Here is how Bush blew the whole NSA affair (database and domestic wire tapping) both politically and operational.

Political, all Bush had to do on both cases was present the programs to the FISA court and let them decide. If they said “no problem” than Bush is off the hook. If they said that the program was illegal, than Bush could have gone to congress and had congress change the law. Either way, Bush would have covered his ass, and his integrity would not have taken a hit.

Operational, let’s say someone from Pakistan calls someone in Michigan. The NSA records the conversation, but does not apply for a warrant. Than that person in Michigan calls someone in NY, and someone else in MA, but the NSA can’t record the conversation because the AG never bothered to get a warrant in the first place, so no surveillance is taking place.

Bush and the AG have stated that no Americans are spied on with a warrant. They have also stated that foreign to domestic calls have been recorded without a warrant, so that can only mean that suspects are allowed to engage in their activities with surveillance.

Mark,

I just wanted to point out that you are confusing the NSA intercept program with the NSA data mining program. They are 2 seperate entities. On the day the USA Today story broke, Bush issued a statement admitting to the existence of the data mining program.

The reason BellSouth is denying the allegations is because they have a muli-billion dollar lawsuit pending by their customers. Naturally they are going to deny any involvement unless their customers in the class action suit can prove it was illegal. More than likely they will lose.

You know, as an aside, let them keep going with the programs and denying investigations. If they were to allow the investigation, I am sure they would prove to be legal and only used for terrorists. However, since the Republicans continue blocking the investigations, it just makes them look like they are hiding something. The Republicans are only hurting themselves and propagating the "culture of corruption" for the Democrats. The ball is in your court and the 10 second clock is almost expired.

As an additional note, you will also notice it is the Republicans that continue blocking campaign finance and lobbying reform legislation. Again, it makes the Republicans look bad because it shows they are unwilling to sacrifice lavish trips and donations from special interest groups and lobbyists. If it weren't for the fact that you are considered the party for the rich, along with piggy-backing religious morality with no action, you wouldn't have the money or the people to win elections

B.S!

Bush signed a Presidential Memorandam on May 5, which allowed Nergroponte to give a copy of it to each of the involved phone companies allowing them to LIE and deny cooperation without fear of prosecution. A few days later, they deny it all even though they acknowledged it to their customers and AT&T admitted it publically.

------ Begin Presidential Memorandam --------

Assignment of Function Relating to Granting of Authority for Issuance of Certain Directives

Memorandum for the Director of National Intelligence

By virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, including section 301 of title 3, United States Code, I hereby assign to you the function of the President under section 13(b)(3)(A) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (15 U.S.C. 78m(b)(3)(A)). In performing such function, you should consult the heads of departments and agencies, as appropriate.

You are authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.

(Presidential Sig.)B

THE WHITE HOUSE,

Washington, May 5, 2006.

------ End Presidential Memorandum ----------

This will all come out shortly as the phone companies will be pulling out their copies to try and defend themselves against the billion dollar lawsuits against them.

The court will then have to decide if the Presidential can transfer his executive authority to another person to further the obfuscation of an illegal act.

This important development in the NSA intercept debate which appeared in "The Hill" on Tuesday flew under almost everyone's radar.

The operative part is this:

Specter has mollified conservative opposition to his bill by agreeing to drop the requirement that the Bush administration seek a legal judgment on the program from a special court set up by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978.

Instead, Specter agreed to allow the administration to retain an important legal defense by allowing the court, which holds its hearings in secret, to review the program only by hearing a challenge from a plaintiff with legal standing, said a person familiar with the text of language agreed to by Specter and committee conservatives. (emphasis - mine)

And then on Wenesday I found this really interesting comment on the bill over at A. J. Strata's blog:

“Instead, Specter agreed to allow the administration to retain an important legal defense by allowing the court, which holds its hearings in secret, to review the program only by hearing a challenge from a plaintiff with legal standing, said a person familiar with the text of language agreed to by Specter and committee conservatives.”

Although the article (and Greenwald) acts as though this is a “compromise”, this is one of the basic consitutional requirements for any case to be submitted to a Federal Court, and Congress does NOT have the power to change that. (even though from time to time thay may like to pretend that they do) Specter’s plan would have called for an “advisory opinion” - with his background and his position, he above all people should have known that that is one of the big constitutional “no-no’s”.

For any who wish to do a little background reading, this arises from the Art. III, Sec. 2 “case or controversy” requirement. And one of the very first Supreme Court cases, with George Washington as President and Thomas Jefferson as Sec. of State arose when they decided to ask the new Supreme Court for an “advisory opinion” on some matter of foreign policy. The Court said “nope! Advisory opinions without a real case or controversy underlying them are strictly unconstitutional, and we can not comply with your request.”

Nothing has changed in the 210 years since that opinion was given, and Specter’s dream of a secret court giving “advisory opinions” to the Executive is just as unconstitutional today as it was back then. (emphasis - mine)

Blarney,

You post such ridiculous comments, you don't even know what your posting.

"Operational, let’s say someone from Pakistan calls someone in Michigan. The NSA records the conversation, but does not apply for a warrant. Than that person in Michigan calls someone in NY, and someone else in MA, but the NSA can’t record the conversation because the AG never bothered to get a warrant in the first place, so no surveillance is taking place."

But you're forgetting that the Bush Administration has applied for and gotten over 3,800 FISA warrants in the past two years alone. So they are getting the warrants when the conversations are domestic - between two points in the US. But, warrants are not necessary when one endpoint is overseas, since it is gathering foreign intelligence, which Federal Courts have ruled to be Constitutional.

Then you posted:

"Bush and the AG have stated that no Americans are spied on with a warrant."

When did they ever say that? They are getting warrants once they identify the parties of the conversation.

"They have also stated that foreign to domestic calls have been recorded without a warrant, so that can only mean that suspects are allowed to engage in their activities with surveillance."

No. It can also mean that we don't know who the terrorist is calling in the US. With VOIP (Voice over IP - Internet) and throw-away cell phones, they don't always know who the terrorists are talking to. (Of course I have explained this to you dozens of time, but you still don't understand).

But, yes, we want to continue to monitor their activities so we can uncover the supporters and fellow terrorists in the US so we can stop the next attack.

Captain Ron,

You seem to be ignoring the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act which make the data mining legal.

As for the President issuing a statement admitting to the existence of the data mining program. Give me a reference. Everywhere I look, including the NYT, he has denied that the data mining is going on.

axis,

The memo cites specific authority to delegate Presidential authority, yet you claim that it is illegal.

You have been reading too many conspiracy theory web sites and the loony left blog. Try to stop reading evil things into each and every action the Bush Administration does.

I think President Bush is one of the least political Presidents in recent history. He sees an issue, for instance terrorism, and addresses it head on. No nuance. No double talk. No voting for it, before voting against it. He's a leader first, then a politician.

Now before you call me a Bush boot-licker, I disagree with some of his policies. I don't like the run-away spending. I wish he would veto some of the wasteful spending bills. I wish he would take an even stronger stance to stem the tide of invaders from foreign countries (those illegal immigrants you hear about). I wish he would push harder for energy independence by drilling offshore and in ANWR. But on the issue of national defense, he is on the right track. Take the fight to the terrorists, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and whereever else we find them.

"We are not mining or trolling through the personal lives of millions of innocent Americans"
- President Bush

This does not say, "We are not collecting data on millions of Americans". However, I didn't in my last post say that the data mining was illegal, A-10. I merely insinuated it is probably going on. When Bush doesn't say, "The NSA isn't collecting phone data" specifically, it is my assumption that they are. Go find the article where the CEO of Quest refused to give out the data that the NSA demanded, and also read about how he requested a warrant and the NSA was unable to provide one.

Inasmuch, Congress refuses to allow an investigation into the activities of the NSA. That just makes people THINK they are hiding something from them. President Bush continues using ambiguous rhetoric to explain his purposes and well over half of the American people are tired of hearing it. If the Congress people continue to refuse investigations, the American people will elect new representatives who will investigate.

One senior government official, who was granted anonymity to speak publicly about the classified program, confirmed that the N.S.A. had access to records of most telephone calls in the United States. But the official said the call records were used for the limited purpose of tracing regular contacts of "known bad guys."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/12/washington/12cnd-phone.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

"Bush issued a statement admitting to the existence of the data mining program." Can you point me to this "statement"?

"This does not say, 'We are not collecting data on millions of Americans'. Can you point me to where he didn't say this?

According to unnamed sources, Captian Ron didn't say, "I wear pink frilly panties!"

And Congress is refusing an investigation into what Ron didn't say either.

A10, “But you're forgetting that the Bush Administration has applied for and gotten over 3,800 FISA warrants in the past two years alone. So they are getting the warrants when the conversations are domestic - between two points in the US.”

I disagree, or Bush has lied to us (again). To get a warrant from FISA, the AG has to present some kind of evidence. The only evidence the AG would have is the call from al qeada (assuming the US number was not provided by a captured terrorist or otherwise known in advance). From what we know, the FISA court was not aware of the secret program. If they were, than why did the FISA judge resign in protest? Therefore, what evidence could the AG possibly have, that was not made-up, that convinced the FISA court to issue a warrant?

Finally, if Bush would have CYA, none of this would have mattered.

Barney, one of the main problems with the whole NSA intercept/FBI wire tap/FISA Court warrant kerfuffle (and apparently one of the best kept secrets) is the fact that the FISA Court was reluctant to provide warrants for FBI wire taps when the probable cause was an NSA intercept. For some reason the FISA Court judges considered NSA intercepts as tainted. I posted a link to an article, WAPO, I think, several weeks ago in which one of the judges admitted this. Not sure why this has not gotten wider publicity. Well, actually, I know why the Left has not been talking about it, but I can't figure out why Conservatives are not shouting it from the rooftops. I don't blame the administration, after continually beating their heads against the FISA brick wall, finally said fu.k the warrants.

If you're interested, I'll see if I can find the link again.

A-10, you keep bringing up the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act but you keep missing the point.

It requires a WARRANT or PROBABLE CAUSE.

Bush has NEITHER.

and the Presidential memo was not authorizing the data mining program, it was authorizing the phone companies to LIE and say that they were not involved when they WERE.

You always read but you conveniently miss out parts that don't fit your views.

Ok, A-10, the latest NSA program is completely made up. Is that what you want me to say? No data mining is going on, period. What Bush says is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, period. Are you happy now???

No Ron,
Now I want you to say "Bane is very hansom and a wonderful dancer."

Asxs,
I'm having trouble reading today, can you just highlight the part where communications companies are allowed or instructed to lie about their involvement?

Memorandum for the Director of National Intelligence

By virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, including section 301 of title 3, United States Code, I hereby assign to you the function of the President under section 13(b)(3)(A) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (15 U.S.C. 78m(b)(3)(A)). In performing such function, you should consult the heads of departments and agencies, as appropriate.

You are authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.

Are you just making this up out of whole cloth? And can you point to the statute that prohibits the President from appointing surrogates? Or is this another of the fantasies from USA-Lite in the North?

Bane,

That memo authorizes Negroponte to send presidential authorization to the phone companies to conceal the existance or details of the program.

The final letter will be in the possession of the phone companies which they will pull out to try and shield themselves.

Its nothing more than a last minute effort to save these companies from billion dollar lawsuits for participating unlawfully without either a warrant of any kind or probable cause.

The whole program is ILLEGAL. Bush knows it. We know it, even deep down you fascists do too. Which is why it is necessary for them to not get warrants, block investigations, block congressional oversight, cover up, keep secret and issue things like this to try and continue covering it up

Fact is that YOUR founding fathers purposely created a system of law and governance where there is a separation of power between the executive, the congress and also the independant judiciary.

They did this fearing a return of dictatorial control after gaining independance of the oppressive british rule.

Bush and his cabal is attempting to make congress illrevavent by attaching signing statements to over 750 laws he has signed in, stating in short that "This law does not apply to me" or "I reserve the right to ingore this law if I choose."

He is also attempting to make the judiciary illrelavent by circumvent the entire process and declaring that he has the same authority to make binding constitutional interpretations.

He does this in the hopes of succeeding, which will create a system where the executive has ABSOLUTE POWER, IE: A Fascist state or Dictatorial State.

What he is doing is NOT American , nor it is democratic and if you are ok with it then you are also a fascist because you do not believe in the system of laws, the constitution, your fundamental rights and freedoms or separation of power

axis,

As usual, you are wrong. You are saying the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act requires a WARRANT or PROBABLE CAUSE. It doesn't. It requires a court order or other lawful authorization. A court order is not a warrant. It is a court order. A Presidential Declaration or Executive Order is a lawful authorization.

Either way, we don't even know if the data mining is going on. All you have as a nameless source claiming it exists. You also have a newspaper once again disclosing classified information, it it does exist.

A warrant is a court order. Are you a simpleton? A law enforcement official goes to a judge and he approves the warrant by ORDER. Therefore its a court order.

The only other kind of court order is a judgement. Which certainly does not apply here and it requires a trial by its very nature.

Presidental authorization or Executive Order is a lawful authorization in some cases, such as ordering a government branch to do something or other. However it is NOT lawful authorization in cases of law that are reserved for congress or the independant judiciary.

Bush for example cannot issue an executive order to have someone he does not like to be arrested and imprisoned. That is reserved for congress and the judiciary.

This is why you have a seperation of power in Washington between the president, the congress and the judiciary, give a president the power of all those and you are living in a police state as the President would have absolute power.

By the same token, a president cannot simply issue an order that violated US law. In fact, he has a constitutional duty or uphold US law and he constitution. He took an oath of office to this very thing.

This president believes that in time of war a president can do anything. His advisors have said so publically. Thats called fascism This president believes that his executive authority is equal to a court. He believes that a court would agree with everything he does and so therefore theres no need to even ask a court. Thats unamerican.

This is why the Republicans fear IMPEACHMENT. Because this president has done things in violation of US law and his oath of office. They know and and so do you and are hoping to maintain power of congress until 2008 to avoid investigations and impeachment hearings that will greatly damage the party,but bring back checks and balances and proper oversight back to america.

Restoring democracy and the republic, from the fasscists, that will be a grand day and its coming really, really soon.

There will be a lot of fireworks, fighting, investigations and indictments flowing like a volcano, but in the end the Neo-cons will be ousted and most sent to prison with a stern message to future presidents not to trample on the peoples rights and freedoms.

Once they are gone, America can begin to heal, domestically and internationally. It is more divided than it has even been since the civil war. This president and the Neo-cons have done that.

The neo-cons need to stop impersonating Republicans and get their own independant party. That way if Americans want to convert to a nazi state, they can vote in the fascist neo-con party rather than being tricked into it by fascists posing as republicans.

I have no problems with most traditional republican values and even agree with many. I don't agree with the neo-con values ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservative )
as they are more fascistic than any ever seen before seen in America.

Kick out the neocons from the white house and the republican party and let the healing begin

For A-10 that struggles with legal matters. Pick up your dictionary and look up warrant and you will see:

war·rant (wôrnt, wr-)
n.

1. Authorization or certification; sanction, as given by a superior.
2. Justification for an action or a belief; grounds: “He almost gives his failings as a warrant for his greatness” (Garry Wills).
3. Something that provides assurance or confirmation; a guarantee or proof: a warrant of authenticity; a warrant for success.
4. An order that serves as authorization, especially:
1. A voucher authorizing payment or receipt of money.
2. Law. A judicial writ authorizing an officer to make a search, seizure, or arrest or to execute a judgment.

5.
1. A warrant officer.
2. A certificate of appointment given to a warrant officer.

Well, here it is, all you Republican nay sayers. The evidence of the Presidential memo mentioned above that was given to Verizon, Bellsouth and At&T.

Headlines: "Verizon Refuses to Deny Participation in the NSA Spying Program, Hides Behind Federal Government “State’s Secrets” Privilege"

Verizon is officially now stonewalling the Maine public utilities commission claiming that they do not have authority to investigate its participation in the NSA program.

http://magic-city-news.com/article_5902.shtml

Still think they are innocent, it never happened and the USA Today made it all up?

And of course... its all legal, thats why they are going to such elaborate lengths to cover up and hide their involvement.

axis,

This will be the last time I respond to your irrational comments. With each post you move further and further from reality. I just hope, for your sake, your case of BDS isn't terminal.

I don't know how things work in the Canadian legal system, but here in the good ole U.S. of A. there are a number of different types of court orders. I never said that a warrant is not a court order. I said that there are a number of court orders that are not warrants. Such as a Temporary Restraining Order, a Temporary Injunction, a Gag Order, and many more. None of these are warrants, nor are they judgements. So, as usual, you are wrong.

"Bush for example cannot issue an executive order to have someone he does not like to be arrested and imprisoned. That is reserved for congress and the judiciary."

You are correct that the President cannot issue an Executive Order to have someone arrested. Besides, he has more integrity than that. You are again wrong when you state that that power is reserved for congress and the judiciary. The President is the Chief Executive, meaning he has the ultimate power over the Executive Branch, the branch of our government that the various departments are under. Departments such as the Department of Justice, containing the FBI, which can arrest individuals. And the Department of Tresury, which contains the US Secret Service, which also has arrest poweres. And the Department of Defense, which contains the various military services, whose military police have arrest powers. Or the Department of the Interior, which contains the National Park Service, whose Park Rangers have arrest powers. I could go on, but you get the picture.

You seem to have a irrational fear of the Executive Branch of the US Government. You also seem to think the government is being run by fascists. It is not. It is being run by individuals who place the good of the country before their personal wants and needs.

The President's most solemn oath is to protect the citizens of the United States from foreign or domestic attacks and threats. He is doing that, within the law, and to the best of his ability. The proof is in the pudding - we have not been attacked since 9/11.

I am not going to respond to the rest of your rambling set of lies, distortions, and fabrications. It's not right to encourage your mental illness.

Since you are so adamant about the evil Republicians, I have one final set of questions for you. Were you so adamant about the evil people running the country and the loss of civil liberties when the Clinton Administration was conducting warrantless wiretaps against American citizens with no ties to terrorists? Or when the Clinton Administration ordered the Echelon program that was data-mining millions of telephone conversations? Or when the Clinton Administration illegally obtained the FBI records of hundreds of their political opponents? Or when the Clinton Administration was "selling" nights in the Lincoln Bedroom in the White House for a $50,000 donation? Or when they allowed the Chinese Communists to obtain classified missile technology? Or when President Clinton ordered the use of US military Force against Kosovo without Congressional authorization, using intelligence that proved to be flawed, and causing the deaths of over 2,000 innocent civilians? Or when the Clinton Administration ordered the IRS to conduct audits of his political opponents? Or when the Clinton Admiinistration allowed individuals to work in the White House with criminal backgrounds, including drug convictions? Or when the Clinton Administration gave the North Koreans the nuclear technology that allowed them to enrich uranium into weapons grade material? Enquiring minds want to know. Just want to know if you are an equal opportunity nutcase.

Goodbye and good riddance.

Hmmm, you have the same memory loss and recall problem that Donny Rumsfeld has. Just 4 posts above, you said this

"A court order is not a warrant. It is a court order."

You said nothing at all about other types of orders such as a Temporary Restraining Order, a Temporary Injunction, a Gag Order

You forgot to take your meds before your last post and realized later that you said something really dumb and now you lamely try and recover. LOL

In the good 'ole US of A, they have a name for them there court orders issued to authorize say Verizon to hand over a customers private information. They call them there court orders WARRANTS.

The other types of court orders you mention as a Temporary Restraining Order, a Temporary Injunction, a Gag Order or Judgements sure aren't the type of court orders that the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act is referring to.

A-10 said: "You are again wrong when you state that that power is reserved for congress and the judiciary. Departments such as the Department of Justice, containing the FBI, which can arrest individuals. And the Department of Tresury, which contains the US Secret Service, which also has arrest poweres."

-- Those above mentioned law enforcement agencies are generally considered appendages of the judiciary. Bush cannot issue an executive order to the FBI to arrest someone he does not like either, unless the FBI has just cause, or probable cause. He may be able to issue one to prompt an investigation, however he does not have constitutional power to convert the FBI say into his private secret police force either. If what you stated were true, you would be living in a police state because Bush could issue an order to round up all his political opponents and jail them indefinately. Thats beyond the scope of his powers.

A-10 said "he President's most solemn oath is to protect the citizens of the United States from foreign or domestic attacks and threats."

-- Actually, the President most solemn oath is the one he swears to when he takes office, which is: I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

He violates that oath every single day that his illegal acts continue.

As for Clinton and Echelon, he he was conducting some data mining and surveillance, however all that I have read about it was it was all sanctioned by the FISA court and he properly obtained warrants from them. If he wasn't, the GOP absolutely would have nailed him to the wall.

GOP Congress investigated everything Clinton did and provided RIGID oversight. Instead the best they could do is impeach him for lying about getting a BJ in the oval office.

As for those other things, I cannot speak to them as I am not overly aware of the details of those, however, I am now saying Clinton was an angel because he surely wasn't. If he commited wrongdoing, then YOUR GOP congress failed to find it back then. But thats in the past and does not affect the present.

What is happening NOW is what is important. Bush makes Nixon look like a boyscout. Nixon would have called Bush a Commie if he was doing what he is now back then.

A-10 said: "It is being run by individuals who place the good of the country before their personal wants and needs."

I guess thats why the Bush family and Cheney are all profitting like crazy from the war in Iraq. Thats why Cheney arranges no bid contracts for the company he used to run and why his stock options in said company have increased in value 3000% since taking office. I guess thats why Daddy bush's Carlyle group investment that has Iraq defense contracts also has gone thru the roof in value and made him millions. I guess thats why Neil Bush, Marvin Bush and William H.T. Bush are all also profitting off the war in Iraq thru lucrative government contracts as well.

... Because they are putting the country first. Amazing how rich you become and how profittable it can be to put ones country in front of ones personal wants. Millions of dollars in war profits into the Bush family and Cheney legacy... for doing their duty.

I hate to break it to you A-10, but your opinion that this president is doing the right thing is becoming the minority more each and every day, especially now among your conservative voting friends are seeing this president for the fraud he is.

If and when proper investigations are done into this president, revealing the unimaginable corruption and wrongdoing, its going to rock your little Republican world, so be sure to stock up on your sea sickness pills because November is rapidly approaching and all the Dem's need to do is win the House to launch investigations with full subpeona powers. There 5 years worth of investigations and oversight that needs to be done and the Dem's firmly believe in their constitutional duty to provide proper congressional oversight and investigations.

I suspect if they win, and begin schuduling some key players will suddenly decide to take long overseas holidays.

Personally I would love to see the look on Karl Rove's face when they win back the house and watch his head spin round and round like Linda Blair on the Exorcist. Rove was quoted recently as saying "... the Democrats winning one or both houses back would make our worst nightmare become a reality."

You better believe it Karl. The end to the cabal and the new american neo-con fascist movement will come crashing down, revealing all the lies, corruption and wrongful acts.

-------------------------------

A-10 posted:

"I never said that a warrant is not a court order. I said that there are a number of court orders that are not warrants."

Missed this one, sorry

A-10 said: Or when the Clinton Admiinistration allowed individuals to work in the White House with criminal backgrounds, including drug convictions?

hmmm. Is that like George Bush becoming the first elected president in american history with a felony criminal record? He was convicted of drug possession and drinking and driving.

He also had a great fondness in college of branding fraternity pledges with red hot coat hangers and lit cigarettes. He was quoted in '68 in a newspaper article as saying it was "insignifigant" and He said he did not understand how the News "can assume Yale has to be so haughty not to allow this type of pledging to go on."

Hey Mr. "Axis": If George Bush had a felony criminal record for drug possession, how did he get elected to public office? I thought that conviction of a felony disqualified someone from elected office.

For clarity and fairness, upon close examination, he avoided a drug conviction thru community service but was convicted of drinking and driving.

"three independent sources close to the Bush family report that Governor Bush was arrested in 1972 for cocaine possession, and taken to Harris County Jail, but avoided jail or formal charges through an informal diversion plan involving community service with Project P.U.L.L., an inner city Houston program for troubled youths at the Martin Luther King Jr. Community Center in Houston's dirt-poor Third Ward."

Daddy Bush covered up the DWI conviction by using his influence to exponge all details of it from the record long ago as it was a big political embarassment to George HW Bush

The DWI was covered up during the 2000 election and was only discovered after.

DWI conviction can be seen here

http://web.archive.org/web/20010602185919/http://alana.moonvine.org/bw/docket.jpg

So Mr "Axis": You were lying then when you posted that "Is that like George Bush becoming the first elected president in american history with a felony criminal record? He was convicted of drug possession and drinking and driving."

So, he never had a felony drug conviction. Just wanted to clarify that. And to show that you have a tendancy to lie to make your point. Whatever that point is.