Doesn't help when they keep getting stymied by all the hawks still in office . . .

Doesn't help when the Democrats are more concerned with destroying Bush that destroying the Terrorists either.

Democrats have nothing else to do than keep going after Bush with these manufactured scandals and pointless resolutions.  Bush is not going anywhere until his term ends.....get over this democrats.




Exactly. 

They ran in 2006 as the party that would end the war. Seven months later and two battles with the President and the political party that promised to end the war in Iraq still has not met their goal.

They actually included a timeline for withdrawal in a spending bill that Bush vetoed. When they removed that provision Bush signed it. They do not have enough of a majority to overide a presidential veto without many Republicans coming to their side.

“The other measure (S Res 303, H Res. 626) would censure Bush and Gonzales for ‘undermining the rule of law and the separation of powers’ by, among other things, authorizing the National Security Agency to conduct warrantless surveillance of American citizens and making “misleading” statements about the application of the a sweeping 2001 anti-terrorism law (PL 107-56).” Ok now I am upset. Yesterday I wrote about how congress had approved to expand the very same policy mentioned in this previous quote. How foolish can you be to try to punish Bush for something congress just finished authorizing. Does any one else see the irony in this?

You are mistaken on this also. The legislation that just passed was not for surveillance of American citizens, a key difference.

* Purely foreign overseas communications. The NSA can monitor these calls and e-mails without any signoff from a judge or a senior government official. * Domestic conversations between two Americans. The Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable search and seizure requires that the government get approval from a court before eavesdropping on these exchanges. * Communications between an American and a foreigner, a more complex, gray area. If the American is the target of the investigation, then a court must approve the surveillance, the White House says. However, if the foreigner is the target, no court approval is necessary under the new law. Instead, Gonzales and McConnell will decide together whether to go ahead with the work.

Link

As far as the censure resolutions, I believe that they do have merit.

So Amy I get a phone call, remembering I am an American citizen and the Call is from a satellite phone from Pakistan and voice recognition software says it's Bin Laden calling me, you want that to be against the law to listen in on because I am an American citizen right?

No, I want the government to say "hey we think this guy who is a citizen may be involved with Bin Laden". They go to a judge get a court order for a wiretap. When Bin Laden calls, they track his location and all is right with the world. Easy peasy.

Do you think the government should be monitoring all U.S. citizens calls without any cause, just in case they get a call from Bin Laden?

and by the time all this happens Bin laden will have hung up, I will have moved, because I just got marching orders from bin laden himself, my orders are to attack a nuclear power plant, while stopping to spread anthrax in several hundred post boxes, you know the ones that people go to drop mail in just on YOUR CORNER.

How would the government have known to listen to you specifically? Are they supposed to listen to everyone in the country? If they have a reason to target someone specifically, then they have a reason to get a warrant from a judge to tap your phone line.

Also do they really have the technology to recognize Bin Laden's voice? It sounds like movie science to me.

the democrats are trying to get revenge for that idiot clinton.

I agree!!! We need to IMPEACH both Bush and Cheney not Centure them!

and to prove my point

They are not going to be impeached, so just give up on that.  There is no basis for impeachment and you know it.

You make it sound as if the Gov't cares about your secret chocolate chip cookie recipe your giving your sister over the phone. You make it seem as if the Gov't is interested in the guy some girl dated a few days ago. How is it that people want the police to do their work and catch criminals before they act while at the same time blocking any means to find these criminals because it may infringe on someones privacy. Privacy in a world where youtube.com is one of the top viewed sites, where big screen TVs that can be seen from far away are in many homes, where home made porn videos are todays playboy shows, where Mardi Gras is still the place to be. Privacy? The only privacy people look for now a days is for illegal dealings. If privacy was as important as people claim it to be they would not be talking out loud during a phone conversation, emails would not be used since its easy for them to be seen online, women would not dress with so little clothing (not really complaining here) and more than anything people would not be wanting Bigger Gov't sticking their hands in everything in their lives, that's a contradiction itself.



Perhaps you can tell me how they got to the reason? Do you think cops stumble upon reasons, by coincidence, to make them suspicious of criminal activities or do you think they are going around looking and watching and probably invading peoples privacy in the process? There's no such thing as privacy. People watch TV's loud now a days with the big screens and surround sound, as if they didn't want anyone to know what they are doing. What people really want is respect, people want to be able to have their windows open without others looking inside, that's what they want.

One of those rare occasions he leaves his cave. If you can prove (and I mean proof, not what you don't like, proof) that Bush and Cheney commited a crime that can be punishable by impeachment, I will back you 100%. Unless you think lying is a crminal offense, we may as well lock every politician up. And you while we are at it.