52% of Americans: Impeach Bush on wiretaps

Ken, what is a Bushbot?

 

Anyone who disagrees with the Bush administration is a traitor and now a terrorist in the eyes of the Bushbots. </font>[/QUOTE]You forgot liberal Ken. Anybody that disagrees with Bush is a liberal terrorist traitor.

Just give up your rights and sovereignty to the NWO like a real American conservative patriot and get over it amigo.

 

http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48399

Here's what the Clinton/Gore administration did in this arena. Now what would you all be saying if this were the Bush folks? My oh my, your fury would know no bounds.

 

There ya have it Hillclimber. Neither democrats nor republicans can be trusted. How hard is that to understand?

Actually, governments can't be trusted period. Our founding fathers kept saying that over and over again.

 

Four words --

Echelon

Carnivore

Richard Ames

The hypocrisy of the liberals is worse than virtually anything else in this nation...

 

You got that right.

 

And yet, some people want to turn over our liberties to one of the most corrupt administrations since Nixon, for the promise of a little safety.

 

Those horrible wiretaps are being used under very strict regulations and are reviewed every 45 days, according to the Attorney General. They are being used ONLY when one of the parties is overseas AND when there is a strong reason to believe that one of the parties is either with or associated with Al Qaida (spelling?).

This is very limited and not at all what the press is reporting it as.

No one is turning over their liberties.

And, it might be noticed, that there have been no terrorist attacks in the United States since 9/11. Despite threats and attempts. So I'm not thinking what Bush is doing is so bad here!

Congress gave him war powers after 9/11. He is within the boundaries of these with the wiretapping which is being confined as stated above.

When Barry and I get on a plane in San Francisco or Los Angeles, Galatian, we don't have to be afraid of being blown up, either in the airport or in the air. In the meantime we have that freedom to travel, which we would not have if the terrorists had their way.

The world is not back in the fifties anymore. We aren't just feeling we ought to build our own individual bomb shelters IN CASE of an attack. We have been attacked and the attackers are promising/threatening more. Bush is doing what he was elected to do: protect the country.

 

It has morphed into a hybrid Nixon/LBJ in fact Rove is a big fan of Nixons and is on record saying he did nothing wrong (watergate).

Bush with Abramoff will speak a thousand words

 

Anyone who disagrees with the Bush administration is a traitor and now a terrorist in the eyes of the Bushbots. </font>[/QUOTE]Right on KenH!

 

If Bush is to be impeached then co-conspirators would also have to be impeached. I believe that would include the Chair and ranking democrats of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees, The Majority and Minority leader of the Senate, the head judge of FISA and perhaps assorted others who were briefed by the President .

 

That would be fine with me. Whoever (if anyone) in Congress agreed to let Bush violate the law, they should also be in the dock.

However, it appears that even the Republicans in Congress were ignorant of what Bush was up to.

But by all means, whoever was an accessory to the crime should also be held accountable.

 

Mind boggling eh?

 

I just love how allegations of corruption fly through these forums, when there has been no convictions. The repeated scandals under Clinton are a memory, thank God...

 

3-page warning: This thread will be closed no sooner than 11:30 p.m. ET by one of the Moderators. (Board will be closed for maintenance at midnight.)

Lady Eagle,
Moderator

 

I can remember Nixon saying that, at the same point in his administration. "Just indictments, no convictions, yet."

There were some. When Secretary of Defense Aspin didn't provide enough equipment for our troops in Somalia, some died. Clinton asked for and got his resignation.

When Rumsfeld didn't provide enough equipment for our troops in Iraq, some died. Then he went to Iraq and lied to them about it. Then Bush said he was doing a fine job.

Can you imagine the sort of wailing we'd have if Clinton set aside the Constitution and did wiretaps on innocent American citizens? Or if one of his people in the WH outed a CIA agent, and he protected him?

Clinton had his scandals. And sometimes he lied. But no one ever died as a result of his lies.

For some people that makes a difference. For some, it doesn't.

 

Well, it's close enough to close the thread per the previous warning.

LE