Amen.

I've got a feeling in my gut that a part of the national intelligence apparatus -- the CIA most particlarly -- is running an "op" against the President of the United States. The pattern is becoming too obvious to be a coincidence; the leaks are too obvious. Too obvious -- which means that the CIA or NSA is getting sloppy, or the op is being run as part of a "benign neglect" campaign: "I'm not saying I'll give you any classified information, but I'll carefully look the other way while you riffle through this classified material on my desk."

I think it was Jon Podhoretz who has opined that the CIA's usefulness to this country is past. I am beginning to agree that this agency has passed from being simply imcompetent to being an active liability. The DIA can handle HUMINT; the NSA can deal with SIGINT and ELINT.

I am also wondering what role the State Department is playing in this whole imbroglio. The "secret prisons in Eastern Europe" smells like a State mole to me. It's long been a haven for anti-Bush Democrats, and it tends to be the first stop for idealistic young Lefties entering government service.

Abolish the CIA entirely, and start cracking the whip at State. And prosecute the leakers for treason against the U.S. in a time of war.

Well Monty, if this actually is a CIA op against the President, at least it's as incompetent as their ops against America's enemies.

So, like, we got that going for us.

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

Yeah. I was concerned by his "There's a process at the justice department" line. There's a ton of lefties there too! The President should be screaming for an investigation. I mean with Plamegate as precedent, how can he not be screaming?

Bush is being punished for trying to play nice with the Dems when he first came into office.

He should have read the writing on the wall from Fla and absolutely cleaned house at State, CIA, Justice et al, getting rid of any and all Dem holdovers.

The Clintonistas didn't stand for any Repub pol holdovers. What'd they get from the people they put in? Full loyalty.

Bush on the other hand left these people in place well into his first term, putting them in a position to know what we were doing after 9/11.

Then, surprise surprise, in early 2004 they all began jumping ship to the Kerry campaign, and the leaks started.

I agree with Monty; the CIA is out of control. It begs the question: what in holy heck was George Tenet doing while he was running the CIA. And don't forget the subterfuge in the FBI.

The FBI has their share of leakers, too. Time magazine hailed Colleen Rowley's so-called bravery for being a whistle-blower. I like to think of people like Rowley as rats and political operatives, but that's just me.

I think we need the CIA, but the agency needs a righteous delousing. Anyone who has leaked should get tossed in jail. Anyone who's sloppy with sensitive material gets pink slipped. Replace career bureacrats with hard chargers; people who value results over ass-covering.
I also agree that the State Department is an obstructionist cesspool of peace-monkeyism and I hope Condi cleans house.

60 Minutes ran a piece on the secret prisons and rendition last night. Obviously, it was a negative piece and used as it's centerpiece the story of a German Arab who was mistakenly taken.

The interesting part of the story, to me anyway, was the fact that this program was actually begun during the Clinton administration.

Note that the leak about Osama's phone, which wasn't much like what Bush and Condi said, was by the Washington Times. Oops.

Well, thanks for the meaningless comment. Shit, then I guess we all better pack up and go home. If the Wash Times did it, then we should certainly do it all over again. Because its about politics, not about war. The war is a mirage, Bushitlerburton is merely trying to manufacture consent.

Note that the leak about Osama's phone, which wasn't much like what Bush and Condi said, was by the Washington Times. Oops.

And this is supposed to matter why?

Oh, are we expected to recoil in horror because the Times is a conservative newspaper and thus your witty comment just destroys all of our arguments against leaking classified information?

You're so clever.

I love how all the lefties are full of righteous outrage about this non-issue, but had nary a word to say about ECHELON, which peaked during the Bubba Years. Nor about the covert Cold War NSA activity, with was about a hundred times more intrusive than this -- and sanctioned, what's more, by none other than Jimmah Carter.

The big story here is not the ELINT/SIGINT stuff, which was obvious to anyone who is not a complete feeb; the big story is that some fatuous idiot leaked this information to the press, thus compromising what was by all accounts a very rich source of intel on our enemies.

There is lots of interesting NSA stuff for crypto/security geeks (you can Google for the relevant terms or look in Body Of Secrets by James Bamford): operation HARVEST, TELLMAN/RISSMAN, DANCER, RINGMASTER, and LACROSSE/KEYHOLE (spy satellites). And these are just the unclassified programs the NSA/NRO has run.

This surveillance program doesn't amount to a pisshole in the snow in terms of what the NSA is up to. Just drive past the NSA building sometime (in Fort Meade, MD). The place is vast, and employs computer technology that is probably five to ten years beyond what we civilians get to use. What we know about the NSA is the tiniest little part of the whole iceberg -- and that worries me sometimes.

"but he never answers if there will be an investigation. " I think the problem is that one cannot assure that a special investigation will be impartial, truthful and just. Look at past investigations like the 9/11 commission, Starr investigations, etc. that did as much to cover up the facts as to seek indictments.

Note that the leak about Osama's phone, which wasn't much like what Bush and Condi said, was by the Washington Times. Oops.

You, sir (and I use the term loosely), are drunk on piss. What does it matter which paper printed the leak? Have you noticed the thread has been specifically about which government agencies might be responsible for the leaks? By all means, prosecute the media cooperating in these leaks as well; but that's kinda like chopping a head off the hydra.

last comment was me; in a hurry at work. Wouldn't want Josie to take the heat for my dissertation.

You're so clever.

Actually, he is. Two lines of comment and about six of us are frothing at the mouth again.

GO BOB GO!

What we know about the NSA is the tiniest little part of the whole iceberg -- and that worries me sometimes.

Monty,

FWIW, I worked there for two and a half years and instead of being worried you should be proud. Its been a 'few' years but my impression is that there is a *lot* less political BS that goes on at NSA when compared with the CIA.

Actually, the comment about the Washington Times is relevant, considering how many times the liberal media is blamed for everything that's wrong with America. How many times have I seen a knee-jerk reaction that the New York Times or Washington Post will "probably" do something or "want" something to happen, based on nothing? Now it's the Washington Times at fault, which somehow messes up the whole left wing conspiracy meme.

And the one issue that has not been explained: how does it help al Qaeda for them to know that they're being wiretapped with or without a FISA warrant? Is it being suggested that they will somehow do smething different if they know that the US is using a different policy on obtaining warrants? Every time the Bush administration wants to deflect criticism, it claims that it's critics are "helping the enemy." And then everyone on this board jumps in with the same old repetitive comments about how much liberals hate this country.

Could someone please provide a scenario in which the knowledge that Bush is circumventing FISA will somehow help the terrorists?

Documents discovered in a terrorist hold out mention an attack is imminent. Maybe even past due. Names are given. Wait for a warrant?

Now it's the Washington Times at fault, which somehow messes up the whole left wing conspiracy meme.

I wouldn't call it a conspiracy, but there certainly is a strong and persistent leftist bias in the media.

You're right that the Washington Times is an outlier to this trend. It doesn't make the trend any less real. The "meme", as you call it, is simply the truth.

The commenters here must be in a touchy mood today or something, though. I think it's ironic that that leak was from the Washington Times.

Documents discovered in a terrorist hold out mention an attack is imminent. Maybe even past due. Names are given. Wait for a warrant?

Doesn't actually work, Rip. You can get a warrant in no time at all from a federal judge on a national security matter like this. They will step out of their Christmas party, if told by a DA that it's necessary.

Could someone please provide a scenario in which the knowledge that Bush is circumventing FISA will somehow help the terrorists?

Time between capture and AQ reaction to kill the usefulness of any data that may have been compromised? If they perceive a nonexistent lag, the movement may be slower and operations less proactive and even without that it seems wise to hit the bad guys' comm as fast as possible. Time between capture and thwarting operations that threaten innocents? I can't say I know the answer. That sort of thing gets a little too close to operational specifics for most of us to get the memo.

But considering that it was done, exactly what do you perceive as the advantage the NSA would attach to pursuing foreign intel without a warrant? Or do you figure our security guys are just jackbooted thugs who lay awake nights plotting new ways to invade your privacy so they can one day stage their coup?

You can get a warrant in no time at all from a federal judge

And I believe you can get them done retrocatively under the right circumstances. But I don't know how all that machinery operates in real time. For some reason, though, I'm remembering a certain sniper mission that got scrubbed by a lawyer in D.C. a few years ago. That kind of thing we can live without. Where foreign intel is concerned, I have no problem letting our dogs off the leash.

The "leak" about Osama using satellite phones was not originally from the Washington Times.

CBS blurted it out on TV in the month before the Washington Times reported on it.

The Clinton White House was so flustered about it that it forbade mention of it even in the indictments against bin Laden in federal court. Oh wait, no it didn't.

Even Washington Post's Walter Pincus was so fevered with BDS that he torpedoed the Washington Times "scoop" and one of his own previous articles just so he could bash Cheney:

Intelligence officials said bin Laden stopped using the phone after the information became known, calling it a major intelligence setback. However, the government included the information in a 1998 indictment filed against bin Laden and others associated with the bombings of two U.S. embassies in East Africa that year.

The "leak" about Osama using satellite phones was not originally from the Washington Times.

CBS blurted it out on TV in the month before the Washington Times reported on it.

The Clinton White House was so flustered about it that it forbade mention of it even in the indictments against bin Laden in federal court. Oh wait, no it didn't.

Even Washington Post's Walter Pincus was so fevered with BDS that he torpedoed the Washington Times "scoop" and one of his own previous articles just so he could bash Cheney:

Intelligence officials said bin Laden stopped using the phone after the information became known, calling it a major intelligence setback. However, the government included the information in a 1998 indictment filed against bin Laden and others associated with the bombings of two U.S. embassies in East Africa that year.

I apologize if this double posted.

I think it's ironic that that leak was from the Washington Times.

I think it's ironic that it was pointed out by a guy who thinks the NYT is too nice to Bush.

Via Instapundit we have this analysis from the Volokh Conspiracy.

Was the secret NSA surveillance program legal? Was it constitutional? Did it violate federal statutory law? It turns out these are hard questions, but I wanted to try my best to answer them. My answer is pretty tentative, but here it goes: Although it hinges somewhat on technical details we don't know, it seems that the program was probably constitutional but probably violated the federal law known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. My answer is extra-cautious for two reasons.

Could someone please provide a scenario in which the knowledge that Bush is circumventing FISA will somehow help the terrorists?

It becomes open knowledge that Bush is trying to appease the terrorists, see, and that's bad.

You know how they hate us for our freedoms, our rule of law, our Constitution, our observance of limited govt, transparency, and checks and balances?

Bush is appeasing the terrorists by increasing govt intrusion and secrecy and claim to power, while limiting civil liberties.

The argument is that we must destroy our freedoms in order to save them.
-------------------------------------/snark

geoff, the line-up of lawyers and constitutional scholars who believe that Bush has admitted to an impeachable offense is getting very long.

Have you seen what Turley and Dershowitz have to say on it? Not to mention Bob Barr.

Heh. I remember the violent reaction not long ago when I dropped the word IMPEACHMENT. Ready for a trip down memory lane? Check out Article 2 from Nixon's Articles of Impeachment.

Just a little tweaking needed.

Y'all are going to have to decide if you really want an all-powerful executive branch, above all checks and balances, issuing secret orders, or if you want protect the Constitution with the only way left in this case: impeachment.

I think it's worth noting that this admin is asserting all this power because we're "at war" -- though there is no declaration of war.

What that means is that with this precedent, the powers could and would be invoked whenever desired (secret nat'l security threat! Can't be revealed!), whether there is a declared war or not.

Happy thought for the morning: The face of the Democrat party is largely indistinguishable from moonbat trolls operating in bad faith. How neat is that? And they wonder why they can't get any electoral traction.

Sortelli's Law bears repeating: Every time a lefty opines he just demonstrates that Karl Rove has the easiest job ever.

Cute. Nixon's articles of impeachment. Let's look at what it says, shall we?

withholding relevant and material evidence or information from lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States;

Except, um, that didn't happen. Seems to me the Dems have backed themselves into one hell of a corner. They jumped all over the White House after this story was leaked, and expected to get the upper ground due to the rather sensationalist aspects of the story thatwere played up in the major media. Momentum, momentum, momentum.

What they obviously did not expect was Bush to fight back so strongly and openly. They know there are records of the briefings they received, so I expect to see some major walk-back in the next few days.

Of course, they will not be completely able to walk back, because the Kos Kids, DUers, Moveon drones and other assorted lefty fucktards will be pushing them toward the extreme position.

Damned if they do - America simply will not stand for impeachment of a president fighting a war - and that's what this is, and all of the closing of the eyes and plugging of the ears by fucking morons won't change that fact.

Damned if they don't - those same fucking morons will scream and yell and withhold money and support if the Democrats don't ask how high when they say jump.

Karl Rove is a magnificent bastard.

I'm baaaack.

The past few weeks have been rough for me. Plamegate failed. No Fitzmas. Delay is beating Earle. America is winning in Iraq.

I finally reloaded my brain cells with new "information" from my favorite lefty bloggers. I'm all ginned-up and ready to fight.

Armed with more evidence of the inevitable: Bush will be impeached.
All we moonbats have to do is convince the rest of America that President Bush wants to tap their phone calls, read their grocery lists, and find out what movies they rent from Blockbuster.

Wow. I'm such a tool.
Help me.

When I was listening to the CBS radio news yesterday on the way home, the juxtaposition of the words "wiretap" and "troop withdrawal" put the final piece of the puzzle into place, and Tubby up there hit on it. The Vietnam/Nixon template. The Dems have been talking impeachment since the middle of Bush's first term, and they're trying their best to shoehorn the current situation into the early 1970s' scenario.

Sorry Dems, Bush has a dainty glass slipper, and your enormous ugly stepsister feet aren't going to fit like they did thirty years ago.

Tubesteak, no! Whatever you do don't talk about impeachment. You can't imagine what a kettle of fish you'll open--the crimes of Rove and Bush and Cheney no one even knows about. It would um...bring down the country. That's it, bring the whole country crashing down. You don't want that, do you?

Now just take your talk of impeachment and forget all about it, won't you? It's for the good of the country.

Dems are very desperate here because of their template, too. They took Nixon down in the middle of his second term. They want Bush to go down in an identical manner. It's almost as if they have some sort of collective OCD with the Nixon template as its trigger, because that was when they were most comfortable and triumphant.

That explains this newest series of actions, as well as the reason why they tried to institute a military draft, why they went nuts when Plame was exposed because she was supposed to be the next Deep Throat, why they take great pains to paint Bush as secretive, why they spread rumors Bush was drinking again, why they've been trying to take down Dick Cheney (Agnew,) etc., etc.

It certainly puts 68-73 into perspective, doesn't it Sue?

geoff, the line-up of lawyers and constitutional scholars who believe that Bush has admitted to an impeachable offense is getting very long.

Typical Tubino - read one side of the argument and ignore the opposing view. The line-up of lawyers and constitutional scholars who believe that this is at best a murky area is also getting very long.

But even if it's determined to be an illegal, unconstitutional and/or impeachable offense, wouldn't all Bush have to do is show that he sought competent legal advice, and that he acted in accordance with that advice? I need someone like Michael or Allah or Sobek to help me out here.

It's amusing that this has been hyped into an emergency by the Democrats and liberal blogs, when there is really no time pressure to resolve this. The only real time pressure is their pent-up desire to bring down the President.

You mean to tell me academics are willing to wish that this is impeachable? And academics aren't biased? Did you know that Tookie was nominated for six nobel peace prizes? This sort of support is cheap when it costs nothing to do.

The law, if read the way the alternate-reality based, cosplay dems would like to read it is unconstitutional. And impractical.

I suppose this authorization to use force included the pointy end of the military, but not the end of the military that gathers intel.

Members of the wish based community are back for the latest get-Bush moment of the month. And it soooo transparent, the sophistry, the mock outrage, and the obvious bad faith.

As I said elsewhere, if the dems think that they can use this to their advantage to get an impeachment, then that's their suicide. Lets attack Bush for being to hard on terrorists, right after 9-11. After he had his lawyers brief him on all his options. After an authorization to use force against anyone associated with AQ.

Good luck, push this particular dream of yours and the democratic party's demise into a three-state, bi-coastal party will arrive even quicker.

As Traffic Non-Santa noted, Dubya looked mighty smug discussing this yesterday. It looks like he's baiting another trap for the Dumbs to step into. I suspect 1) he can show he tapped AQ's and their direct contacts only, and 2) we thwarted them in some fashion this way.

But please don't talk about impeachment. There's nothing to see here. Move along.

If this fails, all I have to look forward to is the grim milestone of 2,500 military deaths.

If this fails, all I have to look forward to is the grim milestone of 2,500 military deaths.

You're really a glass-is-half-empty kind of guy. Fortunately our military personnel - the guys actually at risk - are not nearly so downbeat. A clear majority of them think they are winning, that they are working in a good cause, and that the democratization of Iraq will succeed.

And if your premature glee at the prospect of impeachment should eventually be rewarded, then you can look forward to Cheney finishing the term and another war-time incumbent to run against in 2008. Go get 'em.

well geoff, it's only our "fucking military" as he so quaintly put it some time back, so I'm sure he'll bear up just fine with whatever hardships they face.

it is nice to know he cares though, that makes such a difference really, especially at this time of the year.

well geoff, it's only our "fucking military"

I got pretty steamed over that, and it gave great insight into how base his motivations really are. Trying to figure out how to get that into his name: "Tub-fucking military-ino?" "TubFMino?" "T-fucking military-ino?"

Hang on, now. What's this I'm hearing about impeachment???

I think I just realized what I want for Christmas! ;-)

You mean you want to collect the day-dreams of alternative reality leftists?

Their tune hasn't changed since 2001.

Let's see in 2001, wasn't Enron supposed to be bigger than 9-11?

If someone had a little motivation, they could collect all the dead, left-wing dreams of 5 years of Bush's presidency.

Me, all I want for Christmas is an Xbox 360.

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. - - ARTICLE II, SECTION 4 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA...

So, see, geoff, we could actually get rid of the whole bunch. In fact, maybe we should start with the VP and get him on out of the way. He's a dangerous man.

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Except perjury, subornation of perjury, and obstruction of justice, provided the criminal in question is a Donk.

"In fact, maybe we should start with the VP and get him on out of the way. He's a dangerous man."

And his cock is all-powerful.

His cock is the least of my worries about him.

So, see, geoff, we could actually get rid of the whole bunch.

I think the economic deprivation in your region has overly stressed you, but perhaps your silly fancies give you some respite from the drudgery of being wrong about the war, the economy, and the adminstration. If that's the case, then by all means indulge yourself, but if you're being serious, you should steel yourself for your inevitable disappointment.

One woman's silly fancy is another man's impeachment proceeding. Nothing is impossible.

I had a job interview with the NSA a long time ago. It went kind of like this.

NSA: Have you ever tried an illegal drug?

ME: Uh, yes, I guess so....

NSA: How long ago did you last use an illegal drug?

ME: (Looks at watch, trying to count hours back to 2:00 am)

NSA: NEXT!!!

what a tard.

dream on, little one.

Man, I wonder if Bush could pardon Delay before, ahem, getting impeached, so that we would have president Delay.

Not that I have ever bothered to learn the order of succession, but who cares if we can get a real, bona fide, ball-buster as president.

How does that fit into the hopes and dreams of the terminally deluded?

NSA: Have you ever tried an illegal drug?

I will never be able to work any high-security job, unfortunately, since past recreational drug use is taken as an indicator of a person's character and honesty.

One woman's silly fancy is another man's impeachment proceeding

be sure to add "win back the House in '06" to your dreams. no way a Republican house issues articles of impeachment for silly stuff like this.

dream big, little dreamer!

I also have dreams, like the Democrats treating the war on terror as a common threat, not merely an issue to position themselves on in case we lose.

My recent Today's Democratic Party by-line entry:

Today's Democratic Party: Patriotism, we opposed the Civil War too.

How does that fit into the hopes and dreams of the terminally deluded?

If Delay is put into the hole that Gerald Ford occupied in the Nixonian stencil, then you've got it.

Dave in Texas, yes, the current day does put that piece of history into perspective. I'd like one of those lefties to tell a New York fireman that 9/11 was the 21st Century Gulf of Tonkin. Then I'd like to see him do it again after a couple of weeks in an ICU and a few months of a liquid diet because a wired jawbone.

because of a wired jawbone.

Stupid fingers and brain. Grrrrrr.

And here's another confirmation of my theory. Seems that the lefty pundits are pushing for anti-war platforms in '06. THAT should win them lots of seats. LOL!

Yeah, well, if they are going to run on a "we stopped the patriot act" and we "oppose spying on domestic AQ members," then the only thing keeping them clutching to these pathetic ideas is the MSM bubble in which they live.

Its also pretty funny that they want to run on the war, after claiming not to have a position on the war, when the war is supposedly Bush's only strong point. Remember, its being used to manufacture consent by keeping us from focusing on the real things affecting America.

In the pipe dream where Delay steps in after the cosplay democrats get their wish, I am sure he would kick ass. He is no Ford.

Sue, funny how we see words that aren't there but we see em anyway cause we expect em to be there.

I would love to see them try to win the house on "national" issues. That hasn't worked for them since 1976

Win back the house in '06?

They are practically daring the public to vote for them, as their platform has just gone from Iraq-nuetral to impeach Bush and lose the GWOT.

Hey, at least now we know where they stand.

The way I see it, whether or not the House would impeach him/them is going to depend on the influence of their (House) constituents, as that is why they are called the House of REPRESENTATIVES, and next year IS mid-terms.

That's good, Southern Belle, you now have something in common with our nation's enemies -- you want to get rid of President Bush.

Exactly, but the only hue and cry for impeachment is coming not from the population at large, but from a very small and angry segment of America.

Which is why, at this moment, impeachment wouldn't happen - there's no public appetite for it.

I do want to see him/them impeached. Just as I did President Clinton when he dishonored the office.

Let them run on it, at least its honest. We would probably gain 50 seats, but at least the DNC could finally be satisfied that they got their message out.

The way I see it

We've noted in prior threads the problem you have adjusting your view of reality to reality itself, so I can certainly understand your struggle belle.

A Republican House didn't impeach Clinton in 94 for legally ordering foreign-surveillance wire-taps without warrants. Ain't gonna happen here either.

I do want to see him/them impeached. Just as I did President Clinton when he dishonored the office.

Sure, that's a personal wish, but a successful impeachment of the president takes a lot more than the desires of a single person, or even a million people.

It's not going to happen, unless evidence of crimes and misdemeanors is proven. Frankly, mentioning impeachment is the dumbest thing the Democrats could have done at this point, as it makes them look like extremists and they are now much less likely to gain the seats necessary to begin impeachment proceedings against the president.

A gain of fifty seats may be a tad high, but I o believe the DNC has damaged their party by repeating the nonsense that is borne on the lefty blogs.

The DNC strategy must be to placate their base until a few months before the election, then they change gears and move to the center.

Fortunately for us, this strategy has failed in '02 and '04. Each time, the Democrat candidates were faced with their own hipocrisy on the campaign trail.

Did they learn from '02? No. The Dems ratcheted up the rhetoric for '04.

Did they learn from '04? Again, no. Daschle's loss should have taught them a huge lesson. They learned nothing.

Since '04, the Dems have increased the volume to "11." By opposing the president at every turn, they have de-sensitized the general population to their constant harping, scandal-touting, and doom-and-gloom scenarios.

It may play well with a tiny, noisy, segment of the population, including the dopes who have nothing better to do than call C-Span and Southern Belle, but for the rest of us the Dems look like cranks.

it makes them look like extremists

The amps are on 11 and the only tune they know is "Get Bush".

And they wonder why they lose.

heh. I recapped Bart before I even read his post!

I wonder is SBelle could express the nugget of independent thinking behind her wish to impeach Bush. Is it because she didn't vote for him and she is pissed about it? Or does she feel the pain of the AQ member living in the US.

50 was a WAG, of course. I think that the DNC strategy of the week is particularly honest, yet suicidal.

Feel the pain of the AQ member living in the US, wha....? Would you like to explain that statement a little more fully, joe?

Howard Dean in his latest email to the party faithful lends more credence my hypothesis:

Even after the press found out about these actions, the administration tried to cover up its existence. According to Newsweek, George Bush summoned the publisher and executive editor of the New York Times to the Oval Office to try to stop them from running the story of these illegal activities.

We have seen this kind of arrogance of power before.

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

"feel the pain of the AQ in the US"

This refers to your knee jerk reaction to any impeachment talk, no matter its basis. AQ refers to Al Qaeda, US refers to this country, the United States.

I was wondering if you truly felt that listening in on conversations related to Al Qaeda that took place, in part, in the United States, was bad. Or if you don't care about anything other than getting Bush.

Of course I feel that taking all lawful means to stop terrorism is important. Circumscribing the law may imply power, but in the end, negates it's own effectiveness. One cannot simply 'change the rules'. This is a country of LAWS.

As always, conversatives try to side-step the issue and point fingers elsewhere. Stay on track!

You still did not answer my question. But just in case you were insinuating that I am affiliated with "AQ" or sympathetic to murderers, you may rest assured that you are wrong.

Yes, this is a country of laws.

Laws have precedent.

There is a lot of legal precedent for this move - the administrations of Carter, Reagan and Clinton all agreed this was a power granted to the president under certain circumstances. Referencing those administrations is not "pointing fingers elsewhere," it is finding appropriate precedent and applying it.

In other words, this president has a controlling legal authority.

Look, ya nut, you never expressed yourself well enough to start accusing people of switching topics.

There has been tons of discussion on this topic. Just not on this strand.

Also, its obvious that you are being sanctimonious and you care little about the practical or legal aspects of what you write about. You are only concerned with getting Bush.

The main points that people (not just conservatives) make is
1. Congress does not have the power to write a law to make what the POTUS did illegal.
2. Congress gave POTUS the power to do what he did when the authorized him to use all necessary force and whatnot.
3. Every president since FISA has ignored FISA where it would infringe upon his ability to monitor threats.
4. The 4th amendment of the constitution deals with evidence for criminal prosecutions, not miltary endevours. This act, therefore, falls outside that amendment.

So, its all politics and wishful thinking. One that is clearly not going to inspire anyone except dyed in the wool Bush haters.