Spygate turning into a big loser for the Dems

Picture the "argument" we are about to have in an election year.

Republican President: I need to do everything within my power to protect the American people, and tapping International calls is within my power.

Republican Senator: It may or may not be within your power, Mr. President, but we in the Senate have a duty to protect America's civil liberties and the checks and balances inherent in our Constitution. We have a duty, sir, as do you.

Republican President: Yes, Republican Senator, you are doing your duty, and the American people owe you a debt of gratitude for making sure their civil liberties are protected and the Constitution observed.

Republican Senator: Yes, Sir, and the American people owe you the same debt of gratitude for exercising your Constitutional powers to give your utmost in keeping us safe.

The Hidden State Steps Forward


When the New York Times revealed that George W. Bush had ordered the National Security Agency to wiretap the foreign calls of American citizens without seeking court permission, as is indisputably required by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), passed by Congress in 1978, he faced a decision. Would he deny the practice, or would he admit it? He admitted it. But instead of expressing regret, he took full ownership of the deed, stating that his order had been entirely justified, that he had in fact renewed it thirty times, that he would continue to renew it and--going even more boldly on the offensive--that those who had made his law-breaking known had committed a "shameful act." As justification, he offered two arguments, one derisory, the other deeply alarming. The derisory one was that Congress, by authorizing him to use force after September 11, had authorized him to suspend FISA, although that law is unmentioned in the resolution. Thus has Bush informed the members of a supposedly co-equal branch of government of what, unbeknownst to themselves, they were thinking when they cast their vote. The alarming argument is that as Commander in Chief he possesses "inherent" authority to suspend laws in wartime. But if he can suspend FISA at his whim and in secret, then what law can he not suspend? What need is there, for example, to pass or not pass the Patriot Act if any or all of its provisions can be secretly exceeded by the President?

Bush's choice marks a watershed in the evolution of his Administration. Previously when it was caught engaging in disgraceful, illegal or merely mistaken or incompetent behavior, he would simply deny it. "We have found the weapons of mass destruction!" "We do not torture!" However, further developments in the torture matter revealed a shift. Even as he denied the existence of torture, he and his officials began to defend his right to order it. His Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, refused at his confirmation hearings to state that the torture called waterboarding, in which someone is brought to the edge of drowning, was prohibited. Then when Senator John McCain sponsored a bill prohibiting cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of prisoners, Bush threatened to veto the legislation to which it was attached. It was only in the face of majority votes in both houses against such treatment that he retreated from his claim.

But in the wiretapping matter, he has so far exhibited no such vacillation. Secret law-breaking has been supplanted by brazen law-breaking. The difference is critical. If abuses of power are kept secret, there is still the possibility that, when exposed, they will be stopped. But if they are exposed and still permitted to continue, then every remedy has failed, and the abuse is permanently ratified. In this case, what will be ratified is a presidency that has risen above the law.

The danger is not abstract or merely symbolic. Bush's abuses of presidential power are the most extensive in American history. He has launched an aggressive war ("war of choice," in today's euphemism) on false grounds. He has presided over a system of torture and sought to legitimize it by specious definitions of the word. He has asserted a wholesale right to lock up American citizens and others indefinitely without any legal showing or the right to see a lawyer or anyone else. He has kidnapped people in foreign countries and sent them to other countries, where they were tortured. In rationalizing these and other acts, his officials have laid claim to the unlimited, uncheckable and unreviewable powers he has asserted in the wiretapping case. He has tried to drop a thick shroud of secrecy over these and other actions.



http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060109/schell

It's been discussed here many times, what happens if we have a terrorist attack in the near future? Will it give this Admin cart Blanc to do as they wish, let's say spy on americans or other criminal acts.

Will the Senators stand up against this Admin after we're attacked again? Everything I read tells me it's not if butt when we're attacked again, if that happens then all bet's are off.

I for one have no idea what the american citizen will allow this president to do, perhaps do away with the constitution and stay in office.

That's what i'm afraid of, this president trying to remain in office and stopping the 2008 election somehow. This admin has committed so many violation of the law that staying in power will be the only way to stay out of prison.

That's been bothering me too. Everything these crooks have attempted to do has been done behind closed doors for the most part. What is their endgame plan when their term is up in '08? Is there a shredder big enough to cover-up everything they've done for the past 8 years? Or, will they truly find a way to not leave at all?

And they're doing all of this because they control everything.

law-breaking bunch of yahoos to stay in power when all the facts are realized.
And frankly, I'll bet dimson at this point wishes he didn't have 3 more years.
It must be really freaky to know you're so internationally hated.
And welcome to DU!

this lil tale seems to be have been totally forgotten especially when Bush claims we only spy on the bad guys -- anti war groups and their founders?...they don't really count.

And that is: that the majority of Americans are well-informed, understand the full ramifications of what happened, and have a base of knowledge and facts to use in determining if this is right or wrong. The way most Americans, sadly, will see this is how the Reps will spin it: "We're tryin' to save you from those evildoers (ya all remember 9/11, dontcha??) and the Dems are trying to stop us! They don't care about your safety!!"

Unless the Dems get off their butts right now and start explaining this in simple, sound bite, "news in 90 seconds" terms, they (the Reps) will win this one.

I'm not saying most Americans are stupid - I'm saying that those that read The Nation, DU, etc. are more informed than the average American (yeah, yeah, I know, I'm being "elitist" - well, the truth sometimes hurts!). This argument makes perfect sense to us. This argument would lose them after the second sentence. They don't want to take too much time out of their day to investigate, read or listen, consider and digest the news. They want it told to them. So, we need to tell them to truth, succinctly and easily, and then they can come to their own conclusions.

Sadly, this has yet to be done by any Dems, but I will give them until the end of January since it is the holidays right now.

But, I agree, the Dems must make it and make it loud and easy to understand. The GOP already has its talking points which pretty much consists of WHY they did it. In the context of a murderer explaining why he committed a murder, no excuse is viable. The law was broken, period. And the fact that BushCo went around the FISA court because they were modifying too many of their requests puts the onus on the requests themselves. This must be tied in to the nixonian abuses, the very reason for the institution of FISA.

Really what we need is the leaking of just one name, someone whose civil rights were violated by this intrusive felony, and that person can argue this all the way to the Supreme Court. Otherwise, the only intervention can come from Congress, and that won't happen with the thugs in power. I am rather apprehensive about this Congress yielding to public pressure, but it's the only card we have to play.

I heard the repubs have dug out spying done during all previous administrations
goint back to 60's. They will use the FISA as legal justification.

However it is good to get this issue out in open. It may restrain this
administration from going overboard in trampling civil liberties.

particularly after their merciless pursuit of Pres. Clinton.

And we all know the tendency of the GOP to make sh*t up.

Just one person, not someone accused of any crime, but one "Average Joe" who somehow got on the list of people being spied on. That way the other "Average Joes" would see how this impacts them. Clearly and easily. The Democrats should try to find one - I'm sure it's not hard, there are probably hundreds or thousands!

"But I ain't no terrorist!" "Did you ever read a newstory about Al Qaeda?" "Well yeah." "Online?" "Yeah." "They can and will track that you know."

I am waiting for a Republican senator to call this what it is - illegal.

You may be right - getting good at predicting the RW and their tactics are we! :lol:

He is not above the law, he does not have the constitutional authority to wipe his ass with the constitution (which is what he is doing). Hopefully there will be fewer Repuke Senators after the 2006 election to prove my point.

There really are Constitutional issues here, and concern on both sides of the aisle about them.

If this scares you from criticizing this administration, openly, then just wait until this wiretapping becomes permanent, and see where your political maneuvering gets you.

What you are saying is Political suicide.

like Nixon's

... political dynamics of it. He gets to wiretap and if it goes sour, he gets credit for "getting his hands a little dirty" (Andy Sipowicz and Dirty Harry style) to get the bad guy.

Bush is a felon fifty times over. All has already been forgotten.
This will be forgotten, as well.

There is no doubt ignorant "conservatives" think there is no wrong in the president (as long as its a republican president) shredding the constitution. That's why its hard work being a liberal. We not only have to strive to maintain our constitutional liberties we also have to ensure conservative rights are maintained as well and they are too ignorant to realize or appreciate it.

There is no doubt ignorant "conservatives" think there is no wrong in the president (as long as its a republican president) shredding the constitution. That's why its hard work being a liberal. We not only have to strive to maintain our constitutional liberties we also have to ensure conservative rights are maintained as well and they are too ignorant to realize or appreciate it.

And people tend to want both. They also tend to dislike an extreme push in either direction and tend to vote in a correction over time. I think we are due for a 'correction' in the direction of civil liberty and against restriction and the tightening of domestic rules. People also tend to dislike intensely the assumption of king-like powers by the President. That also gets a correction in an upcoming election.

He says that he doesn't mind Bush tapping calls to try to stop terrorism as long as the taps weren't made for political purposes. Scary. He doesn't care that Bush could easily have taken the trouble to make it all legal.

Security Council? Seems as if this happened because the admin wanted to know how people would vote, nothing to do with security.
Actually, I'll be curious to hear what the Security Council has to say about this!


Rice authorized NSA to spy on UN Security Council in run-up to war


Rice authorized National Security Agency to spy on UN Security Council in run-up to war, former officials say
Jason Leopold

President Bush and other top officials in his administration used the National Security Agency to secretly wiretap the home and office telephones and monitored private email accounts of members of the United Nations Security Council in early 2003 to determine how foreign delegates would vote on a U.N. resolution that paved the war for the U.S.-led war in Iraq, NSA documents show.

Two former NSA officials familiar with the agency's campaign to spy on U.N. members say then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice authorized the plan at the request of President Bush, who wanted to know how delegates were going to vote. Rice did not immediately return a call for comment.

The former officials said Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld also participated in discussions about the plan, which involved "stepping up" efforts to eavesdrop on diplomats.

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/After_domestic_spying_rep...

This is the classic 'liberty vs safety' argument. There is a line that the American people don't want crossed. A poster above said that people can see some of this if it is truely connected to fighting terrorism. But if it becomes a way to spy on political opponents, then that is not alright and exceeds the authority of the office of the President.

But its a nice straw for the camel's back. And I will try it on my "Independant" if/when he visits for New Years.

I think that Spygate becomes more promising if we discover, for example, that Kerry's call records overseas were monitored during the election. However innocent the explanation (it was a full sweep of International calls after all), the explanation won't fly. It will simply be a fact that a presidential candidates phone calls were tapped.

That's not the way I see it going yet. The Richardson thing perked up my ears a bit, but I am still thinking we are looking at log rolling by the Republicans if we don't do something.

more names are exposed, or re-exposed.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5695739

... involving gun rights. Then we would see some fur fly.

I have read about Blix believing he was tapped. It is another purely bad faith example of Bush thuggishness and arrogance. A disaster. A cesspool. An abscess in the brain of our country.

but from the those who, hiding behind the flag and claiming to protect it, are killing it dead. That is a more deadly danger than hate filled outsiders who can kill us and blow up our buildings - but this band of power happy fools and evil shortsighted men are trying to assert absolute power for the president the absolute antithesis of what the entire Constitution was and is about (separation of powers and the rule of law.)

Let them wave the flag all they want - they will anyway - to do nothing is accept defeat and watch the end of what Lincoln called "the last best hope on earth".

This is not a time to worry that the other side will call us bad names.

Each illegal, immoral, cowardly, un-American act by this administration causes a few more supporters to turn away.

Say he loses a small number of percentage points for each of the following-->

Social Security -2%
Schaivo -1%
Iraq War Intelligence (Downing Street) -2%
Outing CIA Agent -2%
Katrina -4%
Paid Propoganda -1%
Spygate -3%

That's 15% in just the last year alone. Yes, every one of these acts should give him no support, but we're dealing with brain dead freepers.

Remember, he still has three more years.

explanation for spying: Robin Hood stole from the rich to give to the poor. * is spying on whomever he pleases to protect the people. The problem is, both are committing crimes.
We have to throw his choices to do illegal things at him at everyturn.

of his own party.

The abuse of power to bully everyone into submission has been documented over and over. He is holding everyone's secrets to threaten.
Typical sociopath tactic.

This is not going to go away.

... even Republicans can get it!

The president had the means at his disposal (warrants sanctioned by the FISA court) to take the steps that he took. The 'timeliness' issue is moot, because he also had the means to get a retroactive warrant, had there been no time to acquire one beforehand.

Given that he had wide authority WITHIN THE LAW, the only reason not to have followed procedure would be if he knew what he was asking for was OUTSIDE THE LAW.

It's as simple as that. Eventually, the names of people and/or organizations who were spied on will come out -- and just ONE NAME on that list that is outside presidential authority to have spied on will do the Idiot in.

I might get flamed for this, but I don't believe that all Republican polticians are evil. There are many good men and women on 'the other side' who are as outraged about this last disclosure as we are. There are other Repubs who have their own polictical interests at heart, and are getting antsy about continuing to support the Bu$hCo regime, as it is seen more and more to be riddled with corruption and an arrogant above-the-law attitude.

IMHO, Bush will ge gone in 2006, or early 2007 -- not through impeachment, but through resignation. The GOPers who have their own political ambitions will cause him to do so, to save their own standing with the voters, and their own political skins.

...big loser for the Dems," I wish you would mitigate it just a bit, by, say, adding a question mark, thus: "Spygate turning into a big loser for the Dems?", or "Is this how spygate will be turned into big loser for the Dems?"

We have quite enough rightwing propaganda out there, associating Dems with the word "losers." We don't need more of it. And we don't need post titles that make everybody's hearts' sink. There is no evidence yet that "spygate" will be any kind of "loser" for the Dems, let alone a "big loser." Bushite "talking points" are not evidence of this; but merely of their quite predictable attempt to try to MAKE IT INTO a "loser" for the Dems.

The Dems had better pay more attention to election reform, because election fraud is HOW Bushite "talking points" become reality. Election fraud is the basis of Bush's assertion of imperial power to write his own laws. He is not beholden to us, and never has been. He is beholden to those who arranged his "selection" and his "re-selection" (in the face of overwhelming American disapproval of every Bush policy, foreign and domestic, as evidenced in the issue polls '03-'04; a 60/40 Dem blowout in new voter registration in 2004; a 3% Kerry margin of victory in the exit polls (which don't count purged voters--K margin was more like 5%); and Bush approval polls so low before the election that Zogby said he couldn't win, and sinking like the Titanic afterward.)

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

Throw Diebold and ES&S election theft machines into 'Boston Harbor' NOW!

... and a note of caution than a downer. Nothing that the Republicans would do would surprise me in this case. This is defensive driving, not only a downer and certainly not Republican propaganda. In fact, it is the opposite, an attempt to prepare us against Republican propaganda. Let's keep hope alive, but keep it realistic.

Given that Bush "monitored" all International calls, I'm assuming that calls from political enemies ended up being monitored. That is about our best hope, and it is a good one. As with Plamegate, Bush would not be in trouble for what he actually did, but for a noxious side effect of it. I.e., Karl Rove did not intentionally out a CIA operative; he outed a political enemy who happened to be a CIA operative. Whoops! Same with Spygate, maybe.

If Kerry (or Richardson), for example, finds that some of his call records were caught up in the sweep, the American people aren't going to listen to Bush's nuanced explanations about how they were merely there because the computer was told to intercept all calls.

So there's the positive side. But watch that negative side!

Peace.

that will eventually turn the country against him. One day at a time.

There is much more of this story to come. If the target of the wiretaps/intercepts had really been terrorists, there would have been no reason not to get court approval. Almost every single request was quickly approved, and retroactive approvals were allowed in emergencies. The wiretaps and intercepts had to be illicit and political. Only a very small group were privy to these illegal wiretaps.

But just wait, someone will talk. One expert said the professionals in NSA were as angry as anyone when they found out this month about the illegalities. He said they work very hard to follow the law.

The constitution has been breached. Only patriots should carry forth now, only dems that are true to the constitution, not the ones who are spiritually bound to those in breech.

The Republicans will only be able to sell the scenario above if we don't do some serious fighting. I'm not holding my breath for Republican Congress-people to "finally see the danger of Bushism." That's a surefire suffocation strategy. I'm saying we need to be prepared for craven log rolling and one-hand-washes the other behavior from the Republicans -- and fight it accordingly.

That might be the way such a thing would go *right now*. It may very well be rather different next November, when the electorate has a clearer and fuller picture of what all this 'security'-mongering and need-for-secrecy really adds up to.

I really hate opening posts that in effect are paranoia and the OP writer's latent conservatism and inability to see the big picture writ large. Get a grip on yourself, gulliver. It's what all the right wing disruptors who come here do.

I really do see the big picture. I get there by not closing my eyes to the half of the picture I don't like. And what I am saying in this post is neither paranoia nor the "OP writer's latent conservatism" (which kinda smarts, but I'm trying to take a deep breath). The post is a simple warning about where it could go -- where it could easily go. Don't shoot the messenger.

Take a good look at that viscerally nauseating picture of John McCain hugging Junior. Don't expect Republican Congress-people to impeach Bush unless they have absolutely no choice. Whatever response we Dems come up with, we need to close off the nightmare scenario I'm talking about: Bush and the Republican Congress arguing with each other, but really just grandstanding and building one another up in an election year.

This post isn't to scare Dems away from Spygate. That is paranoia. It's to point out a place where the orcs may try to tunnel under the truth. If you can't see this because you are too busy looking for Freepers in our midst or won't see it because it depresses you, then maybe you aren't who I'm trying to talk to.

But you know I could be right, and you said it yourself. I think Bush is not saying exactly what his wonderful wire taps got us. He is not saying how amazingly the "slices and dices" Popeel Patriot Act has earned its keep. He's just stampeding and blustering and bluffing. So far he is getting away with it. There was a bright spot a couple of days ago when the Senate extended the Patriot Act for six months (which would have given everyone time to review Bush's demagoguery). But then the House dropped the extension to 1 month (during which Congress is not in session).

The dems better not let up or give up on this one.

This is my "litmus test".

If the dems give up the fight on this one, they'll lose me for the next election.

It's that simple.

That's just crap. You can't spin this one and I'm not going to be frightened off of pursuing this issue and no American should be unless we want to live in a dictatorship.

Listening in without a warrant isn't just impolite, it's a felony.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (USC Title 50 Chapter 36 Subchapter 1) specifically prohibits the government from doing what the President has secretly ordered and it is a serious felony with major penalties.

The President has publicly confessed to this felony on national television. He ordered government agencies to engage in spying on thousands of American citizens without a warrant when the Congress made specific provisions in law to cover all circumstances, even emergency situations so that the government could listen in for up to 72 hours before obtaining a warrant, plenty of time to find and convince a judge.

There is no excuse for this action, yet the President has done so anyways.

That the President has colluded with others to do so, also makes this a conspiracy subject to fine and imprisonment up to 5 years per count under USC TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 19 § 371.

That he has chosen to hide it from the public, the Congress, law enforcement agencies, and the Courts through secret findings and secret orders may also be a case for obstruction of justice under USC TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 73 § 1512 paragraph (b).

The penalties for illegal wiretaps are severe, up to 5 years and $10,000 per count. The President has admitted to reauthorizing this violation of the law 30 separate times and thousands of phone calls have been intercepted.

Did anyone ever see the movie The Firm? I think we've just found the way to shut down the firm of Bendini Lambert and Locke.

The time has come for Prosecutor Fitzgerald to step forward and finally take the gloves off.

It is definitely time for the Congress to convene impeachment hearings.

More information:

FISA Act:

USC Title 50 Chapter 36 Subchapter 1

§ 1809. Criminal sanctions

Release date: 2005-03-17

(a) Prohibited activities A person is guilty of an offense if he intentionally—

(1) engages in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute; or

(2) discloses or uses information obtained under color of law by electronic surveillance, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through electronic surveillance not authorized by statute.

(b) Defense

It is a defense to a prosecution under subsection (a) of this section that the defendant was a law enforcement or investigative officer engaged in the course of his official duties and the electronic surveillance was authorized by and conducted pursuant to a search warrant or court order of a court of competent jurisdiction.

(c) Penalties An offense described in this section is punishable by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than five years, or both.

(d) Federal jurisdiction There is Federal jurisdiction over an offense under this section if the person committing the offense was an officer or employee of the United States at the time the offense was committed.

There is much to support your view, and you are likely correct. But people here want to be told that their wishes are certain to come true, not analysis of possible Republican strong moves.

They want to be told that impeachment is certain and that jail for Bush is a high probability, not an impossibility on both.

They want to be told that all Republicans are morons, not that many are extremely intelligent but they begin their reasoning from a different worldview.

They damn sure do not want to be told what Americans have supported in the past when they believed the country was in danger. What Bush has done so far is peanuts compared to what was done in the CIVIL WAR, WWI & WWII - AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE SUPPORTED IT THEN.

So far, no one has had their lives impacted, (that they know of) by the spying, so they don't feel it. But 9-11 did happen. America WAS attacked. And the public will NOT forget that.

So the Republican are indeed setting themselves up to say, "We are trying to protect you and the Democrats want to tie our hands." Get ready for an election campaign with lots of pictures of the towers falling, and voice overs saying the Democrats can't be trusted with National Security. Ever since the 1972 campaign, the Republicans have always hammered us about National Security and it has worked very well. Reagan's 1980 campaign centered on National Security.

The Bush administration's credibility on "we will protect you" is down the tubes (especially after Katrina) and people are finally more concerned about an over-reaching government.

he lies about everything. i dont believe he was spying on terrorists. and we have a couple people like richardson and blix who we pretty much know isnt a spy. who did you spy on. have a super duper secret committee and show them who they spied on. then get back to me if he was protecting us, or fucking us

He has said as much. He'll try to mitigate it. John Kerry's international calls were probably monitored, for example, if not tapped. But monitoring would be sufficient to blow the lid off this thing. Bush should have gone to Congress if he wanted to get approval for what he did. I think he broke the law. What scares me about this is that he may establish a precedent here where the entire government turns its back on the fact that he broke the law.

If Bush turns this into the caricature argument "What if you coulda tapped bin Laden's phone but some court wouldn't let you?", he wins. And there are a lot of dumb people in the world, and lot of Republicans willing to let them stay that way.

where he is in trouble is he was listening in on calls that one party was not international. isnt that correct. but i agree, he could make it acceptable if people dont get mad

Nobody does.

They'll try all that, and there will be a huge media battle with ups and downs, but anytime they let him off the leash he offends America. He'll never recover, because we have seen him naked, and seen him claim he didn't need to bother putting on any clothes.

The pundits are running out of excuses and becoming laughingstocks themselves as they rip off their own clothing and dance wildly to support the naked president.

Imagine that same pompous conversation--only the fatass Republicans are naked. Naked, ugly and unashamed.

Just doesn't have the same impacet, does it?

of their phones being monitored. The more we spend energy on this issue,
the less it benefits us.

The winning issues for democrats in 2006 & 2008 are:
Abolition of taxcuts for the very rich,
withdrawal of troops from Iraq,
reduction of toxic materials being spewed in air & water,
Affordable Healthcare,
and keeping religion out of government.

I'm just commenting on the way it looks now. Personally, I would like to see Bush's spying shoved right up his ass. I think nothing Bush has done has prevented "more 911's" other than giving the enemy everything they ever wanted -- plus a generous per diem and a company car. Al Qaeda is very happy with Bush right now. He's worse than Neville Chamberlain. Chamberlain only appeased; Bush actually did dirty work for the enemy.

Seriously.

You're purely speculating on one possible outcome. There's a myriad of scenerios that could result from this illegal activity.

What's the point?

Instead of doom and gloom -- why not... "One possible outcome of Spygate"

I disagree with you completely, but even still.. if you're going to speculate on something, why blurt out such a "definitive outcome" title; i.e. "BIG LOSER FOR DEMS"

This could be a MASSIVE WINNER for Democrats for all you know.

Sorry.. I just despise your choice of words in your thread title and think they are completely uncalled for.

Seems to happen far too often on here..

... who find this gloomy and depressing. It's not meant to be an outcome, more of a status. As an outcome it would be really depressing, and that is what I am hoping we can avoid. I trust the Dems are on it. As you say, it is "one possible outcome." It seems like maybe what I find bracing, others find disheartening. To the folks who find the title disheartening, I would just say there is a lot of game left in this issue. I'm actually more and more optimistic about it. But there is the typical Republican politics to worry about, and it shouldn't be forgotten.

If this were an isolated incident, maybe. But when it is added to a long line of "King George"-like acts, this is another straw in the load that will break the camel's back. Democrats need to conspicuously connect the dots. Always and at all times, they need to avoid discussing each of this administration's violations separately. Separately, each incident is not outstanding enough to catch the general public's attention (which is sad, because they are egregious enough on their own). But added together, they have an overwhelming weight. I also think it is smart to hammer on how the exact same set of players that are currently saying, "It ain't nuthin' but a thang." about Bush's activities were all over Clinton like a duck on a june bug.

because it's WRONG and bush can eat shit.

n/t

conversation. I think that the dems are going to pounce on Bush in 2006. They will NOT let any President get away with making his own personal amendments to the Constitution. I think they will successfully point out that he is to protect the Constitution not change it. Remember this President tried to sign a law for one person, Terri Schiavo, which is also illegal. He has no idea what the Constitution is.

I also think that you wil hear the word "impeach" thrown around in the House and the Senate. Its going to be a nasty, nasty divisive year and the dems WILL come out on top.

His decision to wrap himself in a 911 fear blanket and take this country into a self serving war will also blow-up in his face. It's getting very redundant, for dems and repukes, hearing the same scare speech over and over again.

Check the letters to the editor. This story resonates in the hearts and minds of every 40-50 year old who lived through Watergate. I wonder about the motives of behind this thread so I'm starting a parallel thread. Bye.

The picture I am painting is what I see happening if we don't fight -- and we aren't fighting that much yet. Daschle scored a point, and the fact that Bush probably screwed up a whole bunch of legitimate cases against terror suspects works against him. (However, even that can be twisted. "Don't tell me we are going to let the courts overturn cases against terrorists?")

The things we regard as set in stone and sacrosanct just aren't, and we need to get used to that. Checks and balances? That's "gridlock and paralysis when we need agility against a lurking enemy." Courts approving warrants? That's "the criminals having more rights than the victims." There is no firm footing for mere rationality in this. We are in a big pissing contest, and the stakes are high.

The lesson of Bushism is that everything we learned about our country in grade school, every august government document, every principle of fair play and honesty is ephemeral. They can be swept away with a few lies, a few ads, a single quip. A BJ can change world history. A laugh in a press conference can change the course of a political scandal.

Fight? We better fight!