"Bush has asserted that he and his administration are entitled to operate outside the law, that they are doing so, and that they will continue to do so if they feel there is strong enough justification."

Another glaring example of blatant misinformation printed in the N&R.

Bush is using the same law that Jimmy Carter signed into existence and had been used by every President since.

This only became a press issue when the Rove/Wilson/Plame thing along with Cindy Sheehan faded into an obscurity that wasn't even worth printing on page D-10 right next to the wedding announcements.

Allen Johnson, are you going to print a retraction on this one just like you did when you allowed the letter to be printed that read "Condolezea Rice was against the Civil Rights movement?"

Don't hold your breath for a retraction Hugh. You exposed the truth but the mainstream media doesn't want to publish it. This story is being presented as if Bush personally is listening in on your phone conversations and intercepting important information like your grandmas recipe for gingerbread cookies.

Plame didn't stick, Sheehan got too left for even MSM, Delay didn't stick, the term "culture of corruption didn't stick, so this story is the attack du jour.

If an attack did occur the very same people would be crying about lack of intelligence.

What really amazes me is that the Dems and MSM act as if Bush is running for re-election and are desperately trying to find something, anything to nail him. What is really happening is they are wasting precious time coming up with any positive message, plan or agenda for their OWN election, starting in 11 months. '06 is going to be interesting.

"If an attack did occur the very same people would be crying about lack of intelligence."

Dan, spot on! The storyline would read as follows: "Why didn't the President use a 25 year old law that allows surveillance wiretaps on suspected terrorists?"

In case the N&R can't remember what a retraction looks like, here's the one they did for the Condolezza Rice story:

Correction

A Monday letter referred to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's opposition to the civil rights movement. Although she has been criticized for not embracing it strongly enough, Rice has never said she opposed the civil rights movement.

Posted by News & Record at 03:00 AM | Comments (0)

I'm sure they'll preface any retraction with something like this: "Although President Bush has been criticized for using a wiretap law that was passed 25 years ago, It has not been proven he violated it."

You lefties are laughable. I guess you didn't mind your hero, FDR, put 100,000 Japanese-Americans in camps only because they were Japanese. Or how about Bill Clinton listneing in on conversations of Americans, here in America. Oh, I'm glad he did it. It got Aldrich Ames off the streets. A good thing, as he was a spy.

Too bad someone didn't listen to the conversations of the 19 Islamic devils who killed 3000 innocent people, when some or all of those devils were living among us. You people need to revisit the horrors of 9/11. It's a shame that so many of you have the attention span of a 30-second tv commercial!

tony mo

Tonymo, there's a new one brewing for Clinton, a possible investigation, that should grow to the size the media cannot ignore in the near future; That is his unlawful use of the IRS to silence and harrass his political opponents.

Bill Clinton has not been in office for 5 years. What is the fascination with the man? It seems that every time Bush is criticized, the Clinton bashers come out of the wood work. Is your best defense just an offense. I consider him a past president and part of history.

Whatever you choose to believe Clinton did or did not do, Bush and the Republicans have been in control for 5 years. Please give me a list of all the things which are better since 2000.

Carol - so, when a President leaves office, he immediately becomes history, correct? Tell that to your beloved Democratic Party, who last year had Jimmy Carter sitting beside Michael Moore at the DNC Convention. The worst President over the last forty years (which even many Democrats won't argue) gets an honored seat.

Now that you've had five years to reflect, let's see your list of Clinton accomplishments. Or is it all just history to you?

There is one thing since 2000 that is much better for this country, and that is the wonderful fact that we no longer have to tolerate Al Gore. For that alone, I thank George Bush from the bottom of my heart.

Ezekiel, that is kind of lame. What did Al Gore do to you? Still waiting for more of the good things that have happened in the last 5 years.

I personlly like Jimmy Carter, and he, too, is history. I have no problem with him having a seat of honor at the DNC. I wasn't invited, so even if I didn't like him it wouldn't bother me.

During Clinton's terms, we did not send troops to Iraq to slaughter and be slaughtered. We did not have the largest National Debt in history. That's good enough for me. What he did in his personal life should have stayed personal. Guess we can thank the "liberal media" for that becoming such a National issue. He should have done like GWB and just refused to answer. Taking the fifth would have been a good idea.

Carol,

Save your breath, ahem typed words. The Bush-lovers in this country can't see the truth because they don't want to see. Deep down they realize that our country was much better off when Clinton was at the helm, they just can't bring themselves to admit it.

Bush has broken the law with these wiretaps, plain and simple. (look back to supreme court rulings) I f Clinton did the same when he was in office, he should be arrested and jailed for breaking the law, just as Bush should be.

I have a great sticker on the rear window of my car. It simply reads "F&@K BUSH" (sticker on car isn't censored)

That pretty much sums it up. F_BUSH! Criminal.

I seem to recall another President who felt that he, in that office, was above the law. I also recall a Congress that was set to impeach him. That President did the honorable thing and resigned in disgrace. That man, Richard Milhouse Nixon, did what George W. Bush will in all likelihood not be able to do; become a respected elder statesman!

Someone needs to reign in the current administration before we will be censored on these blogs!

Shalom

Now Darryl, you are on to something.

Seems the right wing continues to villify a President whose ONLY infraction was lying about a knob shine. Zealots, Howard Coble among them, went before cameras nightly to denounce the "lying" that President Clinton did. Where are they now while one of their beloved lies about WHY we went into Iraq. To get the WMD, to get the terrorists there so we didn't have to get them here, to get Saddam, and now to build a democracy in the middle east.....PUH-LEASE!! Even right wing conservative Tucker Carlson has admitted Bush is a bad President.

When will a Howard Baker type Republican stand up to the egregious dismantling of constitutional liberties??

Did any of the right wing "wackos" see John Dean, that's JOHN Dean, on television last night. The Nixon White house counsel said "W" has committed terrible crimes and if there were a better congress, he would likely be impeached and removed from office. If it takes a criminal to know one, then there's the proof.
Cheney hijacked the foreign policy from day one as his "lacky" just played front man. Hopefully, it won't be another four years when we get to say "our long national nightmare is over"! IMPEACH BUSH & CHENEY!

This controversy is NOT about listening to conversations of Americans – IT IS about not getting simple permission to do so.

I agree with tonymo, “ … it’s too bad someone didn't listen to the conversations of the 19 Islamic devils who killed 3000 innocent people, when some or all of those devils were living among us … “

Fine … but that was due to a lack of intelligence which was caused by a gutting of intelligence agencies. Blame the purge on Carter or Clinton, and I’ll agree, but perhaps you should also be asking why Bush’s first 9 months were spent giving away the treasury to his buddies and not re-building the CIA.

I agree with Hugh: "Bush is ABusing the ... law that Jimmy Carter signed into existence and had been used [legally] by every President since."

Here’s the deal – There was a law passed in 1978 that allows the “Pres” to do domestic surveillance with the approval of a discreet Federal court. The law was passed in response to the Nixon wiretaps at Watergate. The law was passed because there are times when spying on Americans may be needed, but helping someone get re-elected is not appropriate. In 25 years, 19,000 ish request have been submitted, only 5 have been rejected – that’s as close to a slam dunk as one can get. All that’s required is a little paperwork.

As for “Guilt” – Bush has freaking admitted it: He didn't "violate" the law, he said the law doesn’t apply to him. If you approve of that type of power, then YOU move far-far away, because that’s some other country besides America.

Bush admits to being above the law and you folks immediately get partisan supportive. A little side kitten has Clinton sliding around the definition of the word "is", and you folks get immediate partisan impeachment fever.

I’m not trying to “Nail” the guy – but you folks are Jesus Amazing. You’re not “Moral High-Grounders”, you’re the same opportunistic asses you claim to be repulsed by.

If my assertions are wrong- show me.

Oh, and Carol, you need to look at it this way:

Republican Congress
Republican White House
Republican Supreme Court

How can they point to Clinton, Carter, Johnson, et al, when they control the whole government!!

Why isn't the milk and honey flowing?

They have proven they cannot lead, but can only be effective at lobbing grenades from the back rows. Coble is a lapdog for DeLay and Bush---just remember back to when he wasted so much ink, breath, and government money on a government witch hunt that ended with impeachment for LYING ABOUT SEX! They can jump up and down about lying under oath, but no one's national security was at risk while Clinton lied about a sexual affair. Coble would have you think Clinton had just committed espionage, given away secret launch codes, or destroyed original documents (ie Ollie North). Get over Clinton you right wing wack jobs and get to the point at hand. This President (until his poll numbers sank low enough) has held the least amount of press conferences, keeps his speeches limited to only pre-screened audiences, and refuses to answer the tough questions. He is a pitiful excuse for a chief executive of any organization, much less the United States of America!
Lincoln used to conference with his political enemies before making decisions---this President abhors anyone who has a contrary opinion. Conservative? No one has a monopoly on ideas and this President has not figured that out yet.

Every time a lte of this sort is published,the liberal whineometer goes off the chart.

World traveler,Brian Harper,and Darryl,why not just copy your posts,then when the next anti-Bush lte is published,(probably tomorrow)all you will have to do is paste it. "lying about sex,lap dog for DeLay, yada,yada,yada... same old same old.

Bush is yo'daddy fo'nother 3 yrs. get over it.

Yep Neocon, the whinometer climbs higher & higher to the point where DemonDeacons blood vessels are bursting across his sweaty forehead.

No one answered my original post. Lefties, Dems, libs whatever you want to call them, continue to whine and launch feeble attempts to "nail" Bush, but no one can tell me what POSITIVE message is coming from Dean, Kerry, Hillary, Durbin, Murtha and the Democratic party. NOTHING but whine about a prez who is not running for re-election. Totally devoid of a positive message for the country or any message other than Bush sucks. This attitude does not win elections. '06 is right around the corner.

'Bush is yo'daddy fo'nother 3 yrs.'

Never thought I'd think that patricide is a good idea.

According to Miss America(Nancy Pelosi) the democrats are going to announce in the spring what their message will be. Apparently they admit to not having one as of now other than 'we are not Bush'. I predict that this 'message' will consist of 1)"closing the gap between the haves and have nots" 2) "touting what a terrible place America is" 3)"rolling back the Bush tax cuts that benefit the 'wealthiest' Americans" and 4) hard to say how they will fit 'our children' into the equation,but you can bet that old standard line will be there in some form.

Oh yeah,and they will want to declare defeat in iraq and return our troops home.

Amazing a political party has to announce that they are going to have some meetings and announce what they believe in. I thought that was innate.

They can't sell what they TRULY believe in to the American public. Higher taxes on eeeeeeeviiiill rich people (read anyone making over $50K), abortion on demand for your 13 year old without parental notification, secular humanism in the public square, more social programs, and you are right Neo, cut & run from Iraq. Don't worry, "the children" will be included (Hillary will see to that) and maybe we can get Edwards class warfare message of "Two Americas" back.

Of course this will all have to be neatly packaged and marketed into something more palatible. That's why it takes a few meetings to figure out how to do it.

I have a great idea. When responding, don't label and call people names. Just say "those who support Bush" and "those who don't support Bush". Another good idea is to refrain from writing what you think others are thinking.

I find it difficult to believe that there are many people who can see only good in the Bush administration. Unless you are super-rich, what have they done for you? Please tell me.

I find it difficult to believe that there are those who still think invading Iraq was a great idea. If you really thought they were a threat to us, by now you should know that was not the case. If Bush really thought that, now he knows it was not true. He had admitted he had "faulty intelligence"

Going to war based on the intelligence they used was irresponsible. I think we were going to attack Iraq and just used 911 as an excuse. Many Americans who approved of going to war did so because of fear which the Bush administration created and exploited. Many approved because of hatred and vengence. I base these conclusions on conversations with friends and acquaintances and statements in the comments here.

Why doesn't he say the invasion was wrong? It seems his popularity has improved since he has taken the blame for some issues. How many more people have to die because of his mistake???

While this is getting off topic, let me go a bit further and say that I have always admired Hillary Clinton. I think she is brilliant and spent most of her life working for the good of her fellow man. However, her continued support of the war has made me question her motives. I am a registered Democrat, but I am not a yellow dog. I really look at the person and their record.

I hope and pray that when the 2006 elections arrive that we have some real choices. Let's all forget about political parties and vote as Americans who want what is best for all.

Here's what's wrong with America: The "My Team can kick your Team" attitude.

The Dem's are clearly disorganized.
The Rep's are dangerously organized.

The Dem's can't get their poop together, and are "Totally devoid of a positive message for the country [and] this attitude does not win elections." That all seems very apparent, no arguments.

BUT ... the obvious failing of the Dem's DOES NOT make what ever the Rep's acceptable without challenge.

The needle on my meter just broke.

Carol, Hillary's motives are very clear: win at any cost and say whatever you have to to win. At heart she is a socialist; i.e. Hillary Healthcare & it takes a village to raise a child. She understands she cannot win elections by revealing her true self, so she moves towards the center. Bill did the same thing but he wasn't as far left as Hillary in the first place. This is why she seems in favor of the war, hence you have an apparent Hillary Hawk. If she was out chanting against the war with the likes of Cindy Sheehan she would alienate moderate Dems & Repbubs alike.

The Catch 22 with this approach is she ends up alienating her base and folks like you question her motives. I'll agree with you that Hillary isn't stupid at all, but her motives are very transparent.

DAN: You are whining "no one answered you original post ... " but first there was no question mark to be answered, and second, most of what you said was addressed in my post .. I'll do it again, on the naive hope you are willing to have a dialog vs. a monologue:

==
"Don't hold your breath for a retraction Hugh. You exposed the truth but the mainstream media doesn't want to publish it."

Hugh did not post the truth. It is the ABUSE of the law by B43 & crony's are guilty of. This controversy is NOT about listening to conversations of Americans – IT IS about not getting simple permission to do so.

There was a law passed in 1978 that allows the “Pres” to do domestic surveillance with the approval of a discreet Federal court. The law was passed in response to the Nixon wiretaps at Watergate. The law was passed because there are times when spying on Americans may be needed, but helping someone get re-elected is not appropriate. In 25 years, 19,000 ish request have been submitted, only 5 have been rejected – All that’s required is a little paperwork.

===
"If an attack did occur the very same people would be crying about lack of intelligence."

.... due to a lack of intelligence which was caused by a gutting of intelligence agencies. Blame the purge on Carter or Clinton, and I’ll agree, but perhaps you should also be asking why Bush’s first 9 months were spent giving away the treasury to his buddies and not re-building the CIA.

==
"What really amazes me is that the Dems and MSM act as if Bush is running for re-election and are desperately trying to find something, anything to nail him."

I’m not trying to “Nail” the guy – but you folks are Jesus Amazing. You’re not “Moral High-Grounders”, you’re the same opportunistic asses you claim to be repulsed by.

Bush has stated he didn't "violate" any law because the law doesn’t apply to him. Bull $#!+.

If you approve of that type of power, then shame on you and Hannity and all those partisan asses that are suckering you in. I'm pissed at this lack of understanding over what the country was built around - YOU move far-far away, because that’s some other country besides America.

I can't even type any more - I'm so upset at the ignorance

Dan, I don't consider healthcare socialist. I consider it taking care of our citizens. Hillary's healthcare plan was shot down because of the huge healthcare lobby. No matter the cost of healthcare for all, it would not be a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of the war in Iraq. I, too, pay a huge amount of taxes since I am not rich. I want my money spent wisely and for the benefit of the American public, not Haliburton and the oil companies.

I, too, think it takes a village to raise a child. I was blessed with a huge extended family and caring neighbors and a church family. The area I grew up in was so small that everyone knew everyone. If I didn't behave, I had many people watching out for me. The children who don't have parents who care for them need someone to look out for them and see that they don't get lost in the shuffle.

I agree that politicians ALL take the stand that will get them elected. I think Hillary's "true self" is good. As you say, her failure to show this alienates many of her supporters.

Don't you think the Bush administration's motives are transparent also? War profiteering and dividing the American people seems to be the motive to me.

"Bush is yo'daddy fo'nother 3 yrs."

lol, no. no he's not.

You bush supporters amuse me. Go ahead and worship your messiah.

Fu@k Bush!

Carol, I do not consider healthcare socialist, only government run healthcare. Govt. run healthcare would not be a drop in the bucket, just look at what it will cost to provide just drugs to senior citizens alone!! Govt. has no business in healthcare other than oversight of the quality of it. Anytime govt. tries to do something the private sector does, the quality decreases and the costs go up. Witness wealthy foreigners who come here from Europe & Canada because our healthcare quality is the best in the world.

As for the village to raise a child, I agree with your explanation of a village. Family, friends, neighbors, and church play a vital role. Hillarys idea of the village IMO is the govt. raising a child. We already know from welfare that govt. doesn't do a good job raising children to become self sufficient adults.

Carol, if Hillary revealed her true self she knows that would be a death sentence for her nomination. I find it ironic that while trying to appeal to moderates she is alienating her base. To see the Cindy Sheehan kooks out protesting Hillary's support for the war was sweet justice & rather hilarious.

As for Bush war profiteering, are you so jaded that you think like Ted Kennedy, ie. Bush concocted this war in Texas to help out Halliburton et al?