车|
吸音板|
搬场，上海搬家公司|
管理咨询|TS16949|六西格玛|
搬场|
纸杯|
搬场|
上海搬家公司|
真空泵|
展示架|
移门|
搬场|
6sigma|平衡计分卡|
搬场|上海搬家公司|
铝材|
搬场|上海搬家公司|
搬场|上海搬场|
搬家公司|
搬场|
搬场|
搬场|

搬场公司|
搬场|
搬场|
搬场|
搬场|
搬家公司|
搬场公司|
上海搬家公司|
搬场|
吸音板|
搬场|
搬场|
搬场|
上海搬家公司|
搬场|
搬场|
吸音板|装饰板|
搬场|

搬场
上海搬家公司
大众搬场
搬场公司
搬场
上海搬家公司
大众搬场
搬场公司
搬场

Powell is just remembering on what side his bread is buttered.

A "good soldier" acts in accordance with his conscience, right?

Or is being "good soldier" meaning following orders, no matter how odiously illegal and/or unethical?

If the latter is true, count me as a very bad soldier.

It's amazing that Powell maintains his status as some sort of wise, principled leader of men. The guy is a total putz, and is nothing more than a whore and a shill for the neocons. If he truly loved his country he would step forward and tell the truth about the stuff that went on in the White House leading up to our attack on Iraq.

Is this any different from the NRA members who swear that they will defend the Second Amendment until you pry that gun from their cold, dead fingers, but have no problem surrendering the Fourth Amendment without even a whimper?

If, as the NRA claims, guns in the hands of citizens is all that stands between us and tyranny, what are they waiting for?

I thought the amazing thing was that he didn't know about the NSA wiretaps until the news reports. His response makes a little bit of sense if he is still under the mistaken impression that the overreach only involved 100's of US-foreign transmissions.

Of coursed, he's still being an obstinate wanker.

If Powell really told the truth, he's step forward and admit his sorry role in the coverup of the My Lai Massacre, another instance of his being a "good soldier".

On the day Powell gave his “No Strings Attached” speech in which he sold America a bill of goods on a no-intel war, I lost all respect for him, and Condi has since followed suit. When people can so easily overlook their own souls, how far behind is the Bush-Step?

All of the Powell worship that occurred after Gulf war I always did amuse me. We knew nothing at all about the man and his political beliefs, his morals, his backbone, but so many of us wanted him to be our president. I think we just like to project our own image on our heroes, and Powell was, for some reason, seen as a hero. Surely we know by now he isn't, and he isn't even competent.

Is Powell a "good soldier", and if so what is the definition of a "good soldier". Someone whom blindly followers orders.

Powell isn't suppose to be a "good soldier" to Bush particular NOT in his capacity as Secretary of State, even though he may have served at the pleasure of the President, Powell also served at the pleasure fo US congress because they have the right to vote for Powell or not, thus at pleasure of the American people. So Bush's mere bidding should not have given Powell carte blanc to go forward and produce a lie about the reasons for war at the UN. Powell clearly had no problem lying for Bush. Powell help Bush present cooked up intelligence not just to the UN but American people as well.

When Hans Blix could not confirm any of Powell's misleading show and tell stories to the UN prior to war in Iraq, why didn't Powell question such evidence or lack there of?

Does this make Powell a "good soldier" if was only for a couple of corrupt politican by the name of George Bush and Dick Cheney but for the people of the United States. Powell was a soldier that betrayed the people for a corrupt President and VP.

Is Colin Powell confused? If so I wonder why all those military members whom went to federal prison for their part in Abu Ghraib prison were just as confused too. Why did they go to prison doing what Bush wanted them to do, since Albert Gonzales worte the law to help Bush be able to use torture in foreign countries.

Is it possible the Powell doesn't know that serve to the will of a corrupt President is wrong any more than foot soldiers of Abu Ghraib prison should have know better than to torture prisoners because higher ranking officials saw nothing wrong with it?

Bush ask Powell to lie and Colin Powell has never had a problem with it.

Powell keep saying that Saddam was trying to divide the UN. Saddam never had any such power to do so. It was Bush's lies that created a division. Powell knew that he was lying for Bush.

Powell is walking in the shadow of Henry Kissenger and that is no legacy to take pride in. Powell is too well educated to be simply confused. Powell is a good soldier to Bush but NOT to the people of the US or those 2000 dead American military members and countless military disable by this war in Iraq.

In Nixon's era, they called this "groupthink". But the "groupthink" word is simply a cheap way of created or trying to justify aiding a US President in his act to lied to people of the US.

The NSA Spying Scandal Center has all the latest news, statutes, court cases, DOJ memos and more for the exploding Bus domestic surveillance scandal.

1) who cares what that disgraced whore says or thinks?

2) as usual he is playing the faithful General lapdog wholly lacking in integrity: he knows that what the bushcriminal did was wraoing, against the Constitution, and criminal, but he can't bring him self to say it because he can't get past the bushcriminal as CIC.

Come on Kevin, even Jiminy Carter abided by the terms of the War Powers Act, but denied he was required to do so in all circumstances. Every President since Nixon has made that distinction. Here Powell says Bush could have done these searches in conformance with the law but chose not to because of his preference for secrecy. You can disagree with his decision (as I do) and still believe he had a good faith right to do it if he so chose.

In your previous posting you said:

"But that's not the point. The point is that it appears to be illegal, and if George Bush believed it was genuinely critical to our national security he should have asked Congress to pass legislation..."

The difference between appears to be illegal and is illegal is bigger than the difference between appears to have WMD's and has WMD's (Saddam was forbidden to even have the appearance.) Solid, respected scholars and practitioners on the left, i.e., Sunstein, John Schmidt, etc., have said that Bush has the law on his side. Even if you disagree with them you cannot argue that he did not have color of authority, with adequate notice to Congress, to do what he did. To start throwing around the I word in this circumstance is not in your best interest.

Colin Powell is a loyal Bush family retainer. No wonder Harry Belafonte referred to him as their houseboy
It's not as he has a sterling record in Haiti to go with his disgraceful coverup of My Lai, or the total embarrassment of his UN speech.
Why do people still assume that Colin Powell is a man of integrity?

Sorry, hadn't had my coffee and didn't notice that Kevin didn't write the post. Please make allowances.

Solid, respected scholars and practitioners on the left, i.e., Sunstein, John Schmidt, etc., have said that Bush has the law on his side. Even if you disagree with them you cannot argue that he did not have color of authority, with adequate notice to Congress, to do what he did. To start throwing around the I word in this circumstance is not in your best interest. Posted by: wks

Only Republican Bush apologists are accepting Sunstein or John Schmidt's musing to be authoritative. In fact, Supreme Court precedents are clear: The president does NOT have the authority to commit actions that are clearly defined as illegal by law, including FISA prohibitions. As for considering impeachment, Barron's, not a notorious Democratic publication, has an opinion on that.

I lost my respect for Colin Powell a long time ago.

The Generalissimo is stil fluffing for Bu$hCo. By the way, how many members of his family are serving in Iraq?? Or serving this country anywhere for that matter?

I don't think Steve means good *military* soldier, but good *Republican* soldier. I'm pretty sure Powell is going to throw his hat in the ring for the presidential nomination. If things continue to go badly for Bush, he'll be the perfect Republican candidate, being the only one known for his estrangement from the Bush administration. At the same time, he will need the support of the Republican machinery, so why kick Bush when he's down, especially when you can have it both ways?

Ah, Kevin.

So now Powell is in the Doghouse again. You guys flip flop more than Herman Munster Kerry.

It's Powell's opinion that it was no problem to get the warrant. In actuality, there are all sorts of reasons why getting the warrant would have made the whole monitoring effort prohibitive.

Bush must take whatever action necessary to keep his America safe.

In actuality, there are all sorts of reasons why getting the warrant would have made the whole monitoring effort prohibitive.

There's only one. The Fourth Amendment.

That anyone takes Powell seriously anymore is beyond me.

Powell is a gutless, careerist coward. I thought everybody got that by now. And for a window into his personal character, look at his son, a tubby halfwit apparatchik. The apple may not look much like the tree, but the fruit tells you what kind of tree you got. Weak timber. And now I will post this before beating that dead metaphor any further.

wks, mike already beat me to the punch, but i just want to reiterate: there is a question (not much of one, in my reading, but i'm not an expert), whether what Bush is doing is unconstitutional.

There is no question that it is breaking the law: FISA was written specifically to prevent what Bush is doing.

And there is absolutely no one other than a propaganda robot who would accept the argument that Bush has the right to break that law, in secret, because he had incomplete classified briefings provided to a small number of people in congress.

As for Powell, he's a joke. Who cares what he thinks about illegality or anything else. May he spend the rest of his life collecting huge honorariums for addressing right-wing nutcases and keep his frickin' mouth shut in public, since he long ago demonstrated that we have no need to take him seriously.

what a joke.

There is no question that it is breaking the law: FISA was written specifically to prevent what Bush is doing. Posted by: howard

EXCLUSIVE: Nuclear Monitoring of Muslims Done Without Search Warrants
Posted 12/22/05 By David E. Kaplan
In search of a terrorist nuclear bomb, the federal government since 9/11 has run a far-reaching, top secret program to monitor radiation levels at over a hundred Muslim sites in the Washington, D.C., area, including mosques, homes, businesses, and warehouses, plus similar sites in at least five other cities, U.S. News has learned. In numerous cases, the monitoring required investigators to go on to the property under surveillance, although no search warrants or court orders were ever obtained, according to those with knowledge of the program. Some participants were threatened with loss of their jobs when they questioned the legality of the operation, according to these accounts.

Mike, i saw that news story too, and i can't help but remember that no less than scalia called a DEA monitoring of potential home-growing marijuana cultivators as a violation of the fourth ammendment, which does give some indication of what might happen if any of this behavior actually makes it to the supreme court (about which i'm highly doubtful)....

Protect the civil rights of the foreign terrorists!

Stop the wiretapping now!

The far right hates Powell. The reality-based community despises him. But we'll all have to keep listening to him, because his base, the GasBag Lords of the Sabbath, will never desert him.

Seems to me that Congress can't simply ignore the fact that the President is routinely breaking the law and has publicly stated that he will continue to do so. If "checks and balances" means anything, Congress needs to explicitly authorize Bush's surveillance, or impeach him.

More here and here. (Full disclosure: I'm the author of both of these posts).

Birkel, it's not wiretapping foreign terrorists that concerns us; it's illegally wiretapping americans that concerns us.

but why are we not surprised that you support presidential lawbreaking? it's the ultimate expression of the authoritarianism that the right wing has replaced traditional conservatism with, and you're right on board! congratulations for hating the fourth ammendment....

David, while i didn't read your links (i'm actually not planning on sitting in front of a computer today!), i'm with you that we have here a grave constitutional crisis.

we have a president proudly and puganciously breaking the law.

we have no realistic why to make him stop: i don't see anyone with the standing to get a case to the supreme court, we wouldn't believe the bush administration if they told us they were stopping, and nothing short of the threat of impeachment has the power to move the stubborn simple-minded man in the oval office. it's sickening that it's come to this, but there you have it.

of course, to even have the threat of impeachment, we need a democratic congress....

Powell was making the point that while he agreed that Bush has all the authority he needed to act as he did he could have avoided a controversy.

Is this having it both ways or being confused? I guess in your mind it is.

Why would he want to avoid this controversy? With the like of people like Steve Benen, Cheryl and howard espousing their opinion as enlightened Democrats. I hope the DNC picks you guys up to work for them, and please don't hold back, tell us how you really feel, every last bit.

berlins, the DNC will, of course, ignore Powell, and will ignore your seconding of Powell's notion that Bush has the authority.

He does not. He is explicitly and knowingly violating a law.

He may well have the authority to get away with it - i think he does, because, as i've noted, who can stop him short of impeachment, which, frankly, isn't going to happen? - but that's not the same as having the authority to do it.

And the DNC has, quite rightly, filed an FOIA request to get the papers in which the case for constitution-violating is made. If we can't stop Bush, the least we can do is shine the disinfectant of sunshine upon the authoritarian and profoundly anti-american arguments these scum are happy to make so that the next president does the right thing.

I never thought I'd see the day, but Powell is almost certainly permanently in the doghouse as far as I'm concerned.

He stood upon the world's stage and made a presentation to the United Nations that he knew was not correct. He can call it playing the good soldier or anything he wants. And that IS what I'm guessing he does, including this case regarding the NSA.

I'm convinced that he thought taking Tenet along with him would cover him. But now he admits it's a blot on his record. What a blot. He still blotting with this. Just can't bring himself to directly criticize his party leaders without backtracking.

ole jim,

How do you support your statement that he knew his testimony was false? When more dispassionate historians look back on our era the unhinged perspective of the left will be the biggest element that will be hard to understand. How you guys have mesmerized yourselves into thinking Powell, Rice and Blair are slippery weasels and Chirac, Schroeder, and Blix (or Clarke, Wilson and Sheenan, if you prefer) are the voice of integrity and responsibility will fasinate reviewers for years to come.

howard,

You pay your money and take your chances. I already said I thought the policy was misguided and the controversy could have easily been avoided. That is different than saying the President didn't have the right, under the Constitution, to come to a different conclusion. Clinton's #3 in the Justice Dept., John Schmidt, says Bush was within the law. I think that makes the dispute, at best, a political jump ball with the default going to the President.

Colin Powell is one of the finest public servants the US government has ever had and an excellent example of GWBs deft political skills. He knew if Colin went to the UN he would represent the US with skill and elan. He further knew not a single white member of the MSM, which mean 99% of them, would dare question a black man with Powell's stature.

Too bad GWB had to get rid of him but with his loss of support from the liberal side of the spectrum Bush could not longer tolerate the fact he was a leak machine. Now with a team of Cheney, Card, Rove, Rumsfeld and Rice GWB can complete his implementation of the neocon foreign policy.

rdw:

You truly are a loathesome individual, Wooten.

The way you talk about Colin Powell as so much disposable fodder, the cynicism with which you invoke his race and the fact that Powell's current deep disagreements with the administration mean absolutely nothing to you is just ... so unutterably creepy as to be barely believed.

Every time I read your posts I am charged with a reassurance in being a liberal and standing against the worldview of a person who appears to lack all foundational values such as yourself.

Bob

what is needed to illustrate the subversiveness of illegal wiretapping, but which we will never get, is an application of such aiming to bring down some cracker white-supremacist terrorists, or abortion clinic murderers.

unfortunately, this administration and many of its backers support these terrorists, and would never use illegal wiretaps to interfere with them. gotta cater to the base.

howard,

That is fine. Let the DNC FOIA away. I think the DNC would do well to hire you though.

And when this centuries old debate continues the President will always have this inherent power to protect the national security through his actions as commader in chief.

berlins:

How do you know he's just "protecting the national security"?

Seems to me he's caught a stunning amount of people in this dragnet. What are the triggers that suggest a deeper look? Do you know? Does anyone not in the loop on this?

Bob

Clinton's #3 in the Justice Dept., John Schmidt, says Bush was within the law. I think that makes the dispute, at best, a political jump ball with the default going to the President Posted by: wks

Nope, this isn't even close to a "political jump ball" and the default doesn't go to King George by a damn shot. You can keep yammering the same spiel, but repetition doesn't make it so.

If, as the NRA claims, guns in the hands of citizens is all that stands between us and tyranny, what are they waiting for?

All that stands between us and tyranny is a seasoned officer corps in the armed forces, and they are abdicating careers at a phe-fucking-nomenal rate because they have been routinely lied to and ill-used by the Rethugs, and their service taken as a given. We are hemmorhaging officers at an alarming rate.

Bob,

you say
"How do you know he's just "protecting the national security"?

"Seems to me he's caught a stunning amount of people in this dragnet. What are the triggers that suggest a deeper look? Do you know? Does anyone not in the loop on this?"

You are correct to speculate and be critical.
How do we know if we aren't in the loop? That begs the question. Should we have Security clearances? Should there be any secrets in the Government? Should we divulge all the Government's National secrets so as to ensure no civil liberties are being abused?

The balancing act continues.

Do you believe the President is acting out of National Security concerns or for some other reason related to possibly personnal gains for himself or his party.

If you believe the later then the truth of the matter will be exposed. Demorcrat members of congress who are in the know will undoubtable expose any malfeasance.

There are 28 categories of exceptions to the 4th amendment to warrentless searches and the Supreme Court has upheld such authority for the President and domestic law enforcement.

I agree with you that it is problematic if the President has been doing this surveillence for any other reason than national security.

Global Citizen,

"All that stands between us and tyranny is a seasoned officer corps in the armed forces, and they are abdicating careers at a phe-fucking-nomenal rate because they have been routinely lied to and ill-used by the Rethugs, and their service taken as a given. We are hemmorhaging officers at an alarming rate."

You would be interested to know that in 2005 Active duty retention by The Army, Air Force and Marine Corps exceeded their annual retention goals and The Navy achieved 91 percent of its mid-career goal.

by contrast the recruiting goals:
Fiscal 2005 Enlisted Recruiting from Oct. 1, 2004 - September 30, 2005:

Recruiting Goals

Componant Accessions Goal Percent
Army
73,373 80,000 92%
Navy
37,703 37,635 100%
Marine Corps
32,961 32,917 100%
Air Force
19,222 18,900 102%
Army National Guard
50,219 63,002 80%
Army Reserve
23,859 28,485 84%
Navy Reserve
9,788 11,141 88%
Marine Corps Reserve
8,350 8,180 102%
Air National Guard
8,859 10,272 86%
Air Force Reserve
9,942 8,801 113%

Bob,

I believe the sentence, Colin Powell is one of the finest public servants the US government has ever had would be considered very complimentary by most sane people. How you could possibly read an insult of Colin Powell into that is beyond me. However it is also true, and well documented, that Colin is a leak machine as was the entire State Dept under his leadership. As a conservative I think we have to be fair and balanced.

As far as the deft handling of Colin vis-a-vis the MSM it's just a political fact. It was also a gimme. Colin Powell wasn't picked to represent the US at the UN because he was a black man of great stature. Colin was the nations Secretary of State. It was his job to represent his country. It's just so cool that he happens to be a black man and thus no one in the MSM has the balls to trash him as they've trashed almost everyone else. Andrea Mitchell would drop to her knees and service him on air before calling him a liar.

This is just how it is. It's very cool when a conservative administraiton can use PC so effectively. There is of course another aspect to the selection of Colin Powell and Condelizza Rice in terms of political brilliance. And that is it wasn't political at all. Liberals would like to pretend only they care for minorities and then they roll out their usual assortment of race baiters and extortionists like Jessi Jackson and the Reverence Al Sharpton. When they appoint a minority to a cabinent post its an affirmative action override to a token post. Young minorities can see throught the blather. Colin Powell and Condi Rice are serious superstars. They are proof the GOP does not condescend to minorities.

Consider this; While Howard Dean is out and about running his mouth Ken Mehlmen is doing some heavy grass roots lifting. A few weeks ago Lynn Swann, Pittsburg Steelers legend, announced he is running for Governor of PA. Current Democratic incumbant Ed Rendell, a popular man, will now have the hardest campaign of his life. I suspect this is really an effort to introduce Lynn to the people of PA as a serious politician to prepare him for 2010 when Rendell must retire and Arlen Spector most likely will retire. However it's very clear if Lynn proves to be a good candidate he's got a terrific shot at defeating Rendell and will at a minimum force him to fundraise and campaign harder than ever.

There will be also be at least one minority congressional candidate in PA with a solid shot at winning as well as at least two minority candidates for statewide races in MD (Senator) and Ohio (Gov).

Do the math. Gore lost with 92% of the black vote. Kerry lost by 3.5M with 89% of the black vote. Add two black governors and a black Senator ready to campaign against Hillary Clinton in 2008 and you will have a very hard time getting to the 92% minimum needed to win.

Look out further. The 2010 census is going to be worst than the 2000 census in terms of blue states losing population. At least 7 blue state electoral votes will migrate to red states. If the GOP wins in 2008 it will be extremely difficult for the Democrats to nominate a lefty in 2012.

George W. Bush, Karl Rove and Ken Mehlmen are about to pull an inside straight on Howard Dean when Howard doesn't even know he's in a card game. They are not only on the cusp of ensuring a durable GOP majority but of forcing the Democrats to abandon their wacky post-vetnam drift and become the party of Harry Turman and JFK again. Sissies need not apply.

In actuality, there are all sorts of reasons why getting the warrant would have made the whole monitoring effort prohibitive.

I've only been able to think of 3 reasons for Bush not abiding by the law.

1) hubris
2) laziness
3) embarassing targets

#1 is proved as soon as uttered.
#3 requires a moments reflection.

#2 was a joke, but apparently someone finds it to be the best reason.

You would be interested to know that in 2005 Active duty retention by The Army, Air Force and Marine Corps exceeded their annual retention goals and The Navy achieved 91 percent of its mid-career goal.

How many of those were due to Stop Loss orders?

berlins:

> "Seems to me he's caught a stunning amount of people in this
> dragnet. What are the triggers that suggest a deeper look?
> Do you know? Does anyone not in the loop on this?"

> You are correct to speculate and be critical.

Well I wish I didn't *have* to speculate -- but it's all anyone
can do. I really do believe we're in a new era with all this
information technology and none of us yet knows the full implications.

> How do we know if we aren't in the loop? That begs the question.
> Should we have Security clearances? Should there be any secrets
> in the Government? Should we divulge all the Government's National
> secrets so as to ensure no civil liberties are being abused?

This is a false choice. We live today in a world where every
private email we've ever written could have been routed through
the NSA's computers for a keyword search. I happen to have a very
good Italian friend. She's a garden-variety European Leftist,
and we talk on the phone about three times a week. Like me,
she's a political junkie fascinated with popular culture. Often
our conversations involve the GWOT and the Iraq war, and are
nearly always highly critical of Bush, Berlusconi and Rightists.

Do I believe that our phone calls and emails have been diverted
through this NSA program? Yes I do -- I'd bet a small body part.
Clearly, we sprinkle our correspondence with enough keywords.

> The balancing act continues.

Technology has imbalanced it in an unprecedented way.

> Do you believe the President is acting out of National
> Security concerns or for some other reason related to
> possibly personnal gains for himself or his party.

I believe that the program was authorized because Bush was, like all
of us, thunderstruck by 9/11. But the program produces so much data
on so many people that, once it outlasted its usefulness in looking
for other sleeper cells, it became self-justifying. It's yielding a
treasure trove of information of potential use for law enforcement.

> If you believe the later then the truth of the
> matter will be exposed. Demorcrat
^^^^^^^^^
Well, there's your ideological giveaway. "Democrat" is a noun;
the only people who use it as an adjective are Democrat-haters :)

The proper adjective is "Democratic."

> members of congress who are in the know
> will undoubtable expose any malfeasance.

Not necessarily. According to Rockefeller, Reid, Levin and others --
the Democrats were not fully briefed on the full scope of this program.

> There are 28 categories of exceptions to the 4th amendment
> to warrentless searches and the Supreme Court has upheld such
> authority for the President and domestic law enforcement.

Again, this is reflective of a different era. I mean ... why not
implant GPS chips in each of us at birth? They already have a
program for pets, so they never get lost. While we're at it, we
could have these chips conveniently store all our data -- medical
history, bank account status, employment records, school grades.
Heh, if you wanted to seriously date someone, you could bribe a
government clerk to get a printout of his/her STD history :)

> I agree with you that it is problematic if the President has
> been doing this for any reason other than national security.

It's not really yielding much data of use to national security.
Once terrorists connected the dots, they no longer communicate
on cellphones. They're probably using emails encoded with PGP,
as it states in the al Qaeda manual. Even though NSA has broken
the algorithm, they still have to dedicate computer time to crack
the individual message. And then there's the sheer volume of
traffic in Arabic, and we have a severe shortage of translators.
All this info is sitting in a (metaphoric) box somewhere, computer
scanned for terrorist potential, but not reviewed by human
intelligence analysts until much later -- and intelligence info
is, of course, highly time-dependent. The NSA program is thus
ineffective on its own terms -- too many imputs, not enough analysis
-- and remains in place because of the data-lust of law enforcement.

Bob

rdw,
Wasn't Colin Powell "picked" to be Secretary of State because that is what he asked George Bush for in exchange for Powell's endorsement in the 2000 election?

It was a political decision.

Bob,

Democrat or Democratic with a big "D" denotes political party designation, nothing more. Used as an adjective would simply mean of, relating to, or favoring democracy. I would argue this adjective would apply to all both major political parties and most minor ones.

without reprinting your counterpoints:

All we can do is speculate unless you would like the national security programs to be run completely in the open. This is no false choice, This countries leaders have made that decision and if you think it needs to be changed then your active voice in needed or else it will never happen. It probably won't happen anyway because most people understand the need for keeping some things secret.

Technology may complicate the matter of balancing Civil liberties with national security and also offers a variety of solutions.

The exceptions to the 4th amendment are plentiful and are being used currently in domestic law enforement. There is nothing reflective of a different era about it. The laws are in the books and in use to handle situations that law enforement find themselves in everyday. Just as the Supreme Court decisions of the 70's, that would be the impetus to creating the FISA courts, upheld the Presidental authority to conduct foreign intelligence gathering, with proviso, on US citizens.

"The NSA program is thus
ineffective on its own terms -- too many imputs, not enough analysis
-- and remains in place because of the data-lust of law enforcement."

I don't think you or I know the effectivness of the NSA program. From what I have heard from NSA spokesmen it has been effective in preventing domestic terrorist activity. Once again I think the technology that may have created this overabundance of data can be use to produce the relevent information.

As for chip implantation and all, I don't think that falls under the exemtions to the 4th amendment.

"Rockefeller, Reid, Levin and others --
the Democrats were not fully briefed on the full scope of this program."

Right! I also have a bridge in Brooklyn I can sell you.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that you're interpretation of the law/constitutional issues is correct. It is undisputed that a)Bush was advised by competent legal advisors that it was legal, b) that the program was tightly monitored and reviewed every 45 days, c) Congressional leadership of both parties were informed on a timely basis. If this is illegal it is the mildest misdemenor I've ever seen. If you guys want to charge the impeachment barracades with this one have at it, but 70% of the American people will think it, at best, a case of Bush jaywalking while rushing to the police station to report a rape. This is not a winning issue for you guys outside you're own little echo chamber, but if you can't see that I guess we'll go a few more years without two legitimate parties in this country.

Second, Powell takes a position that, while not the polar opposite, is certainly at odds with the first point. Bush could have easily requested a warrant and followed the rule of law, but, Powell concludes, it's just fine that he didn't.

The positions are not at odds if you assume they come from someone in whose belief system the President has no moral obligation to uphold the law. "The President could have chosen to uphold the law, but he chose otherwise, and that's okay." There is no tension, so long as the speaker sees no consequence to the President chosing extralegal means.

dr,

Powell has too much class to ask for such a deal. He also has too much clout. The only reason GWB is President is because Colin Powell decided he did not want the job 1st. Bill Clinton tried to get Powell in his cabinent. There was never a question GWB or McCain was asking Powell of be Sec of State and I suspect Kerry would have done so as well.

Cmdicely,

That is NOT what Powell said. He said the law did not apply to the executive. He could have asked for the warrant but it was not a requirement.

Clearly you see this is the Executive drawing a line in the sand. They've been looking for an opportunity to reverse the Clinton record and expand Presidential Power.

It's not working for the libs as political PR either. Liberals have their hair on fire but that's it. Everyone else sees a President hunting terrorists. It did not help that Teddy K and so many other twits fell for that obvious U of Mass fraud over the 'little red book'. That was as pitiful as the Dan Rather fraud. Even if we assume the govt was snooping why on earth would they ever snoop socialist dribble? We defeated socialism almost 2 decades ago.

George Orwell once said of socialism, "Some things are so stupid only intellectuals could believe in them. Add to that list the bonehead stupid UMass professors and all of the other twits who fell for it.

If this is illegal it is the mildest misdemenor I've ever seen.

Nonsense. Bush had asked for the power and Congress had said no. If Congress were jealous of its power it would impeach and remove Bush. Since the majority are Republicans that course is as unlikely as Mr. Ed winning the Derby.

Violation of an explicit separation of powers is most definitely not a misdemeanor. Congress, by not impeaching the horrid bastid, is simply hurrying the day when we'll have a Caesar.

jeffery

You need a crime to bring impeachment charges. There can only be a crime if someone makes a charge based on a violation of a constitutional law and it holds up in court. You're not getting either and you have no shot at a democratic house. Stick your head under the kitchen spigot and turn if on full blast. Your hair is on fire.

Jeffrey Davis,

Stop loss orders extend current enlistments and are not reenlistments.

About your 2:31 post. I'm not sure of the point your are making. If any violation of an explicit separation of powers is being done it isn't being done by the White House.

You need a crime to bring impeachment charges. There can only be a crime if someone makes a charge based on a violation of a constitutional law and it holds up in court

The Congress has the power of impeachment. If the president wants to assume unlimited power and chooses to ignore the wishes of Congress -- they clearly chose NOT to grant the president the power he asserts -- they have the power to remove the president. Note: it's not reviewable.

If any violation of an explicit separation of powers is being done it isn't being done by the White House.

So you say. A Congress alert to its prerogatives should certainly say otherwise.

BTW, the news is dribbling out. The answer to the question, why did Bush choose to NOT get warrants: the answer is option #3: embarassassing targets. According to Bush has targeted the UN Security Council.

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/After_domestic_spying_reports_U.S._spying_1227.html

Just a little bit too late ;-)

Happy
Christmas

jeffery,

The President cannot be impeached for policy disagreements. There has to be a crime. This house will NOT be bringing impeachment charges.

The Congress can and has debated the powers a President has under the constitution. The fact that Presidents have the authority to order the military into action without a declaration war is already granted to the President. He must answer for his action to Congress after the fact mind you but that is so Congress can check this power with the power of the pursue if it deems that the venture does not protect national interests or for any reason, keeping in mind the politics of any situation. Do you think the Monroe doctrine was issued from Congress?

I think the dribble will be:
"Government records show that the administration was encountering unprecedented second-guessing by the secret federal surveillance court when President Bush decided to bypass the panel and order surveillance of U.S.-based terror suspects without the court's approval."

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/253334_nsaspying24.html?source=mypi

The President cannot be impeached for policy disagreements. There has to be a crime.

In this case, the president has asserted the right to ignore a law and has ignored it and has asserted that he will continue to ignore it. Enough of a crime for you? (I'm betting not.)

There is no review of impeachment. If the Congress wanted to impeach a president for the "crime" of a funny walk, it could. They impeached Clinton for getting caught in their version of the Badger Game. So, don't come crying crocodile tears. (And had the Sentate concurred, he would have been removed.

jeffery,

It has to be a crime. The President has executive powers outside the control of Congress. There has not been any criminal activity.

The impeachment process IS reviewed. It is in fact presided over by the Chief Justice. I think you'll remember Chief Justice Rhenquist presiding over Clintons impeachment in his famous racing stripes. He was not there as a potted plant.

With Clinton the crime was known. There was a question as to if it was enough of a high crime to remove from office. With GWB there's no crime. If the democrats are serious, and they're not, they can chance a legal fight between the executive and the legislature they would very probably lose. That would not only end impeachment talks but hand George W. Bush a historic victory.

There's so little here for Harry Reid. This house will not impeach GWB. The next house will be just as red. They do not have public opinion largely because the MSM is so inept. With their credibility already solidly in the toilet they can't affort to be even a little bit biased with the facts. They can't help themselves. Within 24 hour we had 6 quotes from Carter and Clinton and members of their justice dept SUPPORTING GWB. None of which were 'discovered' by the MSM. We ALL know of them anyway.

The real mistake the MSM and Democrats make is they see everything as Vietnam or Watergate. It's silly and that's how it plays to the general public. Even if GWB went too far there was no effort to spy on Americans and use the data for partisan purposes. This was purely a hunt for terrorists. If the DNC wants to impeach GWB for trying to hard to find terrorists please go ahead!

One of the more comical results of this liberal panic over civil liberties is how you've show your hair is on fire. You are way too scared to lead. The story at the Univ of Mass of the student reporting he was visited by the FBI for checking out Mao's little Red book is so unbelievably stupid it's stunning. It feeds the impression that professors on college campus' are the dumbest people on the planet and Senator Teddy is right there with them. Even the Boston Globe knew the story was dumb.

They contacted the University to investigate and found out than not only didn't the FBI check their library records but they have NEVER accessed a single record in the ENTIRE state.

Yet most on the left believed it without question. It's hard to believe such a large group of people could be that stupid.

BTW: You'll never get tears from me. I always preferred Dick Cheney. President Cheney is just fine with me. How about Richard Perle as VP?