Ask Me Help Desk - Bush's Idealogues

Very good point, when I first heard of the tapping I was outraged as most American. However, once everything came to light, there was "Checks and Balances" set. If he had avoided and/or broke the law then our other Representatives and Judicial system have also failed. Branches of government that cannot be influence by Bush. We must be careful at whom we point the fingers. Since we, kept Bush in office and kept most of our current Representatives in office, who failed and/or are the issues. Them or us for keeping them in office.

Oh, I forgot to say. I do enjoy these types of conversations. I was probably just as quilty, we need to ensure we understood what the individual was saying.

A federal judge ruled the wire taps were illegal. I'm not sure how they finagled their way around that, but they did.

Justice can't be influenced by Bush? Have you read the papers recently? People are calling for AG Gonzalez's resignation because of the firing of 8 attorneys who refused to prosecute cases the way the Bush Administration wanted them to.

Just another example of the administration's disregard for the system of Checks and Balances.

When you bring up about the firing of the attornies, it is up to the perview as to whom the hire and who they fire. Challanging governmental authority violating constitutional authority it onething but when we start challenging what is the legal authority is another. There are many laws that are granted to our governmental authorities. There is a difference to discovering a witch without going on a witch hunt. When you go one a witch, a mob will find a witch.

Please prove to me, (actual law) that anthing was violated in the attorney situtation. We are a contry of law not of personal beliefs in morals and ethics.

Oh, I forgot about the firing of 93 Federal Attornies by President Clinton. Where was the concern then. Only 8 was fies by Bush.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RetiredNavy

Please prove to me, (actual law) that anthing was violated in the attorney situtation. We are a contry of law not of personal beliefs in morals and ethics.

I didn't say laws were broken. You claimed that Bush could not influence the Justice department and I responded by pointing out the firing of 8 US Attorneys in an attempt to head off prosecutions WAS influencing Justice.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RetiredNavy

Oh, I forgot about the firing of 93 Federal Attornies by President Clinton. Where was the concern then. Only 8 was fies by Bush.

I'm glad you bought that up. It shows the desperation of Republican spinmeisters in this case. Clinton (actually Reno) terminated ALL US attorneys when the Clinton Administration took over. This happened at the beginning of the administration and was not an atypical cleaning house when a new administration takes over. Bush did the same thing, though not as precipitously, during his first year in office.

But these 8 were fired because of what they were doing or refused to do. Not because they were part of a previous administration.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RetiredNavy

Please prove to me, (actual law) that anthing was violated in the attorney situtation. We are a contry of law not of personal beliefs in morals and ethics.

Yes, well, we used to be, before Dubya and his cronies took over. As to violations of "actual law", Monica Goodling has just been granted immunity from prosecution and compelled to testify about what she knows. While the US Attorneys themselves are political appointees, the assistant attorneys and other staff that work under them are not, and using political criteria in screening and hiring them IS illegal. It looks like that's why Monica felt that she needed to take the fifth and refuse to testify without a grant of immunity. Her testimony will be most illuminating.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScottGem

The issue, to me, is not that the eavesdropping went on but that it was done with a disregard for the Constitution.

ScottGem- I had to do some research to this matter. There is a difference between unconstitutional and illegal. The Olmstead Case quoted under 1. states that if convictions obtained without a warrant on wiretap is a violation. Basically, unauthorized wiretap cannot not be used in prosecution. The Federal Communications Act restates that conversation obtained without a warrant could not be used in a convection and it expands the law and saw it is not illegal to wiretap as long as the conversation does not go outside the confindes of the Governmental Agency. Under the newest Judicial law with Bush, Warrantless ''National Security'' Electronic Surveillance address two types of warrantless wiretapping. Under National Security "the President does have the authority to authorize wiretapping for National Security. Where he failed was under domestic subversion, a warrant must be obtained.

What it boils down to is the interpretation of the law, under the examples 1 and 2, Bush was acting in a legal conjecture. The People of the United States did not agree thus the Judicial Branch made it legal for the President to authorize wiretapping for National Security and made it illegal for domestic subversion under 3.

With this, the "Checks and Balance" in our system works very well. If the people are still not satisfied with giving the President the power to wiretap for National Security, then they must enact their rights and have the laws modified again. The below quotes are sited from FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Fourth Amendment: Annotations pg. 5 of 6.

1. in 1928 the Court reviewed convictions obtained on the basis of evidence gained through taps on telephone wires in violation of state law.

2. the Court held that wiretapping by federal officers could violate Sec. 605 if the officers both intercepted and divulged the contents of the conversation they overheard, and that testimony in court would constitute a form of prohibited divulgence. Such evidence was therefore excluded, although wiretapping was not illegal under the Court's interpretation if the information was not used outside the governmental agency.Court reviewed convictions obtained on the basis of evidence gained through taps on telephone wires in violation

3.The Executive Branch then asserted the power to wiretap and to ''bug'' in two types of national security situations, against domestic subversion and against foreign intelligence operations, first basing its authority on a theory of ''inherent'' presidential power and then in the Supreme Court withdrawing to the argument that such surveillance was a ''reasonable'' search and seizure and therefore valid under the Fourth Amendment. Unanimously, the Court held that at least in cases of domestic subversive investigations, compliance with the warrant provisions of the Fourth Amendment was required.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ordinaryguy

Yes, well, we used to be, before Dubya and his cronies took over. As to violations of "actual law", Monica Goodling has just been granted immunity from prosecution and compelled to testify about what she knows. While the US Attorneys themselves are political appointees, the assistant attorneys and other staff that work under them are not, and using political criteria in screening and hiring them IS illegal. It looks like that's why Monica felt that she needed to take the fifth and refuse to testify without a grant of immunity. Her testimony will be most illuminating.

I am not even going to pursue this. The Bush witch hunt is not worth my time. Time will tell as to this matter once the formal preceding takes place. Guilty until Proven Innocent when it comes to Bush by most. Suck it him, he is the President and the only thing most gain do it complain about something they cannot change. Well at least for the next 1 and a half years.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RetiredNavy

ScottGem- I had to do some research to this matter. There is a difference between unconstitutional and illegal.

You have me there. That is a valid point and good research. But, in my opinion it really doesn't matter whether the Constitution was disregarded or laws were broken. It shows an arrogance and disdain for the rights of citizens.

The question I pose to you is it arrogance or disdain or a leader doing the best he can. Now matter how much people complain he is the appointed LEADER of the United States. Terrorism has brought a significant change to our world and he has the guts to lead us through it. Sometimes a Leader does thing that is not popular but what he believes is out of necessity. He is making discission everyday that the average citizen could not.

There is much more to the Big Picture that us average citizen do not know. We should be cautious on making rash decision without first attempting to gain information to make an informed and educated decision. Disagreeing on informed and educated discission is onething, disagreeing on feelings and presumptions are totally different.

For those that take offense to an educated decision does not mean scholar decision (ie, Doctors or Harvard Grads) but by learning through research both institutional and self teaching.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RetiredNavy

There is much more to the Big Picture that us average citizen do not know. We should be cautious on making rash decision without first attempting to gain information to make an informed and educated decision.

Disagreeing on informed and educated discission is onething, disagreeing on feelings and presumptions are totally different.

Hello again, Navy:

Pure, unadulterated POPPYCOCK. It oozes arrogance. It presumes that only insiders such as yourself know the truth. Plus, you have the audacity to suggest that anyone who is against your position is uninformed and uneducated. They only have their feelings to go by. Certainly, they've made no “attempt to gain information” – apparently like you have.

Dude, it's clear that you're not going to get any of the communication I'm delivering here. You are just too clouded.

Fortunately for the country, there ain't too many of your ilk.

excon

Quote:

Originally Posted by RetiredNavy

The question I pose to you is it arrogance or disdain or a leader doing the best he can. Now matter how much people complain he is the appointed LEADER of the United States. Terrorism has brought a significant change to our world and he has the guts to lead us through it. Sometimes a Leader does thing that is not popular but what he believes is out of necessity. He is making discission everyday that the average citizen could not.

There is much more to the Big Picture that us average citizen do not know. We should be cautious on making rash decision without first attempting to gain information to make an informed and educated decision. Disagreeing on informed and educated discission is onething, disagreeing on feelings and presumptions are totally different.

For those that take offense to an educated decision does not mean scholar decision (ie, Doctors or Harvard Grads) but by learning through research both institutional and self teaching.

Whether you are a Bush supported or not, you have to admit, this fine young (your welcome) man, surely is holding the load of his beliefs strongly and proudly. RN, I am truly proud to say you represent our fine Navy and now do resemble the fine, upstanding, dedicated, selfless, proud to serve, Naval personnel that I am proud to know and adore.

Bravo Zulu to you and continue to support your beliefs in a proud and respectful manner. It is this type of dedication, which for those who are unaware, is tireless and endless that our forces demonstrate every day. This is why I am so incredibly proud of them. From our enlisted to our Officers, you would be more than impressed and proud of our fine military, specifically our Navy.

I fear I am not expressing well what I am trying to get across. All I can say is our military give and where they give from is so deep.

Thank you for your sacrifices that you and your family have given and for your unwavering dedication.

Once again, Bravo Zulu!

excon, you are absolutely correct. It is hard to discuss thing with ignorance. The information I found was done through public access through Google. If you do not research information to make your own informed discission then you are just belonging to the realm of requiring someone to guide you.

How am I arrogant in research information for myself to make an opinion. I believe that you are the arrogant one basing opinion on blinded knowledge.

Retired Navy, while I congrat you for what you are trying to do, this is the reason I did not post here, it was a obvoius we hate Bush post and to those that hate him, no evidence or proof will ever been good enough, the Media has sold them all a bill of goods and nothing will change their minds.

Chuck, I won't say nothing can change my mind, but I haven't seen any evidence that says I should. Is the media that has sold those who don't like Bush "a Bill of goods" or it's the Republicans who have sold that bill of goods, to the waning few who still stand by Dubya. I have my opinion, you have yours.

RN,
I say its arrogance. When you look at the Big Picture a pattern of arrogance is clear to me. But that is my opinion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RetiredNavy

The question I pose to you is it arrogance or disdain or a leader doing the best he can. Now matter how much people complain he is the appointed LEADER of the United States. Terrorism has brought a significant change to our world and he has the guts to lead us through it. Sometimes a Leader does thing that is not popular but what he believes is out of necessity. He is making discission everyday that the average citizen could not.

There is much more to the Big Picture that us average citizen do not know. We should be cautious on making rash decision without first attempting to gain information to make an informed and educated decision. Disagreeing on informed and educated discission is onething, disagreeing on feelings and presumptions are totally different.

For those that take offense to an educated decision does not mean scholar decision (ie, Doctors or Harvard Grads) but by learning through research both institutional and self teaching.

Hello again, Navy:

The above post is not research. It’s not information. It’s nothing you found on Google. It’s not informed.

It’s opinion and conclusion, and it’s POPPYCOCK.

excon

Quote:

Originally Posted by RetiredNavy

I am not even going to persue this. The Bush witch hunt is not worth my time.

Well, I do agree that compared to starting an unnecessary war in the Middle East, flouting the law and corrupting the administration of justice here at home is pretty small potatoes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RetiredNavy

The question I pose to you is it arrogance or disdain or a leader doing the best he can.

Both. Arrogance and disdain appears to be the best he can do.

Well,
I feel for Bush because he is between a rock & a hard place. I think he was quite stubborn about this war. Now they have the congressional Republicans saying they think he's going to lose the next general election for them by siding with him, so they say they will support him till t
He fall. Then there must be benchmarks to show improvement in Iraq.
As much as we would like to see democracy there, from the reports about the Iraq soldiers & parliament (which said they are taking a 2 month break soon) I just don't see democracy happening when the sectarian divide is how it is now. The Shiite there appear to not want the Sunnis at all. Iran wants that (bc they are mainly shiite) So, how's democracy going to work the way we planned it for the 2 sects to live together?
And we hear from the big hawk- Cheney is that if we left Iraq now-it will be another Darfur there.
Really? Hasn't it been like that already for the Iraq people? Oh skip it Cheney, you know it's about the oil too anyway-so that's really important too-that's a fact.
At this point I'm still praying for some measurable success there- but to leave we can't I think because of Iran. Iran wants to move into Iraq- set up terrorist camps, & take the oil. The thought of that alone makes me want to vote for a Republican because we have to keep Iran in check or be able to let Iraq "go" & face the consequences of what Iran is capable of actually doing.
I don't know. Enlighten me. I voted for Gore the pacifist from the get go!
For the love of God, what's the plan?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScottGem

Chuck, I won't say nothing can change my mind, but I haven't seen any evidence that says I should. Is the media that has sold those who don't like Bush "a Bill of goods" or its the Republicans who have sold that bill of goods, to the waning few who still stand by Dubya. I have my opinion, you have yours.

RN,
I say its arrogance. When you look at the Big Picture a pattern of arrogance is clear to me. But that is my opinion.

ScottGem, When I was driving to a cookout today, I thought about what you said. I think I can agree on your statement in that Bush Leadsership and Management style is not what the public chooses. He comes across as blunt, rude and present it like he is the President and that is why. This has been one of the biggest issues as to why he is having problems with public perception.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ordinaryguy

Well, I do agree that compared to starting an unnecessary war in the Middle East, flouting the law and corrupting the administration of justice here at home is pretty small potatoes.

Both. Arrogance and disdain appears to be the best he can do.

I have no problem having conversations about Bush and the current administration. I was simple stating the excon was not worth my time. Every time his point is determined mute he starts with the personal attacks. He got me caught in his game but others made me realize that his retorice is useless.

Hello again:

Leastways, I can spell.

excon