Posted on 01/05/2006 7:54:55 AM PST by SmithL
THE LEFT -- from The Nation's Katrina vanden Heuvel to Newsweek's Jonathan Alter -- has pulled out the impeachment card and is brandishing it as the weapon that will drive President Bush from the White House. This could be more than talk. Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., is consulting with legal eagles as she explores the idea.
I must say, I am tickled by their efforts. I supported impeaching the perjury-prone President Clinton, but preferred censure to removing him from office. I also saw the damage to Republicans who pushed to chase Clinton out of office.
But the Bush-haters won't heed history, not when they see an opportunity to relive the glory days of Watergate: Republicans evil; Democrats uncorrupted; reporters respected. As Alter wrote after the story broke that President Bush authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on international phone calls in efforts to uncover possible agents of al Qaeda, "Similar abuse of power was part of the impeachment charge brought against Richard Nixon in 1974."
Angry leftists are so hysterical that they cannot distinguish between government agents eavesdropping on a president's political enemies, and the data mining of international phone calls in an earnest effort to thwart another Sept. 11 terrorist attack. They don't see that Bush, rather then trying to hide his role in the effort, signed off on the program more than 30 times.
Warrantless wiretaps? Victoria Toensing, a former deputy assistant attorney general in the Reagan administration, called CNN recently to note that the Clinton administration authorized the warrantless search of the house of CIA employee Aldrich Ames.
But the Dems didn't talk of impeachment then.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Saunders respects Turley? You have to be kidding me? Guy is a total liberal hack.
ya might want to correct the spelling of the title. LOL
As a practical matter, though, the answer is yes -- as any soldier in Iraq or Afghanistan can tell you. I respect Turley, but in the real world, it makes sense to monitor international communications to prevent another attack -- in America or against Americans abroad.
That's really what this all comes down to, isn't it? The Dems don't think this is a real war. And a lot of the folks howling about Bush and Iraq and the NSA had no problem with Clinton attacking the Serbs over Kosovo.
It comes down to what do you see the role of the executive and the military in this country - to intervene in numanitarian matters? Or protect our national security. The left apparently thinks that pursuing national security and national interests are wrong.
As a practical matter, though, the answer is yes -- as any soldier in Iraq or Afghanistan can tell you. I respect Turley, but in the real world, it makes sense to monitor international communications to prevent another attack -- in America or against Americans abroad.
Instead, Washington delivers lowball partisan politics. Too many Democrats support Bush when polls support Bush -- the war, the Patriot Act -- then turn on his policies when they think they can get away with it. They don't think about the impact on U.S. soldiers on foreign soil.
This whole NSA story reinforces the fact that Bush is willing to be unpopular, even risk the White House, to get the job done, while too many of his Democratic critics will walk over anyone to stand up for their lack of principles.
It's a beautiful, imaginary world Mr. Turley lives in.
It's a matter of selling the power to control who gets to make money. The leftists are shilling for their claque of globalist investors, Soros in particular, in return for campaign money so that they'll have more favors to sell.
Who said Democrats weren't pro-business? /s
Your tag line says it all...
F the democrats and their "agenda" to oust President Bush. I'd like to see them try...as all attempts thus far have failed. Nya ha ha and nanny nanny boo boo.
You are right...we need to change it to "Orifices of Impeachment" after the a-holes that are attempting this stunt.
traitors
These liberals need to get some porn to get their kicks. It will make them look a lot less silly.
Irony is lost on some people.
An examination of liberal response to previous episodes -- e.g., Kosovo, Bosnia, Somalia, Gulf War, Grenada -- establishes a clear pattern.
The left has given its unquestioning support for military actions possessing both of two distinct characteristics: those that are a.)totally divorced from our national interest and b.) when they are sponsored by a Democrat president.
On the other hand, the left has generally been importantly-to-unanimously against any military action which a.) is clearly within our national interest, even national security and b.) has been undertaken by a Republican president.
Accordingly, I would posit that, should a President Hillary choose to launch a nuclear attack on Gabon (or invade Canada), the left would form a card section and lead the cheers.
"Saunders respects Turley? You have to be kidding me? Guy is a total liberal hack."
Upon what reference work do you base that conclusion?
IMO, what it boils down to is that the deconstructionists know that they could well be down to their last nail and the coffin's O2 supply is dwindling.
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.