ah! for once i understand your sig hondabuster! i deserve a cookie

 

I hate to admit it but I did actually see part of that earlier today [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img]

Attorney General Gonzales testimony was about the funniest thing since he just wouldnt answer many questions (not enough to worry about being sworn in anyhow) and if the look on Senator Chuck Schumers face wasnt enough to tell the entire story including the expected outcome, and what an entire joke it is to have a hearing where the witness giving tesitmony is not required to cooperate with having to answer questions that may incriminate anyone or anything, and the fact that the senate or other governing body doesnt seem to have any say in their own hearing etc then nothing else will.

I actually was bored to death and realized why I honestly despise having to suffer thru things like that (It actually reminded me of some very old memories involving my grandfather who was serious about politics making me wait till some boring poltical show was over before watching something good lol), but more importantly I think I came up with an interesting idea/theory.

Since many of us are supporters of the president for the job he does etc, and the many that dont support him seem to always blame him personally which only creates a battle with the supporters creating a situation that seems to produce no forward momentum , and since there are obvious concerns about the very basis of law which governs our country, and the constitution that holds everything together being ignored and watered down, why then do we not just agree to eliminate the idea of having to join the bush bashers and refrain from pointing directly towards him, and just for a time discuss the events, actions, and offenses from the position they actually happened.

What I mean is that if we lose the debate over the pres himself and work things forward from where they happen or happened and then trace back to where the intitial authority was given etc I think we can lose all the party fanatics and actually get to some factual discussions.

There has to be enough officials other than GWB to discuss that have had their hands into this, and from the limited testimony I saw today there is obviously plenty to hide from the American public.

So lets put all the party affiliation aside and get into the actual events for a while and see if this can help make things more clear.

 

Have to wonder if the reason the popular media doesnt pick up on stuff like this is because the author makes so many unfounded statements that are purely just his opinion like constantly referring to "bush's illegal" this or that, and no matter my own opinions that is not only improper, but also since its not proven at the time it was written it would create other issues for the people putting it out there.

Even though I totally agree that the idea of having the attorney general refuse to be sworn in when giving testimony is absolutely insane and totally unacceptable it only proves his inability to willfully uphold the law and not play politics, and does not initially put a guilty sign on anyones forhead but his own.

If you had witnessed this it was obvious that at min he was hidding information, and at worst was guilty of something himself. Additionally if you or I were in a similar situation this type of behavior would not be tolerated, and very possibly we would be held in contempt.

So since were going to try and ignore the president for the time being lets consider the fact to debate exactly how dirty this guy may be.

Lastly it seems an insult to the entire country to see the attorney general of the US who is supposed to be the utmost legal figure of the country act and respond in the manner he did.

 

Last I heard, the president is still in charge. All cabinet members do his bidding, nothing else.

 

I find it rather interesting and telling that the AG was not sworn in. And to be announced by Sen. Spector of all people. He seemed to be the biggest one up in arms over this. My local paper (The Fresno Bee) carried an LA Times article "Senators grill Gonzales on spy program." It's interesting that that little tidbit (not being sworn) was not in there, at least that I saw. How often is testimony given to Congress without the persons giving testimony being sworn in?

This "hearing" seems to me to be a dog and pony show for the populace.

Best Car Insurance | Auto Protection Today | FREE Trade-In Quote

 

ding, ding ding....you win...thats all it is. Theyre hoping in a few weeks they can come up with some watered down set of rules, and the american public will just be unhappy for a few weeks, and then on to the next event. Just like all the meetings and pony shows about corruption scandals, nothing is going to change...they act like it will, but it wont. How many scandals have taken place over the years...and how many times have they claimed to fix the problem? Theres a conflict of interest, and theres no way the fixes will change business as usual.
And you caught the point, which the so called liberal media missed....he wasnt sworn in, he was free to lie and tell whatever he felt necesary...thats the main point, Most americans are left with the impression he was under oath, which is what the administration wanted.

440
"Have to wonder if the reason the popular media doesnt pick up on stuff like this is because the author makes so many unfounded statements that are purely just his opinion like constantly referring to "bush's illegal" this or that, and no matter my own opinions that is not only improper, but also since its not proven at the time it was written it would create other issues for the people putting it out there."

My point about liberal media...is that if the media were liberal, this sentance would have been in every newscast. But wasnt. Every talking point, is alleged or they just come out and say its legal. Real americans arent fooled that easily, we all know its illegal, ....theres a law on the books which prevents this exact type of behavior, he admitted to doing the crime, what part isnt illegal? Im trying to counter the conservative bias in the news with facts.

Now whether they are hiding that they spied on political opponents, or the UN, just before the war, or they are hiding that the spying started BEFORE 9/11, or they are hiding that the information they recieved from torchure, is the tip that led to the wiretapping. who knows. But they knew, that albert had to lie , so they wouldnt swear him in.

 

Re: The Liberal Media

One of the best bumper stickers I've ever seen:


Best Car Insurance | Auto Protection Today | FREE Trade-In Quote

 

This editorial in todays paper, explains it better than i can.


Power: It's Ours to Give, Not His to Take
by John Atcheson

Mr. Bush and his cronies would like the argument over illegally wiretapping US citizens to be about who is willing to go the furthest to protect the American people. Predictably, the Democrats are falling into their frame.

But this isn’t about security. It’s about the rights of citizens in a democracy, the abuse of power, and the rule of law in preventing such abuses.

As many have pointed out, FISA gives the President broad authorities and even allows him to act prior getting a warrant.

Notwithstanding the breadth of FISA, many of us – Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals – are willing to examine whether or not we need to change the way we gather intelligence, both domestically and internationally in the age of the Internet, global communication networks, and terrorists.

But in America, as in other democracies, there’s a process for that.

When the leader believes he needs more power, he must go to the people or their representatives and ask them for it. The power in our democratic form of governance, after all, resides with the people. It’s ours to give, not his to take.

President Bush didn’t do that. Acting in secrecy, he simply took the power he wanted for his own. That’s how dictators in banana republics operate.

That’s the issue here. It’s that simple.

This kind of power grab was precisely the kind of abuses our founding fathers were trying to protect us from when they wrote the Bill of Rights.

And it’s not the first time he’s done it. Mr. Bush, like the spoiled preppy frat-boy he is, wants what he wants, and he doesn’t see why he has to be subject to the same limits as the rest of us.

When he wanted to invade Iraq, he manufactured fake intelligence and lied the people and Congress into his tragic and ill-conceived preemptive war.

When he wanted to pass a prescription drug plan designed to benefit the pharmaceutical companies at the expense of the elderly and the nation’s taxpayers, he lied about how much it would cost, and his administration threatened to fire the civil servant in charge of estimating the cost of the program if he told Congress the truth.

When he wanted to Privatize Social Security he lied about the health of the program, the cost of his alternative, and his motives for wanting to kill social security.

When he wanted to escape blame for 911, he said he wasn’t warned about the threat, even though he’d been given an intelligence memo titled "bin Laden determined to attack inside the United States" in August of 2001.

When he wanted to punish folks like Ambassador Wilson who exposed his lies, he mounted a vicious smear campaign that involved outing a covert CIA agent.

Mr. Bush has been willing to use any means necessary to push his own agenda, and he has shown, again and again, that he puts his agenda above the truth, above the rule of law, and above the will of the American people. Look at the pattern of Soviet Style propaganda – paid journalists, fake newsreels, fake town hall meetings featuring phony pre-screened audiences armed with pre-screened questions complete with jack-boot stooges to toss out any citizens who make it past the government-approved attendance lists. Are these the actions one would expect from a self-described "champion of democracy?"

And his domestic spying program hasn’t even made us safer. The FBI says they are getting swamped by poorly substantiated leads from these wiretaps; they tell us their agents are getting pulled from promising investigations to pursue witch hunts, and that America may be less safe as a result of this ill-conceived trampling of our Constitutional rights.

Nevertheless, in the face of doubts about the effectiveness of his domestic spying program, a record of blatant dishonesty and a penchant for grabbing power, Mr. Bush once again launches his fear machine and asks us to just "trust him," and he’ll protect us.

Sorry, Mr President, but trust is something you have to earn; and trust is something you’ve betrayed once too often. We’ve watched you crank up your fear machine so that you can launch your war; enrich your already rich buddies; and ****** away our rights. Frankly, Mr. Bush, you and your lust for power and your "theory of the unitary executive" have become as scary as that which you would protect us from.

The warrant less wiretap program is not about security; it’s not about terrorism. It’s about the rule of law and the rights of citizens. Our rights.

If Americans value freedom, we can never allow any president to ****** our rights simply because he wants them. Tyranny is more often an inside job – freedom is given away more often than it is taken. And the soft siren-song of security has been the instrument of choice for would-be tyrants throughout history.

 

Again...if we had a liberal media in the USA, this speach by russ fiengold yesterday would be front page. Its worth reading.


On the President’s Warrantless Wiretapping Program
by Russ Feingold


Statement delivered on the Senate Floor by U.S. Senator Russ Feingold February 7, 2006.

Mr. President, last week the President of the United States gave his State of the Union address, where he spoke of America’s leadership in the world, and called on all of us to “lead this world toward freedom.” Again and again, he invoked the principle of freedom, and how it can transform nations, and empower people around the world.

But, almost in the same breath, the President openly acknowledged that he has ordered the government to spy on Americans, on American soil, without the warrants required by law.

The President issued a call to spread freedom throughout the world, and then he admitted that he has deprived Americans of one of their most basic freedoms under the Fourth Amendment -- to be free from unjustified government intrusion.

The President was blunt. He said that he had authorized the NSA’s domestic spying program, and he made a number of misleading arguments to defend himself. His words got rousing applause from Republicans, and even some Democrats.

The President was blunt, so I will be blunt: This program is breaking the law, and this President is breaking the law. Not only that, he is misleading the American people in his efforts to justify this program.

How is that worthy of applause? Since when do we celebrate our commander in chief for violating our most basic freedoms, and misleading the American people in the process? When did we start to stand up and cheer for breaking the law? In that moment at the State of the Union, I felt ashamed.

Congress has lost its way if we don’t hold this President accountable for his actions.

The President suggests that anyone who criticizes his illegal wiretapping program doesn’t understand the threat we face. But we do. Every single one of us is committed to stopping the terrorists who threaten us and our families.

Defeating the terrorists should be our top national priority, and we all agree that we need to wiretap them to do it. In fact, it would be irresponsible not to wiretap terrorists. But we have yet to see any reason why we have to trample the laws of the United States to do it. The President’s decision that he can break the law says far more about his attitude toward the rule of law than it does about the laws themselves.

This goes way beyond party, and way beyond politics. What the President has done here is to break faith with the American people. In the State of the Union, he also said that “we must always be clear in our principles” to get support from friends and allies that we need to fight terrorism. So let’s be clear about a basic American principle: When someone breaks the law, when someone misleads the public in an attempt to justify his actions, he needs to be held accountable. The President of the United States has broken the law. The President of the United States is trying to mislead the American people. And he needs to be held accountable.

Unfortunately, the President refuses to provide any details about this domestic spying program. Not even the full Intelligence committees know the details, and they were specifically set up to review classified information and oversee the intelligence activities of our government. Instead, the President says – “Trust me.”

This is not the first time we’ve heard that. In the lead-up to the Iraq war, the Administration went on an offensive to get the American public, the Congress, and the international community to believe its theory that Saddam Hussein was developing weapons of mass destruction, and even that he had ties to Al Qaeda. The President painted a dire – and inaccurate – picture of Saddam Hussein’s capability and intent, and we invaded Iraq on that basis. To make matters worse, the Administration misled the country about what it would take to stabilize and reconstruct Iraq after the conflict. We were led to believe that this was going to be a short endeavor, and that our troops would be home soon.

We all recall the President’s “Mission Accomplished” banner on the aircraft carrier on May 1, 2003. In fact, the mission was not even close to being complete. More than 2100 total deaths have occurred after the President declared an end to major combat operations in May of 2003, and over 16,600 American troops have been wounded in Iraq. The President misled the American people and grossly miscalculated the true challenge of stabilizing and rebuilding Iraq.

In December, we found out that the President has authorized wiretaps of Americans without the court orders required by law. He says he is only wiretapping people with links to terrorists, but how do we know? We don’t. The President is unwilling to let a neutral judge make sure that is the case. He will not submit this program to an independent branch of government to make sure he’s not violating the rights of law-abiding Americans.

So I don’t want to hear again that this Administration has shown it can be trusted. It hasn’t. And that is exactly why the law requires a judge to review these wiretaps.

It is up to Congress to hold the President to account. We held a hearing on the domestic spying program in the Judiciary Committee yesterday, where Attorney General Gonzales was a witness. We expect there will be other hearings. That is a start, but it will take more than just hearings to get the job done.

We know that in part because the President’s Attorney General has already shown a willingness to mislead the Congress.

At the hearing yesterday, I reminded the Attorney General about his testimony during his confirmation hearings in January 2005, when I asked him whether the President had the power to authorize warrantless wiretaps in violation of the criminal law. We didn’t know it then, but the President had authorized the NSA program three years before, when the Attorney General was White House Counsel. At his confirmation hearing, the Attorney General first tried to dismiss my question as “hypothetical.” He then testified that “it’s not the policy or the agenda of this President to authorize actions that would be in contravention of our criminal statutes.”

Well, Mr. President, wiretapping American citizens on American soil without the required warrant is in direct contravention of our criminal statutes. The Attorney General knew that, and he knew about the NSA program when he sought the Senate’s approval for his nomination to be Attorney General. He wanted the Senate and the American people to think that the President had not acted on the extreme legal theory that the President has the power as Commander in Chief to disobey the criminal laws of this country. But he had. The Attorney General had some explaining to do, and he didn’t do it yesterday. Instead he parsed words, arguing that what he said was truthful because he didn’t believe that the President’s actions violated the law.

But he knew what I was asking, and he knew he was misleading the Committee in his response. If he had been straightforward, he would have told the committee that in his opinion, the President has the authority to authorize warrantless wiretaps. My question wasn’t about whether such illegal wiretapping was going on – like almost everyone in Congress, I didn’t know about the program then. It was a question about how the nominee to be Attorney General viewed the law. This nominee wanted to be confirmed, and so he let a misleading statement about one of the central issues of his confirmation – his view of executive power – stay on the record until the New York Times revealed the program.

The rest of the Attorney General’s performance at yesterday’s hearing certainly did not give me any comfort, either. He continued to push the Administration’s weak legal arguments, continued to insinuate that anyone who questions this program doesn’t want to fight terrorism, and refused to answer basic questions about what powers this Administration is claiming. We still need a lot of answers from this Administration.

But let’s put aside the Attorney General for now. The burden is not just on him to come clean -- the President has some explaining to do. The President’s defense of his actions is deeply cynical, deeply misleading, and deeply troubling.

To find out that the President of the United States has violated the basic rights of the American people is chilling. And then to see him publicly embrace his actions – and to see so many Members of Congress cheer him on – is appalling.

The President has broken the law, and he has made it clear that he will continue to do so. But the President is not a king. And the Congress is not a king’s court. Our job is not to stand up and cheer when the President breaks the law. Our job is to stand up and demand accountability, to stand up and check the power of an out-of-control executive branch.

That is one of the reasons that the framers put us here - to ensure balance between the branches of government, not to act as a professional cheering section.

We need answers. Because no one, not the President, not the Attorney General, and not any of their defenders in this body, has been able to explain why it is necessary to break the law to defend against terrorism. And I think that’s because they can’t explain it.

Instead, this administration reacts to anyone who questions this illegal program by saying that those of us who demand the truth and stand up for our rights and freedoms have a pre-9/11 view of the world.

In fact, the President has a pre-1776 view of the world.

Our Founders lived in dangerous times, and they risked everything for freedom. Patrick Henry said, "Give me liberty or give me death." The President's pre-1776 mentality is hurting America. It is fracturing the foundation on which our country has stood for 230 years. The President can't just bypass two branches of government, and obey only those laws he wants to obey. Deciding unilaterally which of our freedoms still apply in the fight against terrorism is unacceptable and needs to be stopped immediately.

Let’s examine for a moment some of the President’s attempts to defend his actions. His arguments have changed over time, of course. They have to – none of them hold up under even casual scrutiny, so he can’t rely on one single explanation. As each argument crumbles beneath him, he moves on to a new one, until that, too, is debunked, and on and on he goes.

In the State of the Union, the President referred to Presidents in American history who cited executive authority to order warrantless surveillance. But of course those past presidents – like Wilson and Roosevelt – were acting before the Supreme Court decided in 1967 that our communications are protected by the Fourth Amendment, and before Congress decided in 1978 that the executive branch can no longer unilaterally decide which Americans to wiretap. The Attorney General yesterday was unable to give me one example of a President who, since 1978 when FISA was passed, has authorized warrantless wiretaps outside of FISA.

So that argument is baseless, and it’s deeply troubling that the President of the United States would so obviously mislead the Congress and American public. That hardly honors the founders’ idea that the President should address the Congress on the state of our union.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was passed in 1978 to create a secret court, made up of judges who develop national security expertise, to issue warrants for surveillance of terrorists and spies. These are the judges from whom the Bush Administration has obtained thousands of warrants since 9/11. The Administration has almost never had a warrant request rejected by those judges. They have used the FISA Court thousands of times, but at the same time they assert that FISA is an “old law” or “out of date” and they can’t comply with it. Clearly they can and do comply with it – except when they don’t. Then they just arbitrarily decide to go around these judges, and around the law.

The Administration has said that it ignored FISA because it takes too long to get a warrant under that law. But we know that in an emergency, where the Attorney General believes that surveillance must begin before a court order can be obtained, FISA permits the wiretap to be executed immediately as long as the government goes to the court within 72 hours. The Attorney General has complained that the emergency provision does not give him enough flexibility, he has complained that getting a FISA application together or getting the necessary approvals takes too long. But the problems he has cited are bureaucratic barriers that the executive branch put in place, and could easily remove if it wanted.

FISA also permits the Attorney General to authorize unlimited warrantless electronic surveillance in the United States during the 15 days following a declaration of war, to allow time to consider any amendments to FISA required by a wartime emergency. That is the time period that Congress specified. Yet the President thinks that he can do this indefinitely.

In the State of the Union, the President also argued that federal courts had approved the use of presidential authority that he was invoking. But that turned out to be misleading as well. When I asked the Attorney General about this, he could point me to no court – not the Supreme Court or any other court – that has considered whether, after FISA was enacted, the President nonetheless had the authority to bypass it and authorize warrantless wiretaps. Not one court. The Administration’s effort to find support for what it has done in snippets of other court decisions would be laughable if this issue were not so serious.

[/i]The President knows that FISA makes it a crime to wiretap Americans in the United States without a warrant or a court order. Why else would he have assured the public, over and over again, that he was getting warrants before engaging in domestic surveillance?

Here’s what the President said on April 20, 2004: “Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires – a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we’re talking about chasing down terrorists, we’re talking about getting a court order before we do so.”

And again, on July 14, 2004: “The government can’t move on wiretaps or roving wiretaps without getting a court order.”

The President was understandably eager in these speeches to make it clear that under his administration, law enforcement was using the FISA Court to obtain warrants before wiretapping. That is understandable, since wiretapping Americans on American soil without a warrant is against the law.

And listen to what the President said on June 9, 2005: “Law enforcement officers need a federal judge’s permission to wiretap a foreign terrorist’s phone, a federal judge’s permission to track his calls, or a federal judge’s permission to search his property. Officers must meet strict standards to use any of these tools. And these standards are fully consistent with the Constitution of the U.S.”[i]

Now that the public knows about the domestic spying program, he has had to change course. He has looked around for arguments to cloak his actions. And all of them are completely threadbare.

The President has argued that Congress gave him authority to wiretap Americans on U.S. soil without a warrant when it passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force after September 11, 2001. Mr. President, that is ridiculous. Members of Congress did not think this resolution gave the President blanket authority to order these warrantless wiretaps. We all know that. Anyone in this body who would tell you otherwise either wasn’t here at the time or isn’t telling the truth. We authorized the President to use military force in Afghanistan, a necessary and justified response to September 11. We did not authorize him to wiretap American citizens on American soil without going through the process that was set up nearly three decades ago precisely to facilitate the domestic surveillance of terrorists – with the approval of a judge. That is why both Republicans and Democrats have questioned this theory.

This particular claim is further undermined by congressional approval of the Patriot Act just a few weeks after we passed the Authorization for the Use of Military Force. The Patriot Act made it easier for law enforcement to conduct surveillance on suspected terrorists and spies, while maintaining FISA’s baseline requirement of judicial approval for wiretaps of Americans in the U.S. It is ridiculous to think that Congress would have negotiated and enacted all the changes to FISA in the Patriot Act if it thought it had just authorized the President to ignore FISA in the AUMF.

In addition, in the intelligence authorization bill passed in December 2001, we extended the emergency authority in FISA, at the Administration’s request, from 24 to 72 hours. Why do that if the President has the power to ignore FISA? That makes no sense at all.

The President has also said that his inherent executive power gives him the power to approve this program. But here the President is acting in direct violation of a criminal statute. That means his power is, as Justice Jackson said in the steel seizure cases half a century ago, “at its lowest ebb.” A recent letter from a group of law professors and former executive branch officials points out that “every time the Supreme Court has confronted a statute limiting the Commander-in-Chief’s authority, it has upheld the statute.” The Senate reports issued when FISA was enacted confirm the understanding that FISA overrode any pre-existing inherent authority of the President. As the 1978 Senate Judiciary Committee report stated, FISA “recognizes no inherent power of the president in this area.” And “Congress has declared that this statute, not any claimed presidential power, controls.” Contrary to what the President told the country in the State of the Union, no court has ever approved warrantless surveillance in violation of FISA.

The President’s claims of inherent executive authority, and his assertions that the courts have approved this type of activity, are baseless.

The President has argued that periodic internal executive branch review provides an adequate check on the program. He has even characterized this periodic review as a safeguard for civil liberties. But we don’t know what this check involves. And we do know that Congress explicitly rejected this idea of unilateral executive decision-making in this area when it passed FISA.

Finally, the president has tried to claim that informing a handful of congressional leaders, the so-called Gang of Eight, somehow excuses breaking the law. Of course, several of these members said they weren’t given the full story. And all of them were prohibited from discussing what they were told. So the fact that they were informed under these extraordinary circumstances does not constitute congressional oversight, and it most certainly does not constitute congressional approval of the program. Indeed, it doesn’t even comply with the National Security Act, which requires the entire memberships of the House and Senate Intelligence Committee to be “fully and currently informed of the intelligence activities of the United States.”

In addition, we now know that some of these members expressed concern about the program. The Administration ignored their protests. Just last week, one of the eight members of Congress who has been briefed about the program, Congresswoman Jane Harman, ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, said she sees no reason why the Administration cannot accomplish its goals within the law as currently written.

None of the President’s arguments explains or excuses his conduct, or the NSA’s domestic spying program. Not one. It is hard to believe that the President has the audacity to claim that they do. It is a strategy that really hinges on the credibility of the office of the Presidency itself. If you just insist that you didn’t break the law, you haven’t broken the law. It reminds me of what Richard Nixon said after he had left office: “Well, when the president does it that means that it is not illegal.” But that is not how our constitutional democracy works. Making those kinds of arguments is damaging the credibility of the Presidency.

And what’s particularly disturbing is how many members of Congress have responded. They stood up and cheered. They stood up and cheered.

Justice Louis Brandeis once wrote: “Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.”

The President’s actions are indefensible. Freedom is an enduring principle. It is not something to celebrate in one breath, and ignore the next. Freedom is at the heart of who we are as a nation, and as a people. We cannot be a beacon of freedom for the world unless we protect our own freedoms here at home.

The President was right about one thing. In his address, he said “We love our freedom, and we will fight to keep it.”

Yes, Mr. President. We do love our freedom, and we will fight to keep it. We will fight to defeat the terrorists who threaten the safety and security of our families and loved ones. And we will fight to protect the rights of law-abiding Americans against intrusive government power.

As the President said, we must always be clear in our principles. So let us be clear: We cherish the great and noble principle of freedom, we will fight to keep it, and we will hold this President – and anyone who violates those freedoms – accountable for their actions. In a nation built on freedom, the President is not a king, and no one is above the law.

I yield the floor.

 

You know, the same 4 or 5 of you have been dominating this thread with a few people here and there voicing a different opinion in short sentences. Most of this is cut and pasted from liberal sites that have pure hatred for GW. There is nothing objective about this entire thread. It is propaganda through and through.

Abraham Lincoln threw members of Congress in prison during the Civil War for voicing their contempt for the war. GW is fighting an enemy to the best of his ability (which is substancial in my opinion) and you are all very fortunate that most of the country does not feel the way you do. You are also fortunate Lincoln is not president because I fear you to would be looking through bars.

I am afraid of losing my freedom and I don't like the government having too much control over me but for now the threat is the terrorists and the countries like Iran, Syria, N. Korea and others that want to kill Americans whether they are liberal or conservative. Our own government is not our current problem. It may be a problem after the enemies are dead and are no longer a threat to you and me. At that time if the Government wants to keep its extra power, it will be appropriate to wage a political war on them. This is not that time.

I know I can't effect what you choose to think but I am comfortable with where the country is heading and when push comes to shove, it is the people in America that I trust. When they decide to vote, I listen and support them. Yes I support people I don't agree with because when the people speak in afree land, they are the decision makers. The things you guys are saying are not mainstream. You have a small minority that supports you. The courts are becoming more conservative. The Congress is getting more conservative at every election. The Democrats are falling apart at the seams because of the ideology like I have read on this thread. Most people won't buy it no matter how loud you say it. The people have been moving away from the left with a few hills and valleys since about 1970.

Meanwhile people that are as extreme as the few of you are getting more angry and aggressive every year. This will not win people like me over to your side. It will only make you more and more of a minority. In short keep doing exactly what you are doing. GW will survive everything you throw at him because of the support of people like me and I know it is eating you up inside....

Btw, I wrote this from the heart. I didn't cut and paste or join this thread because I have an ongoing agenda. I work for a living and ride atv's in most of my spare time. I just wanted to chime in and give you my perspective. I hope at the very least, you can respect that.