Great line fargot.

"The only thing better than vanquishing your enemies is eating their young!!!"

Love it!

Seems like some people here would rather lick 'em where they pee. :yum:

Where's the exaggeration? These are the official stated positions of the Bush administration.

By "towel-heads" do you mean US persons? Because that's the only group affected by this change. And through the FISA courts, they only had to get the Judge's permission 72 hours after they started tapping. Bush apparently thought even that was too restrictive.

Where's the exaggeration?

Unlimited power! Exaggeration.

May never end! Exaggeration.

Whatever he wants! Exaggeration.

Also the people with whom they are speaking.

I would favor court oversight, but please. This is not the Nixonian enemies list we're talking about here. These are dangerous people. Don't get played like a fiddle into being anti-WoT... that's what Rove wants.

But what's the exaggeration? He's claiming that his ability to spy on and imprison people is absolute. On his say-so alone, any person, American or not, can be imprisoned and tortured without trial.

That is his claim.

And a war on terror may indeed never end. There will always be terrorists of some sort.

Don't forget the separate domestic spying issue, concerning antiwar groups, like the Quakers.

Where'd he claim all that again? Because I missed it.

Or the Tim McVeighs.

Or the Catholic Workers Group. Because, uh, they sound vaguely Commie.

Well, that FBI nonsense is just insane, but I've always thought the FBI was pretty much broken.

I don't know what I think about this yet. On one extreme, you have the government listening to any and all phone conversations, trying to pick anti-govt sentiment from personal conversations so that the speaker can be thrown into the gulag.

Not likely.

On the other side of the spectrum, you have someone planning a terrorist act, calling bin Laden in the Caribbean to get the go-code, and we're unable to do anything about it because, by gosh, it's ILLEGAL to listen in on a phone conversation.

Not likely.

The whole thing is looking like a political witch-hunt, with Bush trying (and failing) to fend off the people who want his ass no matter what the cost to the country. The reality is, if the government wants you, they know where to find you, and won't let a little thing like the law stand in the way (unless it's something that might get caught in the public radar, in which case, the spin doctors are mobilized). On paper, that looks like a bad thing.

But if someone thinks they can operate a terrorist cell within our country and hide behind the Constitution while thumbing their nose at us, that's a worse thing, and people will die if it happens.

You ought to have been paying attention.

His claim is that it is an executive power, with no oversight from the courts (or anyone else), to declare someone an unlawful combatant. His claim is that unlawful combatants are outside the purview of the Geneva conventions, are outside the purview of the Judiciary, and may not be inspected by the traditional Red Cross. He has fought tooth and nail against restrictions on torture of people the US has in custody.

These are not each happening in independent sandboxes; they are all happening together.

What is even worse - when terrorists were successful, it was made possible because Federal agents were halted by George Jr people from doing their job. Need I quote what was YELLED at those Chicago agents? "YOU WILL NOT OPEN A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION!" Since we all first learn the facts before making conclusions, we all saw those FBI agents specifically say this on the network news. Oh? Some people have opinions and yet never learned these facts?

I should not have to do this if you have learned recent history: when a president did his job - read his PDBs, and with fewer powers, then terrorism was halted.

It is a damning fact. This nation's #1 anti-terror investigator died when? Since it was posted here multiple times, they you know the answer. John O'Neill was driven from government service by the George Jr administration. Knowing where a next attack might be coming, John O'Neill took a job as head of security at the WTC. John O'Neill died in his first week on the job during the WTC attack. John O'Neill died in his first week on the job during the WTC attack. John O'Neill died in his first week on the job during the WTC attack. How many times need we cite examples of why terrorism was permitted - and why no extraordinary powers were required?

How many hundreds of examples need I provide before you admit why the George Jr administration did things that permitted terrorism. And why can George Jr be trusted with extraordinary powers when the problem was only the George Jr administration?

The solution is competent leadership. 85% of all problems are directly traceable to top management. Federal agents had plenty of power and information to stop domestic terrorism. When George Jr failed to read his PDB, then people died. When Clinton read his PDBs, then Millennium attacks all over the world were halted.

George Jr uses fear to hype "MORE POWER". That was the Tim Allen joke on Home Improvement. Was "MORE POWER" the solution? Of course not. The solution was a smarter human who spent less time in the hospital emergency room. You're expected to learn from the jokes - such as "No one expects a Spanish Inquisition". George Jr does not need more power. We need more intelligence in the Oval office. Someone who knows how to read PDBs. Domestic terrorism happened when the president had a PDB warning of the attack and did nothing. And when the president, on 11 September, did so little as to never once authorize American fighter planes to go hot - to defend American cities. That too should make you angry. On 11 September, the president nor anyone on his senior staff did anything to defend America. You don't agree? Show me. I would love to see it.

Reposted by Happy Monkey: A minor point that everyone should recognize - a fact of history. The "Mission Accomplished" war, the liberation of Kuwait, both attacks on the WTC, when even Rush Limbaugh and other right wing extremists acknowledged the cold war was over, etc are all directly traceable to one 'day when the world changed'. 1 August 1990. The day that Saddam invaded Kuwait. Event that resulted in reasons for a "Mission Accomplished" war.

One should also remember three names so much responsible for making those changes: Sec of State Baker, George Sr, and Margaret Thatcher.

1) If the administration needs a wiretap to stop criminal or terrorist activity, then it can go to any court - and will get court permission. 2) If that is not good enough, a secret court exists to provide judicial permission. And 3) if that is not good enough, they can wiretap for 72 hours before going to any of those courts. Where is court permission an impediment to stopping terrorism? Nowhere. Not anywhere - three times over - does the need for a court order cause any risk to any Americans.

However a mental midget president says he should have the right to wiretap and bug anyone he wants at any time. OK. 4) The president now says he needs unlimited power. However UT disagrees? How is this possible - unless one has a right wing 'the president is never wrong' agenda.

Why did United States District Judge James Robertson of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court - the secret court - resign yesterday? Why even bother to have such courts when the president says he has the right to bug and wiretap anyone anytime without any judicial review? Somehow UT sees that as a president with limited powers. One would have to be daft to make such conclusions. This president is declaring he is above the law - as Richard Nixon also tried to claim before the Supreme Court. If George Jr can wiretap anyone anytime, then Nixon's plumbers also did nothing wrong.

Therein lies the damning fact for UT. How does George Jr's sound byte reasoning differ at all from what Richard Nixon did? Little hint. George Jr has the same Nixonian attitude - or is it President Cheney?

Problem with your assumptions are a complete shortage of real world examples or facts. They are "I feel this is true" statements often found among hypothetical 'dumb blond' groupees and unquestioning supporters of a mental midget president.

Domestic terrorists were at great risk when a president had intelligence. But then you tell me. You tell me why Diana Deans so successfully stopped Millenium terrorist attacks all over the world. In fact, to have credibility, you can start your reply by telling us who Diana Deans is. Why were domestic anti-terrorist once so successful. You tell me because what you are posting does not agree with historical fact. Show me why we suddenly need violations of constitutional prnciples?

BTW, saying we need such unlimted government power because the president is dumb and does not read his memos - that just is not an acceptable reply. Show me. Show me why terrorist suddenly have reason to fear. I await for your demonstration of 'real world' knowledge. Show me. Who is Diana Deans? Why was she so successful?

Better do your homework more carefully yourself, tw. Her name is Diana DEAN :rolleyes:

85% of all hairs removed from one's ass are .37 inches long. It is apparent to any independent-minded reader of your one-sided drivel that you are so disinterested in the truth that you will omit any salient fact that controverts your wafer-thin conclusions.

Go ahead and call me a ditto head and/or a W supporter or whatever your weekly Al Franken talking points memo instruct you to do. I'm neither. I think for myself and, unlike you, I consider facts that don't agree with a concusion faxed to me before I've had a chance to examine it. I think its pretty ironic if not hilarious that while you scoff at management buffoons, you make the exact mistake that they make by allowing the conclusion to precede the analysis. You could care less about the truth. All you are interested in is wounding the object of your derision. And while I have no interest in muting your disgust with W, the way you try to recruit others to your point of view is shockingly indistinguishable from the persuasive methodology deployed by a no-money-down-real-estate infomercial.

You are so blind to the reality of what is going on that for you, a "W free" world would be a peaceful utopian society - bin Laden working side-by-side with Rush Limbaugh building Habitat for Humanity houses in Decatur, GA.

Put the doobie down and sober up. bin Ladan wants your self-rightous ass as dead as he wants mine regardless of who is president.

Its not about "W", its about America. W wasn't president during the hostage crisis in Iran - Carter was. W wasn't president during any of the terrorist attacks against the US from 1970 through 2000. That's right, tw, the terrorists actually did attack us before the dimwit W took office. Carter couldn't stop it. Reagan couldn't stop it. Bush Sr. couldn't stop it. Clinton couldn't stop it. And yes, Bush Jr. can't stop it.

The terrorists won't stop until the US is finished off.

But don't let me discourage you from voting for whomever you wish in 2008. But since you've managed to blame W for every terrorist attack dating back to the early 70s, I'm sure you will have little difficulty blaming W for every attack from Jan 15th 2008 to Jan 15th, 2525.

It is really painful for me to read your posts and see such a capable intellect so easily forsake his potential for honest analyis to further such blatently transparent mouthpeice propoganda. Keep spewing, though. It emboldens an army of lesser intellects who can't put a nose ring in fast enough.

Hi there ditto head. Clearly you want to say something nice about a mental midget president. So where are your facts? ... Oh. You post a personal insult. That proves you are as intelligent as the president who did not know what countries are adjacent to Israel.

Beestie. If you thought for yourself, then you would have posted facts in defense of the mental midget president. You did not because, well let's see if we can find any. Otherwise, you would post Rush Limbaugh type insults - accusations without facts.

Meanwhile, where are all those domestic terrorist attacks before George Jr demoted the Counterterrorism Security Group and had it removed from the White House? Why would George Jr demote the organization that responds to terrorism AND even force this nation's #1 anti-terrrorist investigator out of government? Just more facts about George Jr competency - posted without personal insult. Beestie - the only reason you post insults is that you cannot defend the mental midget president.

Well at least you did change the name before you posted. My name is not Hilary.

Blind is one who supports a president when he lies about the Oslo accords, weapons of mass destruction, the reasons for intentionally distorted intelligence, why even our allies will not support us, "Mission Accomplished", stem cell research, Chiristian values, free trade, fiscal responsiblity, Social Security, corporate welfare to the drug industry, corporate welfare to the steel manufacturers, corporate welfare to special interests such as Halliburton, promoting energy consumption rather than innovation, perverting space science for a personal political agenda, underming American relations with virtually every nation in the world, imposing Christian extremist values even unto aid to Africa (they cannot even have condoms to protect from Aids), doing absolutely nothing to protect America during 11 September, promoting government financial support to religous organizations, endorsing and advocating torture, $8billiion to the airlines with no strings attached, ending international treaties that promoted a safer and healthier world, advocating a termination of the nuclear test ban treaty, openly promoting assistance to India's nuclear program in direct contradiction of the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty, letting First Energy operate a nuclear reactor with a potential Three Mile Island problem AND a hole in its six inch containment vessel in exchange for a $450,000 campaign fund raiser, not even reading memos from his own Treasury Secretary, spending $billions on an anti-missile defense system that does not work to defend against an enemy that does not exist (Don Quixote syndome), destroying a multinational program that would have brought N Korea back into the world as a responsible citizen, sitting on his ass while people were dying and while the USS Lincoln sat for five days in Hong Kong doing nothing, outrightly lying about aluminum tubes when even the American manufacture of that equipment demonstrated six times over why those tubes could never be used for WMDs, advocating new nuclear weapons even as bunker busters and other purposes, letting the USS Bataan side outside New Orleans doing nothing as people were suffering and dying only four blocks away from where that ship could have been docked, almost getting into a shooting war with China over a silly spy plane, permitting the Israelis to use American weapons to attack Palestinian civilians (no other president permitted that - and Reagan was the most adament about that), building a military back up to Cold War type expenditures in a world devoid of any such enemy, more $billions for a useless ISS that does no science while eating (destroying) the 10% of NASAs budget that actually does science, filling FEMA with political hacks who then perverted and undermined the organization that was fixed in 1990s, perverting science, declaring Global Warming as non-existant, then admitting it is happening but refuse to do anything (the ostrich mentality), building a Roman Empire across southeastern Asia only to promote military crusades called preemption against enemies that do not exist, stifling the prosecution of so many criminal corporate executives until Congress finally had to step in, .... Wiretapping whenever he wants only for the greater glory of George Jr.

Still waiting for Beestie to show us something that says this president works for the American people. Let's see. Insult, insult, insult ... no ... not one facts posted. it is hard to defend someone who will end up in history rated somewhere below Richard Nixon.

You see, Beestie, my every post cites facts and supporting evidence. Maybe next time I should cite your emotions as a fact? After all, it is the only fact you have in support of a mental midget president.

Yes I am insulting you because you posted insults without a single fact. You like the president? Then post a fact that says why. You could not so you did not. Because this president has become - logically undeniably - that bad. You post insults at me because deep down you cannot admit I am right. But again I posted reasons that support my claims.


One last fact. George Jr started with grudging support from me. I saw someone without promise, but OK. He could be worse. Back then, if you remember, I noted how in Texas he worked more with Democrats. I suggested he may indeed be a compationate conservative more in the model of his father. George Jr earns my comments that are provided with facts. And only in this past year - total contempt. Even The Economist magazine called his administration incompetant. And that was a full month before Katrina.

But again, I digress by adding more facts to the fire called incompetent George Jr. Beestie - an honest American would have posted some facts with your Rush Limbaugh diatribe. Look above. Facts. Plenty of facts.

If the president was honest, bin Laden's ass would be sitting before a court of law on trial for crimes against humanity. Instead he runs free because the president lied.

I'm glad I no longer argue with people who can't figure out that:

http://www.fiftiesweb.com/pop/seuss-cat-hat.gif
"The cat in the hat"

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3.../Cat_Hat_5.jpg
is not the same as "The cat in a hat"...

That's not "the cat in a hat". That's "a cat in a hat"!

Yeah, I know. I was just trying to use tbe tw example from earlier.

There's very little point in debating you, tw. As I pointed out already, you take a position and then ignore anything that doesn't substantiate it.

Not unlike W.

Has everyone forgotten about the Echelon Program?

You never tried to debate. Why? You don't like what you hear but cannot dispute those facts? Apparently. If you know something, then you can also say why - the supporting facts. Why can Beestie not provide facts? I maintain that Beestie has no supporting facts - only has unsubstantiated opinion - that even justified the 'Pearl Harboring' of Iraq.

Meanwhile, Beestie, if you had noticed, George Jr only got from me as much criticism as Clinton. However using only facts, my post on George Jr have become more callous. That only based upon what the mental midget does. Any president who does not even read his own memos? How can Beestie have any respect for such as president? He cannot if he is being honest with himself.

But prove me wrong. Show me. Show me where terrorists are waiting in line to kill us all. Widespread domestic terrorism exists in hype and fear promoted by George Jr and Rush Limbaugh (who even maintains today that we have no right or expectation of privacy). But again, Beestie, show us where these dangers exist. I maintain you cannot which is why you only posted insult. Show me logical thought rather than another Limbaugh type insult. Rather than post insults, why not post facts? Because you have none. I maintain that is where most of George Jr's support comes from - those who have opinions without logical thought. I put up reasons for what I believe. Where are yours?

From here.

I think what the president meant to say was 'a good year for the American people with a net worth over a million dollars'.


So, was this a flip-flop? It appears that Congress, in a semi-bipartisan move, called his bluff.

This is almost as much backpedaling as Rick Santorum is demonstrating on Intelligent Design.

Except he doesn't run free, because he's dead. :greenface

He must have died from his health problems as well since Al Potata isn't playing the martyr card. IOW God killed him.

TS got it right with Echelon. Well played sir

Spy Agency Mined Vast Data Trove, Officials Report

Only the NSA could operate such a wiretapping operation, technologically...

I guess the issue that comes out of call patterns is 'degrees of separation'. If you call your local store to order flowers and the owner of that store gave money to Hamas, does that make you eligible for a wiretap?

Added with data mining, it could get even more complicated. The system might have said that you were not a 'person of interest' until you bought or rented a copy of 'Munich', which put you over the threshold.

All of this might not even really matter except that they have now mixed in criminal with anti-terrorist. This means that if they use this extraordinary power and find that you have broken a mundane law like drug possession or tax evasion, they can use the information gathered without court approval against you in criminal court. It might even work out that you can be charged in criminal court and not be able to see the evidence against you since it was gathered in secret, although I'm pretty sure that this is clearly a Constitutional violation that the adminstration has not gotten around - yet.

Instapundit points to two links that make this case. First, Ann Althouse points out that the most politically shrewd D player has avoided the issue entirely: Ace political analyst Mickey Kaus always understands this:The biggest limiting factor in Presidential, or any public power at all, is not the law. The biggest limiting factor is the politics involved.

But no - that's one of the strange twists here.

If the legality of the wiretap was not put under judicial review a priori, it would *definitely* be put to judicial review in a criminal case. Since the methods of the wiretap couldn't be evaluated, that evidence would be thrown out before the end of the discovery phase.

Anything would have to be a non-ordinary "enemy combatant" type of war court, not your basic criminal court.

But can they use the things they hear in the wiretap be used to get a search warrant to gather "hard" evidence? :confused:

Not if the judge finds out they did.

Today's WaPo

Get a dog.

Just now a talking head on cable news said that the NSA's persistent cookies let them track "wherever you go on the Internet".

Boo!

You know, nobody went into a libertarian panic while I was working on libertarian issues.

(The persistent cookies story is a non-issue, a red herring, even the cookies of the NSA are NOT harmful in any way.)

Actually, the court has given more leeway to 'tainted' evidence. Alito is rumored to be very pro-law enforcement. I don't think anyone could count on a definitive 'no' on the use of that kind of evidence.

The court has said you can use evidence gathered without a proper warrant, or obtained illegally (I think), if you were going to get that evidence legally some other way. Can you think of any other leeway decisions?

Or by 'purged taint', if your actions give similar information.

From here.

So if the police or IRS are given tainted evidence, it may still be admissible since the prosecuting agency did not engage in the warrentless seizure.

You weren't 'lucky' enough to have this administration in office.

But man, you really gave up on the whole libertarian idea, not just the infighting in the party, huh?

Within the LP, there was more cause for libertarian panic in the previous administration. See UG. The opposition can almost always paint the party in power as anti-libertarian, because they're the ones making decisions and practically every political decision can be seen as anti-libertarian.

Infighting within the party proves that politics is inevitable even amongst the supposedly "principled", which in turn proved to me that "principle" is not the operating consideration that even LPers think it is.

I used a small 'l'. I don't know what the big 'L' Libertarian's priorities are, but Clinton was Ayn Rand compared to Bush.

Y'know, though, that's how it *always* looks from the opposite school of thought.

From the left Clinton is fixing the health care system.
From the right Clinton is stealing the health care system.
From the left Bush is stealing the social security system.
From the right Bush is fixing the social security system.

I remember how the Ls (and ls) thought about Clinton when his first two big steps were raising taxes and going after medicine. The sky was falling! We were running towards socialism! Failure imminent!

But it wasn't.

So you decided since the "principle" was not the primary consideration of the LPers it wouldn't be yours either? :confused:

Politics trumps principle in the public square where action counts louder than words.

No, HM, Clinton wasn't remotely a libertarian of any stripe: his political instincts were formed in an essentially one-party State, which isn't going to make a libertarian. Even worse, the only thing Clinton ever cared about was the convenience of Clinton -- a bad habit in a President. This is how you can explain both his Administration's approach to foreign policy and to domestic policy: what conveniences the Clintons? Just the most conspicuous proof of this is in the behavior of the senior echelon of the DoJ during the Clinton era -- they largely confined themselves to running interference for the one-party-state operations of the Clintons.

Over and above the objections of those who think they have solid grounds to object on, I overtly assess George W. Bush as substantially more libertarian (small L) than his too-statist predecessor. Because of this contrast, as well as the incompetence of the national Democratic Party in general, his predecessor never got my vote, while GWB did, and repeatedly. The Republicans are just more satisfactory in time of war, and it's been that way since the late Sixties.

I haven't seen this aired, but is not what the Bush Administration trying to do is function under war powers? This would be simpler had a formal state of war been declared, true, but does it not behoove us to all actually prosecute the war on Terror? I think it does, yet there are those who would confine their efforts to fighting a war on Republicans instead. WTF, you guys?! Do you have even the smallest hope of explaining and justifying that to a skeptic like me? Lame, half-thought reasons might be enough to satisfy your fellow travelers, but how about the people who regard your behavior with stony expressions?

For parties that are not in power, internecine fights over who is the more principled is about all they have to do. Parties in power actually having a responsibility to craft wise and functional policy don't have the time for it. An out of power party might do better if it didn't waste any energy over who's purer than whom and simply set out to attain office instead.

That is even more true of Bush.That is what should chill the heart of any libertarian. Bush is claiming that "war powers" justifies anything he wants to do.

But don't ya see man? YOU think that because of where you stand. YOU think that because YOU are inside a school of thought where Bush lies, is evil, scarfing up power, etc.

Clinton made exactly the same claim, except it wasn't in wartime!

The feared XO, Executive Order. I remember it. Man was I scared. But I got a dog, and it's better now.

Um, that's Drudge, you know. Neither Clinton nor Carter's orders included American citizens. To use either order, the Attorney General had to certify that it wasn't likely that American people or property would be involved.

Not that I'm particularly happy with that either, but I never said Clinton was libertarian, just that Bush makes him look like one.

Fine, let's look at the act directly instead of filtering it through Drudge.

If the Bush administration had said that

the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section

and then said that the people who could "make the certifications" included

Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, Director of Central Intelligence, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Deputy Secretary of State, Deputy Secretary of Defense, and Deputy Director of Central Intelligence

...would or would you not shit yourself? Be honest.

No, the Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, Director of Central Intelligence, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Deputy Secretary of State, Deputy Secretary of Defense, and Deputy Director of Central Intelligence under Clinton were all honorable, upright patriots. :blush:

What UT forgets to mention is that such wiretaps of government employees in his position are legal- due to conditions Ames accepts as part of his employment. Is that Drudge Report a subsidiary of Rush Limbaugh Inc? Why do they also forget such details?

From The Washington Post of 2 Jan 2006: The country must import its oil. Iraq produces less electricity than when Saddam was in power even after America spent $2billion just on the electricity grid alone.

Some years ago, the US invited other nations to a conference for rebuilding of a 'just conquered' Iraq. European nations were stunned. US insisted the world contribute more money to Iraq than what is provided to all of Africa. $20 billion. So how much did American spend on Iraq? Almost $20 billion. And still Iraq - an oil rich nation - needs $tens of billions more.

More insteresting is where much of that money ended up. A 300 man task force that goes out most every night to rescue kidnap victims in Baghdad alone. But Iraq is safer? George Jr tells us so.

How much did the US spend to liberate Kuwait? Almost nothing. Brunt of that justified war was paid for by other nations. Remember that when a recession years from now, created by massive and uncontrolled US government spending, occurs. George Sr was so responsible as to have the world to pay for a justified war. George Jr was so irresponsible as to Pearl Harbor a sovereign nation for nothing more than his greater glory and his political agenda.

Pay we must - and somehow we like it. $200,000 per annum for each private guard (Blackwater) in Iraq. Good thing we have the Chinese to buy up America - just as America once did for Europe in the early 1900s when Europe saw war and military conquests as a justified solution to national interests.

But that's not a part of the executive order.

Bush supporters need bigger dogs to protect them from the evil ones so we don't have to give up on an open society.

The problem as I see it is that we have two booster clubs willing to grant any powers necessary to their own side without realizing that the other team will always take that power and try to push it to the next level. To bring in that other thread, when you excuse Clinton's use of the ATF you are pimping for Bush.

Maybe, maybe. But Bush didn't have to, did he? He could have left that one in place, or reissued it, couldn't he? But no, he thought that that was too restrictive. Here's what his powers were when he came in:

1) Wiretap anyone with a court order.
2) If the courts are balking, get a FISA court order, which has never denied a request.
3) If you can't wait for a court order, you can get it up to 72 hours after starting surveilance.
4) If the Attorney General certifies that all parties are not US people, no warrant is needed.

He came in there, looked at those powers, and said they were not enough. He needed completely unchecked surveilance power over everyone, US or not.

I never said Clinton was libertarian, just that Bush makes him look like one.

These members of the executive branch surrender their right of privacy as part of the job. That does not mean they can be wiretapped at any time. I never fully understood the legalities. But it does permit an executive order to authorize that wiretap of Ames. A president has no right to wiretap ordinary citizens using executive order. A president must get permission from the courts. Otherwise Nixon's bugging of Watergate could have been completely legal.

A president cannot authorize domestic wiretapping without judicial approval. Nixon got (he claimed) authority from British common law where the king was above the law. Apparently George Jr gets his authority from god - because the Constitution does not give him such powers.

Meanwhile, Rush Limbaugh says otherwise. Rush Limbaugh - who gets White House talking points - says you have no expectation of privacy. George Jr, through his propaganda machine Limbaugh, says he has power to wiretap anyone he wants. Apparently from the same powers that permit him to torture as he sees fit and that told him to invade Iraq.

The XO says nothing about whether someone is in the executive branch or not.

George Jr's Executive Order (XO) was issued using a reasoning that George Jr can wiretap anyone, without Judicial approval, if George Jr believes that person is a national threat. So if that person is working for impeachment of this corrupt president, then George Jr can now wiretap that person as a threat to national security.

Nixon used that same reasoning. No other president found such reasoning to be legal. And yet Rush Limbaugh says you have no right to privacy. Rush Limbaugh, as the administration's defacto spokesman, tells the naive among us that this president can wiretap anyone without Judicial review. No other president, except Nixon, was so corrupt.

We sents Humvees mostly without armor. It took a soldier about one year later to literally ask Sec of Defense Rumsfeld - live and face to face - why American soldiers had insufficient armor. Then an Ohio company who makes that armour said they could more than double production - but Rumsfeld never asked. Extremists politicians declared "Mission Accomplished" - outrightly denied an insurgency - invented lies about Al Qaeda. Why provide armour for a problem that does not exist - according to extremist rhetoric? Same rhetoric that also left bin Laden to run free.

From the NY Times of 6 Jan 2006 that was leaked because this president only cares about his own popularity - like Nixon - at the expense of American troops: Had Rumsfeld et al acknowledged what their own studies said (and instead not have fired all those researchers all before the war started), then troops would have been provided with armoured HumVees and sufficient armored vests. Problems like this are directly traceable to an administration full of paper soldiers (including an AWOL president). But like MBAs and lawyers, these extremist politicans know they must be right. This same adminstration even called Rep Murtha a coward because Murtha told a correct and honest fact. Just like Nixon who sent 35,000 good Americans to their death knowing that war could not be won. Blame the troops for their own death? Why not if that will protect the president's popularity ratings. Same reasonings used by Nixon during his unjustified war.

An important phrase in that report: