"Harry Krause" wrote in message


HoustonChronicle.com -- http://www.HoustonChronicle.com | Section:
National
Dec. 16, 2005, 1:30PM

Bush secretly OK'd eavesdropping

Oh, puh-leez (as you mght say)......

Bush's poll numbers are rebounding, the economy is humming, the Iraqis have,
for the third time in a year, demonstrated a greater passion for
representative government [in the face of death threats] than many Americans
do.......

.....and the best the NYT can come up with is a year-old story about NSA
wiretapping, which they -- oops! -- forgot to mention was approved by the
Senate committee, and -- oops! -- forgot to point out just happened to
coincide with the author's book publication. Yet somehow the myth carries
forward that the Old Grey Lady still has some credibility! Sad,..... so
sad.

On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 21:59:36 -0500, "John Gaquin" wrote:


"Harry Krause" wrote in message


HoustonChronicle.com -- http://www.HoustonChronicle.com | Section:
National
Dec. 16, 2005, 1:30PM

Bush secretly OK'd eavesdropping

Oh, puh-leez (as you mght say)......

Bush's poll numbers are rebounding, the economy is humming, the Iraqis have,
for the third time in a year, demonstrated a greater passion for
representative government [in the face of death threats] than many Americans
do.......

....and the best the NYT can come up with is a year-old story about NSA
wiretapping, which they -- oops! -- forgot to mention was approved by the
Senate committee, and -- oops! -- forgot to point out just happened to
coincide with the author's book publication. Yet somehow the myth carries
forward that the Old Grey Lady still has some credibility! Sad,..... so
sad.


,,,and happened to be published on the day the Senate was scheduled to vote on stopping the debate
on the Patriot Act, thus giving the Dems something they could read on the floor. (Those that could
read, that is.)
--
John Herring

Hope your Christmas is Spectacular!
....and your New Year even Better!

On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 21:59:36 -0500, John Gaquin wrote:


Bush secretly OK'd eavesdropping

Oh, puh-leez (as you mght say)......

Bush's poll numbers are rebounding, the economy is humming, the Iraqis
have, for the third time in a year, demonstrated a greater passion for
representative government [in the face of death threats] than many
Americans do.......

And, in case you didn't notice, *if* this story pans out true, this
President committed an impeachable offense.

"thunder" wrote in message

And, in case you didn't notice, *if* this story pans out true, this
President committed an impeachable offense.

If what you posit is true -- and I'll stipulate for the moment -- then he
will have to be impeached side by side with at least a majority of the
Senate Intelligence Committee seated at that time, as they approved the
surveillance activity as essential security measures. Personally, I don't
think this event would meet the High Crimes test.

On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 13:23:18 -0500, John Gaquin wrote:


"thunder" wrote in message

And, in case you didn't notice, *if* this story pans out true, this
President committed an impeachable offense.

If what you posit is true -- and I'll stipulate for the moment -- then he
will have to be impeached side by side with at least a majority of the
Senate Intelligence Committee seated at that time, as they approved the
surveillance activity as essential security measures. Personally, I don't
think this event would meet the High Crimes test.

I have read where the some in Congress had been briefed, but nowhere that
approval was given. As for the High Crimes test, in 1972, when Nixon
claimed he had the power to wiretap, the Supreme Court unanimously
rejected that notion. Since that time, Congress, the body that makes the
law, has clarified the situation with the 1978 Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act. Wiretapping Americans, without a warrant, puts the
President clearly at odds with the will of Congress. As impeachment
proceedings are political, the point is probably moot, but a
Constitutional crisis does meet the High Crimes and Misdemeanors test.

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 00:18:16 -0500, thunder wrote:

On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 13:23:18 -0500, John Gaquin wrote:


"thunder" wrote in message

And, in case you didn't notice, *if* this story pans out true, this
President committed an impeachable offense.

If what you posit is true -- and I'll stipulate for the moment -- then he
will have to be impeached side by side with at least a majority of the
Senate Intelligence Committee seated at that time, as they approved the
surveillance activity as essential security measures. Personally, I don't
think this event would meet the High Crimes test.

I have read where the some in Congress had been briefed, but nowhere that
approval was given. As for the High Crimes test, in 1972, when Nixon
claimed he had the power to wiretap, the Supreme Court unanimously
rejected that notion. Since that time, Congress, the body that makes the
law, has clarified the situation with the 1978 Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act. Wiretapping Americans, without a warrant, puts the
President clearly at odds with the will of Congress. As impeachment
proceedings are political, the point is probably moot, but a
Constitutional crisis does meet the High Crimes and Misdemeanors test.

If the Congressmen had disapproved, don't you think you'd have heard their disapprovals ringing in
the hallowed halls of the Senate a long time ago?

I *am* glad to see that you will at least admit that some in Congress were involved.
--
John H

**** May your Christmas be Spectacular!****
*****...and your New Year even Better!*****

"thunder" wrote in message

.... As for the High Crimes test, in 1972, when Nixon
claimed he had the power to wiretap, the Supreme Court unanimously
rejected that notion.

Richard Nixon was conducting wiretap operations solely for the strengthening
of his political position. Surely you see the difference.

....Wiretapping Americans, without a warrant, puts the
President clearly at odds with the will of Congress.

Presidents are almost always at odds with the will of Congress. The
important question is whether the Prsident's actions are at odds with the
words of existing statutes.

As impeachment
proceedings are political, the point is probably moot, but a
Constitutional crisis does meet the High Crimes and Misdemeanors test.

I think you need a bit more specificity than your interpretation of "...a
Constitutional crisis..." in order to bring an impeachment proceeding
forward. Also note that the word 'misdemeanor' is written in the US
Constitution with a lower case m. The reference of the time was not to any
class of offence, as might be interpreted today, but to unseemly, generally
bad behavior that might serve to put the USA in a position of ridicule or
humiliation. Twas the misdemeanor that got so many implacably on the trail
of Pres Clinton. The almost ceaseless lying and arrogance was the hook they
hung their coat on.

But the Monika incident did?

Capt. Jeff

"Tamaroak" wrote in message newsIWdna90rPsimTreRVn-

But the Monika incident did?

No, the "Monica incident" may have more appropriately met the misdemeanor
test. Clinton's impeachment had naught to do with sex. That was just the
vehicle, despite what the left would love the history books to record. What
hit the High Crime button was the 17 separate instances where the President
looked Congress and the Grand Jury, (and the American people) square in the
eye and lied through his teeth. Even if you ultimately can prove that Pres
Bush lied re intelligence with knowledge aforethought, none of his
performances can match Pres Clinton's for sheer, arrogant balls.

He's commited more than one impeachable offense in my book. But because
of the balance of power in the House and Senate these days it won't
happen, of course. Can you imagine these same legislators up in arms had
Clinton done anything like this? Spent untold billions, killed untold
hundreds of thousands, committed these same war crimes? One would have
heard the hue and cry on Mars.

As it is, our boys and girls will continue to die, our country will
continue to be sold to the Japanese and Chinese, our environment and
status in the world will continue down the drain and all these
brown-shirters will continue to sing his praise. Was Hitler in the army
or was he also a draft dodger/AWOL/deserter? Juast wondering how else
they compare....

Capt. Jeff