Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Mon 03/13/2006 View Sun 03/12/2006 View Sat 03/11/2006 View Fri 03/10/2006 View Thu 03/09/2006 View Wed 03/08/2006 View Tue 03/07/2006
1
2006-03-13 Home Front: Politix
Sen. Feingold to Introduce Measure to Censure Bush
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Thains Gravirt3644 2006-03-13 10:52|| || Front Page|| [6 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 That's right, lets get Hillary on record before the primary. heh, heh.

Karl Rove....please call your office.
Posted by 2b 2006-03-13 11:06||   2006-03-13 11:06|| Front Page Top

#2 Why is that the Republican led Congress continues to "stonewall" when it comes to
investigations of possible illegalities of
President Bush?
Posted by Just Curious 2006-03-13 11:22||   2006-03-13 11:22|| Front Page Top

#3 JC, I'm tired of your whiny questions. If you have a theory, post it, and defend it.
Posted by Seafarious">Seafarious  2006-03-13 11:24||   2006-03-13 11:24|| Front Page Top

#4 JC, does it make you feel smart when you put your finger to your chin make a statement in the form of a question? Do you do that because you don't have to admit that you don't really know any relevant facts and by asking a leading question, you hope others, more intelligent than yourself, will make your case for you? Are you stupid?
Posted by 2b 2006-03-13 11:28||   2006-03-13 11:28|| Front Page Top

#5 
Redacted by moderator. Comments may be redacted for trolling, violation of standards of good manners, or plain stupidity. Please correct the condition that applies and try again. Contents may be viewed in the
sinktrap. Further violations may result in
banning.
Posted by Just Curious 2006-03-13 11:42||   2006-03-13 11:42|| Front Page Top

#6 Just Curious, you are not a welcome presence at this site. But if you insist on foisting your whinery upon us, then post your theory of why the Republicans are stonewalling, and prepare to defend your ideas.
Posted by Seafarious">Seafarious  2006-03-13 11:47||   2006-03-13 11:47|| Front Page Top

#7 Seafarious:

Do you represent the staff or ownership of
Rantburg or are you speaking for yourself?
Posted by Just Curious 2006-03-13 11:52||   2006-03-13 11:52|| Front Page Top

#8 "While the censure resolution has little chance of winning approval..."

Hey Carl, I heard you had a dog.
Why yes Russ, and I understand you just bought a pony.
You know, we should really have a show.

Both of these political whores are on the historically non-partisian US Senate Intelligence Committee. God help us.
Posted by DepotGuy 2006-03-13 11:56||   2006-03-13 11:56|| Front Page Top

#9 Feingold graduated from the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1975, received a degree from Oxford University as a Rhodes Scholar in 1977, and then went on to Harvard Law School, where he earned his degree in 1979. In 1982, in his first try for elective office, Feingold defeated a longtime incumbent and was elected to the Wisconsin State Senate for the 27th District. Feingold was re-elected in 1986 and 1990. When Feingold first ran for the U.S. Senate in 1992, he won a tough three-way primary, and went on to defeat a two-term incumbent. Feingold was reelected to the Senate in 1998 and 2004.

Above indicated NO real-world work experience, no military, only politics.
Posted by Visitor 2006-03-13 12:01||   2006-03-13 12:01|| Front Page Top

#10 "Thus far, the Republican majority in both the House and the Senate has prevented any debate or investigation into the administration's actions."

This statement is taken from the article posted.
Thus far I cant get a single Bush backer in here to explain the Republican led Congress reasoning for "stonewalling" possible investigations into President Bush's actions. Why is that and what are they afraid of finding?
Posted by Just Curious 2006-03-13 12:04||   2006-03-13 12:04|| Front Page Top

#11 I'm just trying to get the Bush backers in here to explain the repub-led congressional justifications for "stonewalling" investigations into President Bush activities.

First, explain why Democrats are blocking the complete release of an investigation into the Clinton administration, aka the Barret Report.

Because, frankly, that case doesn't involve the president's Constitutional authority, or wartime secrets. It's just about corruption and abuse of office. Yet the Democrats don't want a completed investigation to be released to the public that paid for it.
Posted by Robert Crawford">Robert Crawford  2006-03-13 12:08|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/]  2006-03-13 12:08|| Front Page Top

#12 Just Curious, Seafarious is a mod here. So, when she tells you to go away, it's not like she doesn't have any authority to do so.

When I tell you to go away, it's just my personal opinion.

As one Dem to another, maybe you should stick to the Daily Kos. You're obviously out of your element here.
Posted by Desert Blondie 2006-03-13 12:19|| http://azjetsetchick.blogspot.com]">[http://azjetsetchick.blogspot.com]  2006-03-13 12:19|| Front Page Top

#13 heh heh heh. Screwed up JC. Picked on a mean 'un. I see cyan in your future.
Posted by 6 2006-03-13 12:41||   2006-03-13 12:41|| Front Page Top

#14 JC, Democrats don't want an investigation, they want a forum to bash Bush, just like the phoney 9-11 commision. Republicans finally wised up and aren't going to build them a stage to posture on.
Posted by Steve">Steve  2006-03-13 12:52||   2006-03-13 12:52|| Front Page Top

#15 Not to mention that the wiretaps were approved by congress, including many democrats, which renders the whole censure thing moot.
There is no "stonewalling" (unless you are talking pork spending reform), just deranged morons like yourself.
I'm not a mod, I don't represent Rantburg, but my 2 cents is, "Please fuck off and Die Just Curious (bi curious?)"

And no, I am not a Republican.
Posted by mmurray821 2006-03-13 12:54||   2006-03-13 12:54|| Front Page Top

#16 Do you represent the staff or ownership of
Rantburg or are you speaking for yourself?

She's a moderator. I'm a moderator.

She speaks for me.
Posted by Pappy 2006-03-13 13:03||   2006-03-13 13:03|| Front Page Top

#17 I'm a Republican. FOAD
Posted by Frank G 2006-03-13 13:05||   2006-03-13 13:05|| Front Page Top

#18 Rock on, you crazy diamond Frank!
Posted by mmurray821 2006-03-13 13:10||   2006-03-13 13:10|| Front Page Top

#19 Why can't JC do nothing more than ask rhetorical/leading questions? WWhhyyy?? WHHYYYYYY?? oh Why???
Posted by TomAnon 2006-03-13 13:16||   2006-03-13 13:16|| Front Page Top

#20 I am a member of and represent the Rantburg Editorial Board. I believe I speak for the site's owner, although he is welcome to correct me if he disagrees. I don't think he will, since he has banned several of your IP addresses and you apparently can't take the hint.

Your whiny little brat routine is wearing thin. If you have a point you wish to make, then make it, and be prepared to defend it with facts. If you only wish to sneer and post pointless questions, then leave.
Posted by Seafarious">Seafarious  2006-03-13 13:22||   2006-03-13 13:22|| Front Page Top

#21 JC, The Congressional Republicans are under orders from Halliburton to keep quiet under their new Tsunami wave production system has all the kinks out. Duh. Sheesh, why can't these people keep up-to-date on the really important issues.
Posted by Brett 2006-03-13 13:24||   2006-03-13 13:24|| Front Page Top

#22 I find it quite interesting that certain people in this thread would rather attack me than deal with the issues that the author of this article
is bringing up.

I asked a very logical question based off a very true statement he makes:

"Thus far, the Republican majority in both the House and the Senate has prevented any debate or investigation into the administration's actions."

Bush backers, you cannot tell me that there is very specific reasoning behind why the Republican
Congress continues to "stonewall" investigations into President Bush's activities because, I cannot imagine that if former President Clinton was still in office and accused of illegal domestic wiretapping, with a repub controlled congress, the investigations would have started long ago, with possible impeachment looming.
Posted by Just Curious 2006-03-13 13:27||   2006-03-13 13:27|| Front Page Top

#23 2b

JC, does it make you feel smart when you put your finger to your chin make a statement in the form of a question?

LOL!!!

plz jc put a finger *in* it!!!

Posted by RD 2006-03-13 13:27||   2006-03-13 13:27|| Front Page Top

#24 if former President Clinton was still in office and accused of illegal domestic wiretapping

Well, Clinton did wiretap domestically, while Bush isn't. The NSA program is listening to overseas calls, one side of which happens to be stateside. Nothing illegal about it.
Posted by Steve">Steve  2006-03-13 13:33||   2006-03-13 13:33|| Front Page Top

#25 Seafarious:

If you dont like what I post, then dont read or respond to it. I enjoy coming in here & watching
a group of right-wing trolls gather for a leftist bashing hissy fit on a daily basis.

Evidently there is some group pleasure your regulars take from it because just about everytime one of you speaks it's always in the plural "we"...
Posted by Just Curious 2006-03-13 13:35||   2006-03-13 13:35|| Front Page Top

#26 You know what you're most guilty of JC?
You're boring.
Posted by tu3031 2006-03-13 13:43||   2006-03-13 13:43|| Front Page Top

#27 Jc, Clinton did order warrantless wiretapping without FISA approval. Some of it was for industrial espionage and some was for the "Drug War". No one at the time or now suggests what he did was not legal. My question to you is, "Why is it now considered not legal for president Bush to order thses wiretaps for purposes of terrorist surveilance? This is not "Domestic spying" which is what Clinton did. So did Carter. In Carter's case the defendants appealed on the grounds the wiretaps were not legal and their appeal was denied on the grounds that President Carter had certain powers to protect national security. These two individulas were found guilt of spying for Communist Vietnam. The Republicans have finally figured out these Democrats are interested only in regaining power and if what they do weakens or damages this President all the better. What they either don't realize or don't care about is they weaken the Office of the President for the future as well. when I can find the links I'll add them.
Posted by Deacon Blues">Deacon Blues  2006-03-13 13:47||   2006-03-13 13:47|| Front Page Top

#28 tough growing up when even your parents don't like you, JC?
Posted by Frank G 2006-03-13 13:50||   2006-03-13 13:50|| Front Page Top

#29 ok - I'm done....troll-poking is only fun when they're smart.
Posted by Frank G 2006-03-13 13:51||   2006-03-13 13:51|| Front Page Top

#30 I cannot imagine that if former President Clinton was still in office and accused of illegal domestic wiretapping, with a repub controlled congress, the investigations would have started long ago, with possible impeachment looming.

There's nothing "domestic" about the NSA program.

There's nothing "illegal" about the NSA program.

Clinton did much worse, and no one gave a rat's ass.

Folks, today's Dem talking point is "WHERE ARE THE INVESTIGATIONS!!!" The same crap's being spewed over at ProteinWisdom. Apparently the talking point include directions to avoid responding to any questions about the Barrett Report, because it's being ignored over there, too.
Posted by Robert Crawford">Robert Crawford  2006-03-13 13:51|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/]  2006-03-13 13:51|| Front Page Top

#31 LOL Brett! That is the same message I got from my Rovian Decoder ring from which I get my marching orders by channeling the spirit of Lee Atwater......

JC, it is real simple there is nothing to investigate. Sometimes the simplest answers are correct.
Posted by TomAnon 2006-03-13 13:53||   2006-03-13 13:53|| Front Page Top

#32 'It's an unusual step,' he said. 'It's a big step, but what the president did by consciously and intentionally violating the Constitution and laws of this country with this illegal wiretapping has to be answered.'
In addition, just because Finegold says something is not legal doesn't make it so. There is probably an equal number of pro and con on wheater it is legal. To catagorically claim so is disengenious at best and an outright lie at worst. It is my opinion the reason Hillary has not gotten involved is because she knows her husband did the same thing and if she, for some weird happenstance, is elected President she doesn't want the Office of the President to be weakend. She mught have to do the same thing.
Posted by Deacon Blues">Deacon Blues  2006-03-13 13:55||   2006-03-13 13:55|| Front Page Top

#33 Thus far I cant get a single Bush backer in here to explain the Republican led Congress reasoning for "stonewalling" possible investigations into President Bush's actions. Why is that and what are they afraid of finding?

Well, that’s a “Have you beat your wife lately?” question if I’ve ever heard one.

If you dont like what I post, then dont read or respond to it. I enjoy coming in here & watching a group of right-wing trolls gather for a leftist bashing hissy fit on a daily basis.

That’s probably not the best way to make friends and influence people, kid.
Posted by Secret Master 2006-03-13 14:26||   2006-03-13 14:26|| Front Page Top

#34 So the group consensus is that democrats only want investigations into the wiretapping program because they may uncover damaging information on President Bush politically that will lead to them regaining power.

I can see some of that but I dont think it is their primary motivation.

So, the questions remains then WHY are so many republicans questioning the program and are showing increasing uneasiness about it?
Posted by Just Curious 2006-03-13 14:28||   2006-03-13 14:28|| Front Page Top

#35 So the group consensus is that democrats only want investigations into the wiretapping program because they may uncover damaging information on President Bush politically that will lead to them regaining power
I think you are misreading what people are saying here. You continue to claim the President did something wrong and the Republicans are trying to cover it up. What we are saying is the Democrats seem to be doing this in order to weaken the President and the Republicnas are saying, "There is nothing to investigate so why waste time and money investigating nothing?". There is a hell of a lot more the Democrats could be doing but all they seem to want to do is Bash Bush. It ain't gonna work. They have become the Party of fingerpointing. Forget the fact they have no message, no other agenda but to bring down this President. Do something constructive for God's sake!
Posted by Deacon Blues">Deacon Blues  2006-03-13 14:36||   2006-03-13 14:36|| Front Page Top

#36 JC, again....facts. I know it's hard to focus, but you'll gain more respect here if you back it up with facts. Which Repubs. are questioning the program? And, geez, which part of Clintoon and Carter doing it also (REAL domestic calls) don't you get? Do you not remember 1994? Don't you think if there were REAL concerns back then the Repubs would've grilled Clinton over his program (or in subsequent years when the Repubs were in control). Are you afraid of the NSA tapping your phone and finding out what pizza you're ordering at Papa John's to satisfy your "jonesing?"
Posted by BA 2006-03-13 14:38||   2006-03-13 14:38|| Front Page Top

#37 FBI files !
Sandy Berger !
TWA 800 !
Barret Report !
Juanita Broaderick !
Curiouser and curiouser how the finger of corruption points a hole through the dhimmocrat party, eh ?
Posted by wxjames 2006-03-13 15:07||   2006-03-13 15:07|| Front Page Top

#38 Bring the censure up for a vote. The donks will wilt just like they did for Murtha.
Posted by Omugum Phavimp8272 2006-03-13 15:17||   2006-03-13 15:17|| Front Page Top

#39 Deacon Blues:

I dont misread what's being said here in defense of Bush and I havent taken a position one way or the other on whether Bush did something illegal.
My position is that I think its odd for republicans to "stonewall" on investigations especially if they think nothing wrong was done.
This leads people to believe something IS being covered up.

BA: Such major republicans as Sen. Specter, Hagel, Snowe and Graham have all questioned the legality of Bush's wiretap program. The call for hearings has been bi-partisan but rarely do Bush Backers go after critics within his own party.
I understand what youre saying about Clinton and Carter, but that is for the courts to decide if those precedents stand or not. I am not all that certain that if this went before the Federal
Courts that "Clinton and Carter did it also"
would be a winning defense.
Posted by Just Curious 2006-03-13 15:39||   2006-03-13 15:39|| Front Page Top

#40 The legak precedant has been set with the Carter case. No one here is claiming a defense of "Carter and Clinton did it too" just the hypocracy of these Democrats wanting "investigations" when their own did it with no outcry from them. Your repetative use of the word stonewalling is, I think, not realistic. Again, why waste time and money on investigating a non-issue? These few Democrats seem bent on obstructionism at all costs. There is no consensus on wheather these wiretaps were legal or not. What kind of "investigating" is necessary? it's my belief the Republicans are blocking "investigations" because there is nothing to investigate and there are more important things for Congress to do.
Posted by Deacon Blues">Deacon Blues  2006-03-13 15:53||   2006-03-13 15:53|| Front Page Top

#41 Just Curious, don't you feel the least bit odd coming to a web site that fields some considerable intellectual firepower with an unloaded weapon? I have yet to see you actually post something even remotely resembling substantive content.

Top that with challenging a Moderator on her own turf and you come across about as smart as a sackful of hammers.
Posted by Zenster 2006-03-13 15:57||   2006-03-13 15:57|| Front Page Top

#42 JC represents all moonbats that can’t point to a specific act of breaking the law, but they just KNOW that Bush is breaking the law because THEY don’t agree with him.
Posted by Cyber Sarge 2006-03-13 16:18||   2006-03-13 16:18|| Front Page Top

#43 Ever since the democrats lost power, I have not seen ever, the most whining, crying, bitching I cannot believe I ever voted for a democrat
Posted by djohn66 2006-03-13 16:35||   2006-03-13 16:35|| Front Page Top

#44 I suspect our JC figured out a long time ago that Mama and teachers would give credit for 'trying' and wouldn't criticize if he brought hot air to the table.
Posted by lotp 2006-03-13 16:36||   2006-03-13 16:36|| Front Page Top

#45 Zenster:

Blah Blah Blah...Were are smarter than you leftest..ablah blah blah...Were all experts on the middle east and politics...blah, blah blah..
we know everything...for god sakes give me a break!!!

As far as i am concerned most of the people that post in this site on a regular basis are a bunch of concieted, pompous, egotistical, rightwing windbags..you among them...In other words you or none of the staff in here impress me as being overly intelligent as you THINK you are..

btw: what you people call "moderators" in here
I call Censors...lmao
Posted by Just Curious 2006-03-13 16:43||   2006-03-13 16:43|| Front Page Top

#46 "J.C., Don't you feel the least bit odd coming to a web site that fields some considerable intellectual firepower."

Zenster: ROTFLMAO...you cant be talking about
RANTBURG...that is too damn funny...lmao

Does that "considerable intellectual firepower"
pertain to your President Bush also?....lmao
Posted by Just Curious 2006-03-13 16:52||   2006-03-13 16:52|| Front Page Top

#47 most of the people that post in this site on a regular basis are a bunch of concieted, pompous, egotistical, rightwing windbags

Wow, JC, you say that like it is a bad thing.

If you were half as smart as you think YOU are, you would realize most of the contributors here wouldn't take that as an insult. They'd consider it foreplay. (At least they would, if you knew how to spell "conceited" correctly......or "leftist", for that matter.)
Posted by Desert Blondie 2006-03-13 16:56|| http://azjetsetchick.blogspot.com]">[http://azjetsetchick.blogspot.com]  2006-03-13 16:56|| Front Page Top

#48 C'mon, JC....call the posters on this site Nazis. Mention Halliburton. Use the phrase "Chimpy McHitler". You know you want to....

(Hey, I even did you a favor. I gave you the correct spellings.....)
Posted by Desert Blondie 2006-03-13 16:59|| http://azjetsetchick.blogspot.com]">[http://azjetsetchick.blogspot.com]  2006-03-13 16:59|| Front Page Top

#49 Does that "considerable intellectual firepower" pertain to your President Bush also?

In keeping with my assessment of you, it's clear you have not even participated here enough to know that I am routinely reviled hereabouts for my dislike of Bush. However, in a battle of wits between the two of you, I'd have to bet hands down on George.

This board contains some of the more intelligent, well-traveled and good humored people I've seen on the web. It also has a trove of individuals who have actually done military and espionage service for our country. You are so out of your league, you don't even know it. So, just keep on poking everyone with that stick. They'll warm up to you eventually.
Posted by Zenster 2006-03-13 17:12||   2006-03-13 17:12|| Front Page Top

#50 ...most of the people that post in this site on a regular basis are a bunch of concieted, pompous, egotistical, rightwing windbags

...and yet, you seem fascinated by the folks here and continue to return. Why is that?
Believe me, if you left, as you've threatened to do many times, the folks here would somehow manage to get over it. I know that's hard to believe but...it's true.
Posted by tu3031 2006-03-13 17:19||   2006-03-13 17:19|| Front Page Top

#51 This is leading to another Murtha moment.

What is a Murtha moment, you might ask?

It's when the House took a vote on whether or not to cut and run from Iraq. When the House overwhelmingly voted for the continuance of the Iraq war, including John Murtha.

The same thing would happen should the censure gimmick get to a Senate vote. And, yes, the senators will vote to turn down a censure (thereby giving tacit approval for the NSA spying on Al Qaeda).

The polls still show the majority of the American people support the NSA spying work.
Posted by Captain America 2006-03-13 17:26||   2006-03-13 17:26|| Front Page Top

#52 btw: what you people call "moderators" in here
I call Censors...lmao

So you've moved into the basement here along with all the other trolls and wanna call people censors even as you demand that they subsidize your ravings here?

I don't know what Fred's feelings are about everyone who's crowding into the basement, but I hope he puts up some ventilators. I'm starting to smell strange chemicals down there.
Posted by Phil 2006-03-13 17:27||   2006-03-13 17:27|| Front Page Top

#53 In public fora it's called censorship, and may or may not be permitted, depending on how it is used. In private fora such as this, where we all are Mr. Pruitt's guests, we all are here on sufference, and it behooves us to use the manners our parents taught us. Insulting one's host in his own home is rude and childish, and reveals the insulter as not nearly as clever as he thought himself. JC insults his host and his host's guests, and changes names and computers in order to continue doing so. JC is a troll. Q.E.D.
Posted by trailing wife 2006-03-13 19:01||   2006-03-13 19:01|| Front Page Top

#54 
I am awaiting the time when Rantburg forms a political wing and a military wing to rescue us from the current leadership of both parties.
Posted by Master of Obvious 2006-03-13 19:18||   2006-03-13 19:18|| Front Page Top

#55 One fora two forum?

Isn't the short answer to JC's thoughtfull question that most of those he's worried about don't see anything worth investigating? Maybe they might have a different perspective of the events that does not agree with JC's version?

Or, it could be that everyone else here is not as bright as he is? Maybe he's the only one who cares? Maybe he's the only sane person in the world?
Posted by Bobby 2006-03-13 20:09||   2006-03-13 20:09|| Front Page Top

#56 ... it behooves us to use the manners our parents taught us.

Tut tut, trailing wife. You're assuming that Just Curious even has either.
Posted by Zenster 2006-03-13 20:10||   2006-03-13 20:10|| Front Page Top

#57 Frist tried to force a Senate vote on teh censure motion to get the Donks on record - as usual teh Murtha Moment™ noted above, came about - they pushed it to committee to avoid having to vote/go on record. Cowards, traitors, Donks, purple: One of these is Not like the others
Posted by Frank G">Frank G  2006-03-13 20:20||   2006-03-13 20:20|| Front Page Top

#58 Bobby, JC, by any other name. Real lawyers at Powerline already addressed the real applicable law here

As for Sen.Feingold, the Republican leadership should shove this down the posturing individual's throat by calling for an immediate up or down vote on the censure. If they want to play political positioning games, force the issue out in the open before the American public. If the Dems thinks it smart to play to the left side of the house, then let them reap the consequences.

What I perceive is really all just primate posturing. Its 1859. We're finished trying to talk to each other. We're now talking past each other. The atmosphere of hate and loathing generated by the left since its loss of power is just increasing the probability of us reaching the flash point. All its going to take is for some fool to fire the one shot to get the real display of power in the open.
Posted by Elmaitle Clereng8396 2006-03-13 20:27||   2006-03-13 20:27|| Front Page Top

#59 Seems they're on the scent right now. From Tim Chapman from Townhall.com.

Democratic Senator Russ Feingold has introduced a resolution that would censure the President of the United States for "eavesdropping" in the wake of 9/11. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, moments ago, made a unanimous consent motion that the Senate vote on the resolution tonight. Maryland Democrat Paul Sarbanes rose to object to the motion. Frist then motioned to vote on the resolution again tomorrow. Sarbanes objected, saying no vote should take place on the resolution until Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid had cleared the timing.

In other words, Democrats know this is a political stunt, without a chance of passage, but want to time it politically for maximum impact.

Later, Harry Reid took the floor to say he was offended that Frist would go to the floor and motion for unanimous consent on such an "important issue" without talking to him first.

Reid's two-facedness knows no bounds. Does he not remember last year taking the Senate floor and invoking Senate Rule XXI, thereby shutting down the Senate? When he made that parliamentary move to score political points over pre-war intelligence, he broke all Senate precedent by invoking the draconian measure without first seeking the compliance of the Senate Majority Leader as has always been done in the past.

Outrageous? Yes...Surprising? No...
Posted by Elmaitle Clereng8396 2006-03-13 20:50||   2006-03-13 20:50|| Front Page Top

#60 Underlying all the tit for tat is what isn't being done. There is plenty of precedent for a lawsuit being filed solely to enjoin the President from further monitoring the calls in question. As far as I can discern, there have been no petitions filed.

The best reason I can think of for this is that what the President has ordered done simply isn't unconstitutional. Rumsfield vs. FAIR was primarily motivated by lawyers with plenty of time to do nothing constructive with. But here, the uproar can only be sustained as long as there is no adjudication. 'Till then, it's all "a tale told by an idiot...full of sound and fury...signifying nothing." But no dhimmicrat is willing to step up to the plate...to put his money where his mouth is.

That in itself should be instructive.
Posted by OregonGuy">OregonGuy  2006-03-13 21:06||   2006-03-13 21:06|| Front Page Top

#61 Let me get this right.

Requiring actual evidence (as opposed to 'well everyone knows!') == stonewalling

You know what evidence is don't you? A stain on a blue dress is considered evidence. Politically motivated accusations (with no proof) is not evidence.
Posted by CrazyFool 2006-03-13 21:36||   2006-03-13 21:36|| Front Page Top

#62 OregonGuy has it - it's not illegal. Once proven that, they lose a talking point. Regards a vote - the cowards are afraid to back their talk with action.
Posted by Frank G">Frank G  2006-03-13 22:06||   2006-03-13 22:06|| Front Page Top

#63 hey maybe mods could use a different color type to warn us of folks like JC. Just a thought.
Posted by Jan 2006-03-13 22:50||   2006-03-13 22:50|| Front Page Top

#64 Does that "considerable intellectual firepower"
pertain to your President Bush also?....lmao

That sums it up right there, doesn't it? I am a Republican too (well, at least on most things, but I truly lean more Libertarian/Constitution Party). Anyways, I am no fan of Bill Clinton, and yet, on his worst day I never called him "your" President. JC, whether you wanna admit it or not, President Bush is YOUR President too. And, BTW, he's a LOT smarter than most of you "enlightened" ones are. Don't guess you made great grades through Yale did ya, JC?
Posted by BA 2006-03-13 22:53||   2006-03-13 22:53|| Front Page Top

#65 he's finishing up that Library Science AA at BumFuck Egypt CC...leading to that opening job sentence: "ya wanna jumbo-size those fries?
Posted by Frank G">Frank G  2006-03-13 23:22||   2006-03-13 23:22|| Front Page Top

#66 Frank, *ahem*

"Supersize"
Posted by The Flipper 2006-03-13 23:53||   2006-03-13 23:53|| Front Page Top

#67 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]
Posted by Just Curious 2006-03-13 11:42||   2006-03-13 11:42|| Front Page Top

11:42 Just Curious
23:53 JosephMendiola
23:53 The Flipper
23:41 JosephMendiola
23:27 JosephMendiola
23:22 Frank G
23:20 JosephMendiola
23:19 Frank G
23:15 JosephMendiola
23:09 JosephMendiola
22:55 JosephMendiola
22:54 Hupaviper Flaique8373
22:53 BA
22:52 Frank G
22:52 JAB
22:51 Brett
22:50 Jan
22:35 JosephMendiola
22:31 BA
22:18 bombay
22:17 Frank G
22:16 Frank G
22:11 doc
22:07 DMFD









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com