So what your saying is that Bush will always have the CONSTITUTION to back him up on this no matter if it went to JURY or not. And you think that is a bad thing for some reason because its not fair?
I guess I don't get your point because if you ask anyone with any common sense if the...
1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General
is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign
intelligence information without a court order, but only if the
Attorney General...
Bush authorized the NSA to listen to info originating OUTSIDE the US only and on only suspected persons with terrorist ties. And thank god he has continued to practice this tried and true method of preventing further terrorist attacks. Bush did nothing illegal and it did not start with this...
"The Valerie Plame episode was a leak whose only purpose was to discredit Joseph Wilson and thereby (it was hoped) further the anti-Iraq rhetoric of the Administration. Wilson had broken no laws, and the leak had purely political motives."
Total opinion only and is not supported by any...
Doesn't matter?
"Nobody is above the Constitution and its Amendments. Not the executive and not the judiciary. Regardless of what is ruled or said or written in anything, be it in law or Executive Order."
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007703
"The courts...
Do you have a problem with the basic idea of listening in on a phone call that originated outside the US to someone inside the US or just the fact that its Bush doing it? The reason I ask is this has been going on for quite some years prior to this administration. I'm just trying to figure out...
Hmmmm...or maybe its because the first is more of a national security risk and the second is more of a trumped up pipe dream. I betcha thats how History will view it once the "Plamegate" dream fades from the MSM radar and the truth comes out.
Just my opinion
Your premise cannot be accepted because it is from the position that the President did something illegal.
Its not illegal if judicial precedence has been set on the same issue.
http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200512200946.asp...
Just to put this to bed.
Rush is matching each donation that comes in, so as it turns out he will profit nothing from this. And as advertised he is supporting the troops.
By the way, this is for troops worldwide and not just troops in Iraq.
My point is given more from a principle stance as opposed to opinion. There are at least 25 million or so people, a lot of them troops I'm sure, that don't find any propaganda in what Rush says. I'm not saying that people want Rush more than ACs just that they are the same principle only...
10 bucks says you would have a different opinion if you liked him.
If the troops are the one's that want to hear more of him and that is exactly what he is making available to them...tell me how that is NOT support?
So Capitalism and Troop Support cannot be combined?
When people started buying Air Conditioners from "enter your favorite builder supply store name here" and sending them to Iraq, were you blasting the AC makers or the builder supply stores for making a profit while supporting the troops? Or...
So according to some here Rush is not allowed to make money for the information that he provides? Provides by request I might add. Why not? What do you have against Capitalism? I mean you might as well be asking for the oil companies to return some of their "windfall" profits...oh wait...you...
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.