Bush Is A Good President

[Farnan 0]

It was part of a larger point I was trying to make about Bush's motives.

If you reread my post--you notice that i don't really question bush's motives. He genuinely thought it was in the best interests of the US. What he didn't do is allow us the opportunity to view all of the evidence in a neutral setting to allow us to make our own decision. He marketed it to us. And he took some serious liberties in presenting the evidence in the best possible light so as to support his own conclusions.When you do something like that--you're taking a risk that you're wrong. And when you're wrong--it is YOUR fault--not the people who provided you the bad intelligence.

[Trustno1 0]

Here we go again...WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush clung to his doctrine of using preemptive force against threats of weapons of mass destruction on Thursday despite his experience in Iraq, and said Iran may be America's biggest security challenge.Is this justified as well?If this is more than just political rhetoric then I would expect talk about re-establishing the draft to come next.Discuss.

[econ1 0]

What decision? The US decided not to be involved in WWII. In 1939, The Nazis started invading eatsern european countries. Canada and Britain (among others) went to war. The US declared it's neutrality. They didn't get involved until 1941, and only then because of Japan. If the US was so concerned about making the right decisions, why did they wait 2 years to do the right thing? The fact is, the US gets involved out of self interest. There's nothing wrong with that, but let's call it what it is. The US didn't care about Sadam's weapons when they were aimed at Iran. Even attacks against the Kurds were no big deal. The US administration doesn't care about genocides that have happened or are happening in all sorts of places where they have no self interest. Rwanda comes to mind. Ever hear of it?The US is an empire in the process of empire building. Let's not mistake that for altruism.

Agree - so what is the solution then? Do we jump into to every situation that needs attention? WHile I think and hope that we would agree that it would be great if we could I think we also realize that it is not an option so we do what every country does - we take action when we feel like our citizens are in danger. THis has been the exact point I have been trying to make. It is very easy for all of us to sit on the sidelines and snipe at decisions that are made but when you are the one who bears the responsibility of the lives of the millions of citizens you serve the picture look smuch different. If I was in Bush's decision I am fairly certain that - given what was known (or believed to be known) at the time I would have made the same decision despite the lack of 100% certainty.

[mrdannyg 274]

Agree - so what is the solution then? Do we jump into to every situation that needs attention? WHile I think and hope that we would agree that it would be great if we could I think we also realize that it is not an option so we do what every country does - we take action when we feel like our citizens are in danger. THis has been the exact point I have been trying to make. It is very easy for all of us to sit on the sidelines and snipe at decisions that are made but when you are the one who bears the responsibility of the lives of the millions of citizens you serve the picture look smuch different. If I was in Bush's decision I am fairly certain that - given what was known (or believed to be known) at the time I would have made the same decision despite the lack of 100% certainty.

I think the solution is, as the previous poster said, to simply realize that Bush, on behalf of the US, is doing this out of self-interest. there is no altruism, no higher motives. self-interest.it only bugs people like myself when people defend what the US does as "right," etc. it is not in my opinion, but that is not important. what i hope is that people simply realize that it is being done out of self-interest and not out of some altruistic spirit. well said rog.

[Balloon guy 158]

And Balloon Guy--that was one of the more amusing right wing rants i've read in a while. Full of partisian rhetoric, half truths, misconstrued democratic arguments, ethnocentrism, myopic views and hypocrisy. I love this:and then you say:Classic.And i love it when they point to all of the other people who thought SH had WMD and thought they were a threat. Hmmm--how many of those countries/people thougth they had enough evidence to justify an attack? NONE. Even if when we get past the mistake of going in there (not only the evidence, but the pie-in-the-sky idea that it would be a cakewalk)---the prosecution of the post-war plan (if there was one) was absolutely HORRIBLE.And as far as budgets are concerned--the best situation, historically speaking, for the least amount of spending--is to have a house/senate with as a different party as the president. See, checks and balances works. One-sided ideological controlling party with supreme power isn't very good for the country. I don't profess to think that all democratic ideas are correct and i don't think all republican ideas are all correct. Which is why i despise this spiteful pissing contest politics has become. And whenever you think, believe and spread the BS you just did---you're just making the problem worse.EDIT--i hope that i didn't cross the line of the "friendly tone"--being a sarcastic person, i can sometimes unintentionally sound like a prick when argue politics.No..I understand getting into the aguement, as long as you are funny, I can take a hit or two. Just don't correct my spelling..touchy on this.None of the countries agreed to go to war? What about th 40+ countries that sent troops/supplies. I guess they don't count because they don't surrender when the first shot is fired. Other than Canada, they are all a bunch of hypocritical losers anyway. How's that for ethnocentrism?Tommy Franks wasn't promoting a book, he wrote it and gave the facts from his insider prospective. The guy writing books is the UN inspector loser that is now the darling of the liberal media, he knew all along and no body listened to him. BS..Barbara Steisand. I can tell you didn't read it because like most liberals, you attack the person, not the facts.Politics is a dirty business, always has been. I agree that the republicans are dropping the ball with their out of control spending, followed with voting to increase our debt today..they should all get canned. You start the paperwork to get them all shipped to Iraq for road cleaning duty and I'll sign it, along with most of the people I know..But between the two, democrats are by far more evil in my eyes. I know I am baised when I watch the news, listen to radio etc. I don't pretend to be a middle of the road weeny. I listen to Rush, Dennis Miller, Alan Colmbes and O'Reilly, Rush is the best thing on the air, because even when I disagree he's entertaining. Alan Colmbes is the best liberal out there, honest and makes decent points. Most liberal talk radio is a pathetic joke. Fox news is boring, as is CNN etc. 24 hours of news is too much, so I don't watch much. Don't read the paper, not really all that poitically interested anymore. But I remember 9-11, and I know what happens when liberals run wars..Vietnam. You want to spend all your efforts saying Bush is a bad guy, well he's too busy defending this country to give you guys a sound bite that will make you all love him.How's that for partisian rhetoric?And who in the world ever said you are a traitor if you dissent? The ONLY people I've heard say that is liberals trying to say conservatives think that way. I will agree to disagree, unless you can be funny. Otherwise we both know we've said all these things before, and I ain't changing you, and you ain't changing me. But I'll play you heads up for $50,000 if you got the guts.

[playingtowin 0]

And if putting a guys underwear on his head and taking pictures is torture, then lets arrest every fottball team in this country for hazing week.

Now this was bad...r u saying that the soldiers that tortured prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison should not be punished and were not wrong? Torture is wrong period!

[Loismustdie 0]

Speaking as an accountant...The most ridiculous spin item from the last 6-7 years is that Bush's tax changes gave the shaft to lower middle class families. The extra deductions for child tax credits, etc. give more tax savings as a % of gross income to lower income families by virtue of them being FIXED deductions. Of course, noone slamming Bush is going to tell you that the tax bill they're villifying increased tax deductions for some lower class families by 20% or more. No, they're going to focus on the reduction of taxes on dividends and point out how much money a super rich CEO saved as a bi-product of the change. Again, they're going to conveniently forget that this was simply a reduction in the double taxation of earnings by corporations who pay dividends, and is intended to help people save for retirement on their own instead of bleeding out social security. Every time I hear "tax cut for the rich" I want to scream. Bush's tax reform is a huge reason we didn't suffer a much much worse depression during his first term. The economy doesn't swing over night, it swings over YEARS. The policies put into place over the last 6 years will continue to improve the economic state of the country directly for the next 5+ years, and the nice happy economy the next President inherits - Democrat or Republican - will be attributed to them, not Bush.

Reducing taxes in a time of war is retarded, I don't care who the reductions go to- this **** has to be paid for. We are in debt like we haven't been for 15 years, how do you explain that?

[chrozzo 19]

Torture is wrong period!

maybe...but it works :icon_biggrin:i dont give a rats behind what they do to the prisoners at gitmo...if it leads to major arrests and assasinations of top Al Qaeda leaders to prevent further deaths of American, it is worth it...thats cold, but I love my country more than the comfort of the prisoners

[playingtowin 0]

maybe...but it works :icon_biggrin:i dont give a rats behind what they do to the prisoners at gitmo...if it leads to major arrests and assasinations of top Al Qaeda leaders to prevent further deaths of American, it is worth it...thats cold, but I love my country more than the comfort of the prisoners

I see what u're saying...but if u think torture can be justified then why r we fighting a war? The U.S. is about freedom. What makes torture justified? Soldiers r fighting everyday to bring freedom and democracy to Iraq and other parts of the world. The use of torture is a disgrace to the U.S. and the honorable men and women fighting for freedom. In the U.S., there r laws in place that punish people severely for animal cruelty, let alone the torture of humans no matter what crimes they have committed.

[chrozzo 19]

I see what u're saying...but if u think torture can be justified then why r we fighting a war? The U.S. is about freedom. What makes torture justified? Soldiers r fighting everyday to bring freedom and democracy to Iraq and other parts of the world. The use of torture is a disgrace to the U.S. and the honorable men and women fighting for freedom. In the U.S., there r laws in place that punish people severely for animal cruelty, let alone the torture of humans no matter what crimes they have committed.

It is a hard subject to approach, no question. As a human being, it is hard to accept certain methods. As an American whos country has been under attack, I am happy to know there are some men and women who will do what is necessary to preserve out way of life. At least our methods are not even close to those used by saddam and other past dictators and madmen. The most common tactic we use (or that the Army is willing to share with us), is sleep deprivation.

[EvilGN 0]

to call what happened at abu grabbe (sp) torture, I believe is a stretch. Humiliating and demoralizing, definately...but not torture. turture is phyical pain in most cases, sure you can mentally torture someone as well, but this still does not apply. I have gone thru S.E.R.E. training, and I can tell you that what the abu grabbe prisoners went thru (in the photos) is no worse than what I have gone thru (in training)i do not feel sorry for one second if a bunch of naked dudes stacked on top of themselves had thier pics taken and put on the internetone word...beheadings.........when we start killing prisoners thru torture AND blast it on al jezera, come back with your arguement...

[playingtowin 0]

to call what happened at abu grabbe (sp) torture, I believe is a stretch. Humiliating and demoralizing, definately...but not torture. turture is phyical pain in most cases, sure you can mentally torture someone as well, but this still does not apply. I have gone thru S.E.R.E. training, and I can tell you that what the abu grabbe prisoners went thru (in the photos) is no worse than what I have gone thru (in training)i do not feel sorry for one second if a bunch of naked dudes stacked on top of themselves had thier pics taken and put on the internetone word...beheadings.........when we start killing prisoners thru torture AND blast it on al jezera, come back with your arguement...

There was more than 'a bunch of naked dudes stacked on top of themselves' with a picture taken involved in the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse. Get ur facts straight. At least two soldiers involved have been convicted and sentenced to 5 and 10 years in prison.

[Balloon guy 158]

There was more than 'a bunch of naked dudes stacked on top of themselves' with a picture taken involved in the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse. Get ur facts straight. At least two soldiers involved have been convicted and sentenced to 5 and 10 years in prison.

Dude, the media says torture, and everyone had pictures of Mel Gibson in Braveheart or me at a Celine Dion concert. That's not the 'torture' those soldiers went to prison for. And let's just say it was and our soldiers did run electricity through their bodies etc. That was not an American military decision, Rumsfield and Bush aren't making sneak visits to Gitmo to have some fun, so how does that justify in anyway you opinion of this war.EvilGN nailed it, when we start beheading aid workers, then we are the evil ones. When our soldiers hide in Mosquea because they know the other side has moral convivtions not to blast the mosques to shreds, then you can protest outside the recruiting office.We didn't need to suffer one tenth the casulties we've suffered in this war, but we did because we are a compasionate people. We have the ability and the wherewithall to sit outside each city and level it. We don't have to patrol and fire when fired upon. We could be like the UN peacekeepers and take money for relief and buy prostitutes instead, but we are the greatest country ever, we risk the lives of our soldiers because their lowest civilan's life is relevent to us. Except for about 5 other countries, NOBODY thinks like this. Most countries in our position would either become brutal thugs, or would just back out and leave them to guarenteed death and mayhem.I'll take a couple loose cannons in the military jail system over a UN Peacekeeper anyday. Ask the serbs.

Reducing taxes in a time of war is retarded, I don't care who the reductions go to- this **** has to be paid for. We are in debt like we haven't been for 15 years, how do you explain that?

Reducing taxes isn't about giving people more money for short term pleasures, its' for stimulating the economy. Worked under Reagan, worked for Kennedy, and it worked for W.Last year the IRS took more money in then ever before, because of a strong economy. Carter had taxes so high that no one took risk, why risk my capital when i got to give 48% to the federal government. When Reagen cut it to 28% the economy went through the roof. Tax cuts stimulate the economy.Wait till you win the Protege tournament and start making the 6 figures, you'll become a tax cuts Republican. Come over to the dark side.not real sure about actual numbers for marginal tax rates under Carter and Reagan, been a while since I saw the actual numbers, but these are close.

[playingtowin 0]

Dude, the media says torture, and everyone had pictures of Mel Gibson in Braveheart or me at a Celine Dion concert. That's not the 'torture' those soldiers went to prison for. And let's just say it was and our soldiers did run electricity through their bodies etc. That was not an American military decision, Rumsfield and Bush aren't making sneak visits to Gitmo to have some fun, so how does that justify in anyway you opinion of this war.EvilGN nailed it, when we start beheading aid workers, then we are the evil ones. When our soldiers hide in Mosquea because they know the other side has moral convivtions not to blast the mosques to shreds, then you can protest outside the recruiting office.We didn't need to suffer one tenth the casulties we've suffered in this war, but we did because we are a compasionate people. We have the ability and the wherewithall to sit outside each city and level it. We don't have to patrol and fire when fired upon. We could be like the UN peacekeepers and take money for relief and buy prostitutes instead, but we are the greatest country ever, we risk the lives of our soldiers because their lowest civilan's life is relevent to us. Except for about 5 other countries, NOBODY thinks like this. Most countries in our position would either become brutal thugs, or would just back out and leave them to guarenteed death and mayhem.I'll take a couple loose cannons in the military jail system over a UN Peacekeeper anyday. Ask the serbs.Reducing taxes isn't about giving people more money for short term pleasures, its' for stimulating the economy. Worked under Reagan, worked for Kennedy, and it worked for W.Last year the IRS took more money in then ever before, because of a strong economy. Carter had taxes so high that no one took risk, why risk my capital when i got to give 48% to the federal government. When Reagen cut it to 28% the economy went through the roof. Tax cuts stimulate the economy.Wait till you win the Protege tournament and start making the 6 figures, you'll become a tax cuts Republican. Come over to the dark side.not real sure about actual numbers for marginal tax rates under Carter and Reagan, been a while since I saw the actual numbers, but these are close.

Balloon guy...read some of the other earlier posts I had made in this thread. I support the war and I think Bush is a good president. But I do not agree w/ torture or what those soldiers did at Abu Ghraib(it's not Gitmo that charges were pressed). You make some good points honestly, but a lot of ur arguments are flawed and do not take into account enough facts. And if u think Bush and Rumsfeld ordered the torture and humiliation at Abu Ghraib, then I definitely have to rethink what ur motives r for supporting Bush and his efforts to bring freedom to other countries and protect the U.S.

[ShakeZuma 585]

Balloon guy...read some of the other earlier posts I had made in this thread. I support the war and I think Bush is a good president. But I do not agree w/ torture or what those soldiers did at Abu Ghraib(it's not Gitmo that charges were pressed). You make some good points honestly, but a lot of ur arguments are flawed and do not take into account enough facts. And if u think Bush and Rumsfeld ordered the torture and humiliation at Abu Ghraib, then I definitely have to rethink what ur motives r for supporting Bush and his efforts to bring freedom to other countries and protect the U.S.

I think he was saying the opposite of Bush and Rumsfeld ordering the actions, in other words, that they didn't order them. As far as the "torture" itself, you can use a wide array of definitions to fit whichever circumstance you want. Torture can range from ripping out a person's fingernails, all the way down to sitting through a boring lecture. Just depends on how you look at it.The main thing that I see wrong with what happend at Abu Ghraib was not what was done to the prisoners, but why. It seems to me from what I've read that they had these things done to them not so much to get information, but for the amusement of the guards, ie the stack of naked dudes. I mean, in all probability, torture is used rather frequently in tough situations by many countries that consider themselves too "civilized" to participate in such things, they just don't let that info get out. And in my opinion, this is not necessarily a bad thing, as long as its used to gain information that will be used to complete an objective.Now whatever moron let those pictures leak out is the one that should be tortured.

[chrozzo 19]

Balloon guy...read some of the other earlier posts I had made in this thread. I support the war and I think Bush is a good president. But I do not agree w/ torture or what those soldiers did at Abu Ghraib(it's not Gitmo that charges were pressed). You make some good points honestly, but a lot of ur arguments are flawed and do not take into account enough facts. And if u think Bush and Rumsfeld ordered the torture and humiliation at Abu Ghraib, then I definitely have to rethink what ur motives r for supporting Bush and his efforts to bring freedom to other countries and protect the U.S.

You make a good point there. A few people ive met did actually think that the abuses at Abu Ghraib was under the Army's supervision, and that they were attempting to get info from those prisoners. Anyone should know that that was the result of a few rogue soldiers who thought they were being funny. I seriously question the intelligence of those soldiers. I mean, if your going to be an idiot and do crap like that...DONT TAKE FREAKIN PICTURES right? lol Abu Ghraib since has been a model prison. My father was actually the commander there from last January until July. There were a few major attacks during that time and he has returned home safely, but before he began his command and through today there have been no additional incidents. The soldiers are kept under a tight watch as to prevent anything of course. Abu Ghraib is actually going back into Iraqi control in a few months.

[Farnan 0]

I can tell you didn't read it because like most liberals, you attack the person, not the facts.

Are you kidding me? Look at my posts! I most certainly stay on the argument and avoid the ad hominem attacks. If i take a shot at the person, it is usually followed with an argumetn on the facts/logic/etc. Look back at your posts--you make assumptions about liberals and then apply them to every one you "speak" to. That is a common argumentative tactic i've seen lately (from BOTH sides) and it is annoying to defend an argument you didn't make or try to explain that not every person thinks alike.

EvilGN nailed it, when we start beheading aid workers, then we are the evil ones. When our soldiers hide in Mosquea because they know the other side has moral convivtions not to blast the mosques to shreds, then you can protest outside the recruiting office.

This is another example of a warped sense of "we aren't as bad as they are, so we're good"----can't you understand that if a guy goes out, murders 15 people, chops their heads off and eats the arms and another guy goes out and just murders one person---THEY'RE BOTH MURDERERS!!! It smacks of hypocrisy when we turn a blind eye to something like torture just because the people we're dealing with are horrible people.

Wait till you win the Protege tournament and start making the 6 figures, you'll become a tax cuts Republican.

I already do, without playing poker, and i'm not any more red than the day i was born.

[ShakeZuma 585]

Are you kidding me? Look at my posts!

Have to agree with pretty much everything you've said here. I have to commend you, Farnan, for being a level headed liberal (few and far between, haha). You're arguments have been reasonable and backed up by facts and you have the ability to see both sides; I like that.As far as the "we're not as bad as them" argument, I couldn't agree more. Just because they act like animals in their tactics doesn't give us the right do anything we please as long as we don't surpass them. We have to keep our moral ground in this conflict or we will lose all semblance of credibility as being the good guys.

[mk 11]

Even though my long winded posts don't support it, I can agree to disagree. Surprised how cordial the over all feel of this thread has gone. There are some smart people on this site. Most of them agree with me..but there's a few that would probably leave me scratching my head if got into much of a debate. So I'll avoid them and concentrate on the weak fish.

Yeah, you want no piece of me. lol. I consider myself semi-retired from FCP political debates. I chime in here and there, but I've laid the smacketh downeth enough times to be bored of it.

[blueodum 0]

What would have happened had we been ignored by the world during our struggle?You'd be like Canada and Australia - and a lot better off, to boot!

[ShakeZuma 585]

Yeah, you want no piece of me. lol. I consider myself semi-retired from FCP political debates. I chime in here and there, but I've laid the smacketh downeth enough times to be bored of it.

funniest avatar in the history of the world. ever.

[centris 0]

ballon guy, which way exactly 'solved' communism?Also EvilGN, our soldiers did cause physical harm to prisoners. So by your defintion that is torturethis is what you wrote "turture is phyical pain in most cases, sure you can mentally torture someone as well, but this still does not apply. "Here is some of what has happened:A thousand pages of evidence from US army investigations released to the American Civil Liberties Union after a long legal battle, and made available to the Guardian...In the dossier, the Iraqi detainee claims that three US interrogators in civilian clothing dislocated his arms, stuck an unloaded gun in his mouth and pulled the trigger, choked him with a rope until he lost consciousness, and beat him with a baseball bat.This is from the GuardianHere from a March 12, 2005 New York Times article The reports, from the Army Criminal Investigation Command, also make clear that the abuse at Bagram went far beyond the two killings. Among those recommended for prosecution is an Army military interrogator from the 519th Battalion who is said to have "placed his penis along the face" of one Afghan detainee and later to have "simulated anally sodomizing him (over his clothes)." The Army reports cited "credible information" that four military interrogators assaulted Mr. Dilawar and another Afghan prisoner with "kicks to the groin and leg, shoving or slamming him into walls/table, forcing the detainee to maintain painful, contorted body positions during interview and forcing water into his mouth until he could not breathe."This is all coming from Army reports, it is clear that we have physically harmed many of the prisoners. You cannot claim that it was all mental torment. Whether this is or is not torture does not really matter, but it is clear that the Bush admin and military leadership, even if they did not explictly authorize this beahivor they set up a system in which the lack of proper training and oversight allowed it to happen.

[JacKingOff_suit 0]

but I feel very comfortable saying that Bush is an honorable man doing what he feels is right for everybodyIf I can become the President of the United States, I swear I will do my best for this country. But does that mean doing what I feel is right will serve this country well, will you just vote for me then? See I feel like Poker should be legalized in every state online or live, and PLO8 should be the final event in WSOP...

[gobears 0]

Farnan said "and it is annoying to defend an argument you didn't make"This goes exactly to the wiretapping issue. Most folks are saying that of course it is ok to eavesdrop on terrorists and their communcations. However, we have laws on our books. My read is that Bush and Co decided that they didn't want to follow these pesky annoying "laws". From what I've read, FISA approves 99.9999% of all wiretap requests and you can ask for a wiretap approval up to 72 hours after the fact (after you've started the wiretap if you can't wait). There's no backlog of unreviewed requests.So if you don't like the law, then go thru the proper channels to change it - instead, Bush and Co said "let's just ignore it" since we can do anything we want during wartime. By the way, I'd like to hear someone define under what criteria will we able to consider this "war against terrorism" over? I believe that it's a never-ending battle, so does that mean that the President should have wartime powers indefinitely?So instead of trying to argue why the Bush administration couldn't take it upon themselves to go thru the approval process and to follow the law, they argue "oh, you don't want to eavesdrop on terrorists, you're siding with the terrorists".So now that we all agree that eavesdropping is fine and dandy, is there a good reason why Bush didn't follow the law?

[Balloon guy 158]

Are you kidding me? Look at my posts! I most certainly stay on the argument and avoid the ad hominem attacks. If i take a shot at the person, it is usually followed with an argumetn on the facts/logic/etc. Look back at your posts--you make assumptions about liberals and then apply them to every one you "speak" to. That is a common argumentative tactic i've seen lately (from BOTH sides) and it is annoying to defend an argument you didn't make or try to explain that not every person thinks alike.This is another example of a warped sense of "we aren't as bad as they are, so we're good"----can't you understand that if a guy goes out, murders 15 people, chops their heads off and eats the arms and another guy goes out and just murders one person---THEY'RE BOTH MURDERERS!!! It smacks of hypocrisy when we turn a blind eye to something like torture just because the people we're dealing with are horrible people.I already do, without playing poker, and i'm not any more red than the day i was born.

Yea that was kind of weak when I reread your post..Oh well, I'm not really tring to win a debate in a college, I'm just trying to wind people up and have fun doing it. I have no doubt you and could smoke a cigar together, argue this stuff till we're blue and walk away having enjoyed a nice evening. So I will try to give you the respest online that I would show you in person.Jane you ignorant slut...if you had half the time reading a book that you spend on our back you might be able to understand what I'm saying.sorry, you know the reference I'm sure.Didn't mean that because they do worse, we're not bad. But behading is not compared to underwear on head. Nor is sleep depravation and loud John Tesh music the same as firing from a Mosque. And besides I don't accept the premise that we are torturers, or that there was torture. Eveything I've read and heard doesn't even come close to rising to the level of torture. The liberal press has had the luxury of creating the illusions that are troops are doing bad things, and now we are left to defend this. Just as bad as saying Bush lied about the war. Total strawman arguments. First you prove our troops tortured as policy, then I will try to defend their action ( can't under those circumstances), then prove Bush knew there were no WMDs and that he just wanted to go to war, then I will answer that. But until then, I will continue the ad hominum attacks with little or no facts to back them, as is my right as an American. Where's my gun!

Farnan said "and it is annoying to defend an argument you didn't make"This goes exactly to the wiretapping issue. Most folks are saying that of course it is ok to eavesdrop on terrorists and their communcations. However, we have laws on our books. My read is that Bush and Co decided that they didn't want to follow these pesky annoying "laws". From what I've read, FISA approves 99.9999% of all wiretap requests and you can ask for a wiretap approval up to 72 hours after the fact (after you've started the wiretap if you can't wait). There's no backlog of unreviewed requests.So if you don't like the law, then go thru the proper channels to change it - instead, Bush and Co said "let's just ignore it" since we can do anything we want during wartime. By the way, I'd like to hear someone define under what criteria will we able to consider this "war against terrorism" over? I believe that it's a never-ending battle, so does that mean that the President should have wartime powers indefinitely?So instead of trying to argue why the Bush administration couldn't take it upon themselves to go thru the approval process and to follow the law, they argue "oh, you don't want to eavesdrop on terrorists, you're siding with the terrorists".So now that we all agree that eavesdropping is fine and dandy, is there a good reason why Bush didn't follow the law?

GoBears I am not up to speed on the whole legal issue, but unless I'm mistaken, and Farnan will get me if I am, Bush didn't need approval in these instances because of something or other special rights for a war time something or other. Same reason Clinton didn't need to get a judge to okay his spying on foreign coeds. er bad guys.If Bush maintained congressional oversite, then he would have to be a total dunderhead to report what he is doing to congress, then break the law. Even you must admit that nobody is that stupid. So maybe the legal minds that say this is not illegal have a better understanding of the way this was handled than the press is reporting. Especially when 99.9999% of all request are grantd. Odd to think they get full approval, but for some strange reason he flt like breaking a major law, then tell congress about it. Just the logic requires you to give them the benefit of the doubt. And since no special proscecutor has been conveened to investigate, I would bet this is not what you are trying to make it out to be.Last time I checked, Bush and his entire administration have never said that if you don't agree with his methods than you are siding with terrorist, this is another falsehood said to pretend that trying to badmouth the administration is actually patriotic and not political. Boy was the grammer there bad.