Bush Remains Untouchable
Well, apparently there isn’t going to be an investigation into Bush’s post-9-11 warrantless wiretapping. It pisses me off becauce I know that if the roles of the parties were reversed Rush and O’Reilly and the Republicans would be calling for an investigation and an impeachment and saying it was the American public’s right to know.
It’s even more suspicious after all the threatening and posturing Frist did last week when it looked like the committee in question might indeed vote to investigate.
Instead, as a compromise, a new seven-member subcommittee is being formed to scrutinize the eavesdropping under a plan approved by the White House. The proposed plan would authorize the National Security Agency to eavesdrop without a warrant for 45 days but require the White House to justify every decision to continue beyond that timeframe. The legislative proposal, titled the Terrorist Surveillance Act of 2006, also would force the eavesdropping program to cease after five years unless renewed by Congress. [“Senate panel rejects bid for NSA inquiry” (Reuters.com)]
I’m telling you there is something very wrong going on in Washington D.C. Some very bad mojo indeed.
tags: politics, warrantless wiretapping, George W. Bush, Republicans, hypocrisy, Terrorist Surveillance Act
You may also enjoy...
14 comments
Leave a comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
on March 8, 2006 at 5:53 pm
Big Dog said:
I never heard Rush or O’Reilly say one word about Carter wiretapping a few Asian guys who he believed were helping the Communist Vietnamese and I never heard them say one word when Clinton conducted warrantless searches of a CIA agent’s home because they thought (he was) selling secrets to the enemy.
I guess this kind of blows a hole in the idea they would have said something if the shoe were on the other foot because they did not say anything when the show was on the other foot.
I remember Clinton and Carter’s Administrations arguing that this was inherent in the President’s authority as outlined in the Constitution.
You should look up those other two fellas, they were doing it too, or does it not matter?
on March 8, 2006 at 6:32 pm
BIG DOG's WEBLOG said:
Moonbat Manics…
Not too long ago the left was full of glee. They thought for sure that they had George Bush this time. That evil man has been listening to them talk to Aunt Marge about cake recipes and they were not going to stand for it. They called it “Ille…
on March 8, 2006 at 7:08 pm
N. Mallory said:
Oh, please. The entire time Clinton was in office, Rush’s show was so nitpicky of every single little thing Clinton did. I remember the whole “White House Held Hostage” campaign of his.
You have to admit that this administration has most certainly gotten away without being asked a lot of questions they should have been asked. There’s a reason this government was set up with a checks and balance system. All I’m asking is that everybody play by those rules, whatever their party. (Remember, I may be a liberal, but I’m not a Democrat.)
on March 8, 2006 at 7:18 pm
Big Dog said:
Don’t stray from the point. You said they would be all over them for this particular offense. That was not the case. You can not then expand your argument to every little thing.
I agree that all the parties ought to play by the rules but you can not let all the others do something and then crucify the guy you don’t like for doing the same thing.
I would not call some of the things Clinton did little. He had more grand jury investigations and scandals than any one else. Of course, I guess it depends on what you consider nit picky.
on March 8, 2006 at 8:03 pm
n. mallory said:
But I guess that’s part of my point. Why does Bush get a free pass on a Grand Jury investigation? I mean, I don’t agree on what they finally impeached Clinton on, but if they’d actually managed to find something on the business practices or the sexual harrassment, then it would have all been worth it. The point is that there was an investigation and in fact, one was allowed. Every time one is even brought up around Bush, the Repubs circle the wagons and threaten everyone. If there’s nothing to hide, why not let the Democrats have one little investigation to make them happy?
C’mon…Clinton couldn’t make a step without running into Kenneth Starr. Maybe we should dust Kenny off.
on March 8, 2006 at 8:56 pm
n. mallory said:
It occurs to me to add that maybe a little investigation might be good for the Bush administration. After all, if the warrantless wiretaping really and truly isn’t illegal and they really aren’t “up to anything” as most Americans now suspect as the polls claim, then all an investigation would do is vindicate the Bush administration and it would probably really help with the mid-term elections.
on March 8, 2006 at 9:14 pm
Big Dog said:
You can believe those fantasies if you want. Why investigate something that is clearly legal by precendent? It has been allowed and the courts agreed. Why investigate it if it has been ruled legal?
Clinton got away with more than you can imagine and what did they find? Who knows, they redact every report so that it does not show an unfavorable light. His wife clearly obstructed justice and kept her billing records with her until after the statute of limitations.
Clinton told Americans that Ms. Flowers was a liar but was forced to admit he in fact had an affair with her and lied to America about it. They waited 36 hours before allowing anyone into Vince Foster’s office while Hillary’s folks cleaned up incriminating evidence. Deals with China, North Korea, the list goes on and on.
The Republicans looked out for Clinton when it counted. They had enough votes to impeach and could have done so and not thought about it. Many voted against impeachment. The Democrats on the other hand cut Bush no slack.
Why have investigations when what you are doing is legal? They investigated the BS Plame story and no one was indicted for exposing her (though she was not covert under the law). They got Libby on some BS charge.
You can say that most Americans think he is up to something because of polls but that only reflects that Americans have heard the phrase illegal domestic wiretapping for so long that they believe it. The fact is it is neither illegal nor domestic. If you repeat things enough people believe them.
on March 8, 2006 at 9:17 pm
Big Dog said:
It occurs to me that they actually did find something on the Clinton investigations. He was lucky though because many of the women were intimidated or paid off.
He also was deep into the IRS probe but that was all redacted. He did sell missile technology to China. He managed to use his clout to get out of a lot of trouble. He was crooked and his wife is no better. But if you wish to believe he was an honorable man then that is your right.
on March 8, 2006 at 9:31 pm
n. mallory said:
Didn’t they catch Libby in a lie to the Grand Jury? If that’s BS then why was it such a big deal when Clinton lied?
I don’t think that it’s been found that the wiretapping is legal. That’s still under dispute. Just because you believe it is so doesn’t make it true.
And if you don’t think the Dem’s aren’t cutting Bush slack, you ought to go back and look at their voting records. Heck look at the Patriot Act — there’s a complete and utter example of them folding under the pressure of the White House. They may be doing a lot of posturing but it’s as I’ve been saying, thunder is impressive but lightning gets the work done. As much noise as the Dems have been making, they’ve pretty much been doing whatever the Repubs and Bush want.
Hmmm…You know, I might have to think on this. Maybe it’s all just a big show and they’re all in on it. Wouldn’t that be a conspiracy?
I really wish there was a viable third choice.
on March 8, 2006 at 9:41 pm
Big Dog said:
The courts have ruled in favor of two previous Presidents with regard to wire tapping and that is precedent. If precedent is not important then Roe is going to be in real trouble and you can tell the guys like Schumer and Kennedy to stop asking judges if they believe precedent carries weight.
The Democrats want to look tough on national defense. They can not oppose the port deal and then oppose the PA, it sends mixed messages. They want to win the elections this year. I have yet to hear anyone explain exactly how the PA is bad. You will have more information gathered about you by the new DNC data base.
Samuel Clements, right?
The Dems have not given Bush anything. The reason a lot of things pass (that do not have to do with reelection) are because the Republicans are in the majority.
on March 8, 2006 at 9:45 pm
Big Dog said:
Clinton was found guilty of the lie. If and when Libby is then it will be different.
They said he lied because he had a variation in dates from something he told them. I guess every other person in the world, especially one with a calendar like his, can remember exactly what day and date everything in their lives happened.
You are doing the same as the rest of the libs. You have him guilty before his day in court. Clinton was guilty.
on March 9, 2006 at 7:39 am
n. mallory said:
No. My point was that you said it was a “BS charge” and I just thought that was amusing since the Repubs make such a big deal out of the fact that Clinton was impeached over the same “BS charge” - a lie.
Is it only a “BS charge” until he’s found guilty or because he’s not Clinton? Or is it a “BS charge” because of as you say it was a “mis-remembering of the dates”? If it’s really just a technicallity as you say, then I agree it’s a “BS charge”, but the investigation isn’t over.
Some of us still think it was inappropriate to ask a married president about a concentual sexual affair under oath. Why are Repubs so obsessed with other people having sex anyway?
on March 9, 2006 at 6:34 pm
Big Dog said:
Well you bring up an interesting point. The President had sex in his place of work with a subordinate. Several US Army Drill Sergeants did the very same thing and spent 10 years in jail. If this happened in business you and the rest of the women in the world would be asking for that evil man’s head. But since this was a man you all love it is OK. Where were the NOW hags when it was discovered? They were silent but these are the same people who opposed Justice Thomas on a CLAIM about sexual harassment that was less than credible since she waited until he was nominated.
There is a big difference between having an affair in your house and having sex with a subordinate in the workplace. The government has very strict sexual harassment rules and Clinton violated them. Any other person would have been out on his ear. If this had been a regular business guy, say Ken Lay, you would be demanding that he be fired.
It is appropriate to ask under oath when he went before the public and denied it yet witnesses told the GJ that it happened. As a matter of fact, Clinton and his stooges tried to make the girl out to be a stalking wacko. They were trying real hard to discredit her and say she was lying. That Blue Dress screwed them and the GJ knew he was lying.
If he had said yes I had sex with her in June and it was really July and they charged him, that would be BS as well. He just flat out lied.
I am not in favor of any of what he did but there is a real issue of credibility. The thing is not that we are obsessed with who has sex because I personally could’nt care less, the question is why is it you folks think it is OK for a CEO (of our country) to break the law? It does not matter what the crime was, he broke the law, especially when he lied under oath. Remember, they got to ask because of his antics with Paula Jones. I believe her law suit started it all. Once the pattern developed they could ask the questions.
on March 9, 2006 at 8:46 pm
n. mallory said:
I really wish they would have caught him on something with Paula Jones.
First off, Monica had a history of “stalking” older, powerful men.
Second, the White House was as much his house as his place of business. So, it’s kind of hard. After all, everyone’s always saying that Bush is on “working” vacations when he’s at Crawford.
Anyway, I did like Clinton. I thought he was a good President, yes. I think he managed to do a heck of a job considering the opposition he faced. I don’t think he was a saint and I’m sure he was a womanizer. There is a difference however between sexual harrassment and an affair. One is unwanted and one is consentual and the latter I couldn’t care less about and I never understood what the big deal about it was. BUT I was interested in Paula Jones. If they had just proven that was true…
But as you say, innocent until proven guilty. I did follow along the investigation however. See? They at least had an investigation into a real possible crime.