Posted on 08/18/2006 1:48:59 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
I hate to say it, but if al Qaeda drops the big on on ol' Anna, I won't be shedding any tears.
LOL. I'm laughing, through a thick cloud of cynicism.
Yes, today at Camp David. I'm sorry I didn't make that clear.
I suspect you have revealed yourself for what you are, sorry about that. ;-)
|
He is not circumventing the law, btw, and if he is , prove it.
and you seemed to dodge mine as well as it were.
Two and a half months before the midterm elections. We cannot afford this. I wonder if all the incessant hatred dumped on him by the Democrats and the MSM, along with the spinelessness of congressional Republicans, is finally getting to him. God be with Pres. Bush.
I saw that .. I may be wrong about you, frankly, the jury is still out.
I just find your accusation that he is doing things outside of the statute interesting.
What is your understanding of what he has done other than what has been authorized and on the books since 1978?
Go ahead and ignore the facts, at your own, and everyone else's , peril.
From what I understand, a warrant is required to wiretap an American citizen. Apparently some of those warrants are not being requested by or granted to the NSA.
---
From what I understand, a warrant is required to wiretap an American citizen. Apparently some of those warrants are not being requested by or granted to the NSA.
So impeach him, if you have proof of this.
Gawd, you're tedious.
This specific topic is now being discussed by the Fox
All-Stars on the Brit Hume Report.
these foreign intercepts have been going on for decades.
actually, he was pretty blunt in the speech I saw. but he needs to systain it - day after day after day - its the only way the sheeple get a message.
I would generally agree with you - but I do not trust the SCOTUS - the same 5 judges who ruled on the Gitmo case, re-drafting Geneva rights et al - that voting block is dangerously comprimised regarding these national security cases.
it could go 5-4 either way.
Read the 4th amendment and its interpretation.
Amendment IV:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Not that I have a problem with our Presidents actions, but where is the part about terrorists?
>Gawd, you're tedious.<
Oh, another one who has nothing productive to add, so falls back on vicsious personal attack. I should have known.
I can't begin to imagine the pressure he's under.But even though he seemed down, he managed to convey his extreme disgust at that hideous, dangerous ruling. His spirit isn't broken by any means,but he sure seemed troubled.How could he not be?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.