Posted on 01/31/2006 11:18:32 PM PST by smoothsailing
A jaunty and ebullient President Bush, buoyed by the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., arrived at the Capitol last night to deliver his fifth State of the Union address, beaming to the Republican faithful and savoring the day's decisive victory.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
Failibuster..................I LOVE IT!!!
What is trash, and are you kidding?
and now, one word freaks you out?
and the word is sh*t.
I just want to get this straight.
Last message.
I wasn't expecting grand initiatives but was hoping for reaffirmation of his vision.He delivered.He's leading the nation forward with a determined committment to achieve.
I swear I'm no kneejerk Bush bot,but I give credit when and where it's due.We're fortunate as a people that he's the CIC.
Actually, it is CINC.
Fregards...
you accused me of being offensive.
Don't worry about it, I'm not going too.
she is also mercurial. (definition 3)
Norm!!
I completely understand your situation. Bless you.
I concur!
Sure it wasn't chewing tobacco?
No. And I've lived in New York all my life. Rudy's pro gay, pro abortion, and anti Second Amendment [in spades]. His philosophy fits: [a] The 'Rats and [b] the Chafee [RINO] wing of the GOP. Certainly doesn't fit mine.
My reference was to Bill Clinton specifically, but it also applies to Jimmy Carter, both of whom authorized electronic surveillance of US citizens for national security purposes.
You may be opposed to this, but we need to be clear that his predecessors did the same thing. That was the statement that he made last night and that was what Hillary was frowning about.
OK, I'm willing to hear you out; please provide a link. As I understand it, however: The Clinton authorization of warrantless physical searches in the Ames case came in 1993, two years before FISA law required warrants for physical searches. The Clinton authorization WAS compliant with FISA laws governing wiretapping, as I understand it. It may have been wrong, but it did NOT violate the law. If I'm wrong about that, please let me know (I'd love to be wrong about this!).
Let's be clear; I'm not opposed to a reevluation of the laws that govern the WOT or wiretapping, but Bush can't just ignore laws willy-nilly. If the FISA requirements were too strict (and I am skeptical about that), the present probably would have had the necessary support to change them legally. As it is, he is basically claiming now that he can wiretap whomever he wants.
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.