lame.

All righties, read the information on what the judges all said. They all said it was not even remotely as legal (if at all) as what Bush and Gonzalez said it is.

This is the VERY NEXT paragraph.

"The judges, however, said Mr. Bush's choice to ignore established law regarding foreign intelligence gathering was made "at his own peril," because ultimately he will have to answer to Congress and the Supreme Court if the surveillance was found not to be in the best interests of national security."

You guys are running on fumes here.

This sums it up.

"Chairman Specter: I think the thrust of what you are saying is the President is bound by statute like everyone else unless it impinges on his constitutional authority, and a statute cannot take away the President's constitutional authority. Anybody disagree with that?

[No response.]

Chairman Specter: Everybody agrees with that.

One thing is for sure 'ole Russ Feingold will now have as much a chance of being President, as I do. And I ain't running. I am guessing that Hillary will be the happiest of anyone over this. This is another losing position for the left. They might not admit it here, but I know if, they know it and you can bet your bottom dollar that their leadership knows it.

Next “Bush needs to be Censured” issue please

God bless you President Bush. The greatest president in american history. The dems should be ashamed of themselves if they even feel shame anymore. It is common sense that the commander in chief can moniter bin ladens phone calls to terrorists in the USA, without having to run and get a search warrent. You have to be brain dead or a lib moonbat not to realize this. We have not been attacked in over 4 1/2 years. Don't everyone thank President Bush all at once.

James, you had the most intelligent post yet.

President Bush will go down as one of the best Presidents in American history. His face belongs on Mount Rushmore for fighting for the cause of liberty and freedom, just as Washington did 230 years ago.

Ummmmm, this is actually getting really, really funny lib trolls! Do you guys think you'll ever, ever get a smoking gun that isn't firing blanks! This borders on insanity, the way they continue to demonize the president! If they win a single seat in the coming election, it will be cause of the republicans lack of communication, not because the dems have a single thing to offer!!!

Barney, you still haven't answered why Iraq was burying their air force in the desert...why not?

Cat got your tongue?

Warrior, Barney's in the third grade; he's gone to bed. He put on his jammies and is in dreamland...

The only illegal wire tapping involving government officials was just settled when DEMOCRAT Congressman, Jim McDermott lost his appeal of violating the law by turning over to a new agency an illegal taped phone conversation of two Republican by two Florida DEMOCRATS.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/28/ap/politics/mainD8GKO3I85.shtml

McDermott must pay House Speaker Boehner $700,000 for his pecadillo.

Where's the outrage moonbats???

Do you think Russ Fiengold will recommend that McDermott be Censured????

see, I read this totally different. . . .

Judges on Secretive Panel Speak Out on Spy Program

WASHINGTON, March 28 — Five former judges on the nation's most secretive court, including one who resigned in apparent protest over President Bush's domestic eavesdropping, urged Congress on Tuesday to give the court a formal role in overseeing the surveillance program.

Judge James Robertson quit the intelligence court just days after the spy program was disclosed.
In a rare glimpse into the inner workings of the secretive court, known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, several former judges who served on the panel also voiced skepticism at a Senate hearing about the president's constitutional authority to order wiretapping on Americans without a court order. They also suggested that the program could imperil criminal prosecutions that grew out of the wiretaps.

Judge Harold A. Baker, a sitting federal judge in Illinois who served on the intelligence court until last year, said the president was bound by the law "like everyone else." If a law like the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is duly enacted by Congress and considered constitutional, Judge Baker said, "the president ignores it at the president's peril."

I read it the same way dav. I don't understand how people say this says everything is legal.
To me this just adds MORE questions of the "legality".

Warriornation, keeps writing about some secret Saddam air force buried in the desert, so I looked up the facts (from a FOX news report 8/03):

At least one Cold War-era MiG-25 interceptor was found when searchers saw the tops of its twin tail fins poking up from the sands, said one Pentagon official familiar with the hunt. He said search teams have found several MiG-25s and Su-25 ground attack jets buried at al-Taqqadum air field west of Baghdad

Various officials differed in opinion as to whether the buried aircraft could ever fly again. Many of the planes were buried intact with minimal efforts to protect them from the sand.

"Our guys have found 30-something brand new aircraft buried in the sand to deny us access to them," Goss said. "These are craft we didn't know about." NOTE: Brand new? From the Soviets? When asked, Rummy would only admit to finding “more than one or two”.

The MiGs had escaped detection during the coalition bombing campaign. Some were buried or hidden under trees or covered with camouflage sheets.
Why you think this is such a big deal, when no else does, I have no idea.

The president of the United States does not need to get a court to let him intercept the communications of an enemy military unit operating in the United Staes be they citizens or otherwise. THAT is clear. Would he need a court order to intercept a tank divisions radio messages in Florida? A parachute battalion in Alaska? A demolitions company on Long Island? A 5 man suicide squad in L.A.? No - he would not to ALL of the above.

Liberals insist on treating terrorists as criminals. That was the reason for the insane intelligence sharing wall before 9/11. Enemy bombers are enemy soldiers that swear allegience to no country. You can kill them, lock them up, interrogate them, even execute them (since they claim no nation).

Barney and Friends:

So Iraq buries at LEAST 30 of their planes to avoid detection from the United States and Allies and you don't see that as signficant?

You don't believe if they are willing to bury at least 30 planes they wouldn't do the same with WMD?

THAT IS WHY IS IT IS A BIG DEAL.

That is also why it surprises me not that you cannot see the forest through the trees to process it.

Kahn, You are correct in that the President would not need a court order to intercept all those things.
Democrats don't want to stop spying on Terrorists, they want oversight so all proper chanels are being followed.
You can keep saying that Dems are against catching the Terrorists all you want, but it is just flat wrong. But since that is one of the talking points you chose to parrot, go ahead and keep saying it.

"Liberals insist on treating terrorists as criminals."
Are you going to kill every terrorist? How do you know he is a terrorist before you kill him? Just because he is Middle Eastern??? Is it shoot first and ask questions after?
Terrorists ARE criminals. They deserve to die. However, there are times when a terrorist SUSPECT will be in court. If the information we got on him was obtained illegally, he will walk and be on the street to do what he wants to do. That, to me, is a problem and one Bush caused by doing these wiretaps without a warrant.

"Liberals insist on treating terrorists as criminals"

yeah, they wanted to sue OBL instead of destroying him. They said the war on terror was a police action.

Lies,

How much oversight do you want? Already the Bush Administration is reviewing the authority every 45 days before renewing it. They are briefing Congress on the program. They have obtained over 3,500 warrants in the last two years alone, more warrants than all the other previous administrations combined. Give them a little credit. After all, they have more safeguards in place than the previous administrations had back to 1978. Why weren't you complaining when Carter and Clinton was doing the same thing? And against Americans (Aldrich Ames), not against terrrorists.

We all know that members of Congress cannot keep a secret. There are dozens of documented cases of Senators, Congressmen, and their staffs releasing classified information to news agencies just to harm the administration (during this presidency and others).

If all the Dems want is safeguards, why is Finegold pushing for censure?

First of all, which way do you want it?
Here you say "If all the Dems want is safeguards, why is Finegold pushing for censure?"
So here you lump ALL Dems into this camp. Yet in other posts, you and others here say how Feingold is on his own with this and everyone is running away from it.
So which is your argument there?

Second..."We all know that members of Congress cannot keep a secret"
You mean like Rove and Libby? They can OBVIOUSLY keep secrets and NEVER leak things in order to advance the Right Wing propoganda.

Finally... "They have obtained over 3,500 warrants in the last two years alone, more warrants than all the other previous administrations combined."
They have? If so, then why all the hub-bub???

Also on this comment: ..."We all know that members of Congress cannot keep a secret"

Are you saying that Congress can't be trusted with anything? So that means the Administration must act alone on everything? Don't be a fool. This Democracy was built on 3 equal branches of Government. If you feel you can't trust Congress, vote them out. Don't make foolish arguments like this to say why they shouldn't be involved in National Security!

Lies,

Your moniker is very apt. You stated: "Yet in other posts, you and others here say how Feingold is on his own with this and everyone is running away from it." I have never even mention Feingold in any previous post. So I would appreciate it you would refrain from accusing me of making statement I didn't make.

Rove and Libby aren't members of Congress and there is no proof that they lied. There is an ongoing investigation to reconcile differences betweeen what Libby told investigators and what reporters told investigators, but that hasn't been completed. You see in the US, you are innocent until proven guilty. Libby hasn't been proven guilty, so at this point he isn't.

"Finally... "They have obtained over 3,500 warrants in the last two years alone, more warrants than all the other previous administrations combined."
They have? If so, then why all the hub-bub???"

I don't know. Its you Dims that are having orgasms about the possibility of censuring or impeaching Bush, not me.

I'm not saying that "Congress can't be trusted with anything". Or that the Administration can act alone. Again, lying about what I said. I meant that there are limits to the number of members of COngress that need to be briefed. The fact that key members of Congress from both parties have been briefed is good enough for me. How about you? Are a dozen enough? Maybe 20? 50? all 535? With each additional person who knows, you increase the chance that they will talk. Obviously someone talked to the NYT about this and we don't know who. They need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

In case you aren't aware, Senator Rockefeller was briefed and he has been known to publically disclose classified information to the press. He got caught before, and it wouldn't surprise me if he blabbed again.

Lies,

Do you really want to know "why all the hub-bub???" Because it is the latest in a non-stop attempt to weaken the Bush Presidency so the Dims can retake the White House in 2008. Its politics, plain and simple. The Dims are not concerned about our national defense, they are only concerned with regaining power.

Since President Bush was elected, the left has been attacking him. ALmost all of the attacks are without merit. The attacks have included:

He stole the election. Wrong. The Florida courts attempted to change Florida election law after the election. The Supreme Court prevented them from violating the law.

He was AWOL in the TX ANG. Wrong. He performed the required amount of training and got an Honorable DIscharge.

He joined the TX ANG to avoid going to Vietnam. Wrong. He actually volunteered to go as a F-102 pilot, but war was winding down and he didn't have enough hours to qualify for the program.

The whole AWOL non-scandle was based on forged documents and pushed by the nightly anchor of a major news organization in an effort to influence an election. And you Dims supported this? Rather still calls the documents "fake, but accurate". I guess I could go forge a winning lottery ticket and claim that its "fake, but accurate". But then, I would go to jail.

Then we have the "Bush Lied". We even had Senator Kennedy call him a liar on the Senate floor. Senator Clinton claimed Bush knew about the 9/11 attacks beforehand. Is there any condemnation by the left for these lies?

Then we had the Plame "outing". According to the investigation, she was never outed. Another attempt by the left to smear BUsh.

Then there's Katrina. Although the Governor and Mayor failed miserably to declare a state of emergency and ensure the residents were evacuated, everyone tried to blaim Bush.

All these attacks are caused by three reasons: (1) Payback for the impeachment of President Clinton. (2) Bush winning the 2000 Election, and (3) Bush winning the 2004 Election.

At least with the CLinton impeachment, Clinton actually committed crimes. Some he was charged with, some he got away with. According to D.C. Law, he committed False Swearing (§22-2403 - a felony) and Perjury (§22-2402 - a felony). He was accused of Sexual Harassment and rape. But the rape charge was never prosecuted. Plus he lied on television to all of America: "I did not have sex with that woman," when he had.

You think Bush has harmed our reputation around the world. Can you imagine what went going through foreign leaders minds when it was disclosed that our president was getting a "BJ" from an intern in the OVAL OFFICE. My god, President Reagan wouldn't enter the room without wearing a coat and tie because of the respect he had for the office of the President and the Oval Office. Slick Willie was playing "hide the cigar" with Monica in that hallowed room. And you libs bash Bush and put Clinton on a pedestal.