[inquest]

So you disagree with the statement that "Terrorism could be effectively fought within the laws of the land." Does this mean now that you're admitting that the President broke the law, or are you going to accuse me once again of making up facts simply because I'm following your lead?

[NewLand]

"Terrorism could be effectively fought within the laws of the land."

It is. No laws have been broken. Get over it and be thankful that someone is saving your sorry a--!

Who cares if he followed FISA or not. You keep putting strawman arguements out there to try and "trap" someone.

Please take your fishing expedition elsewhere.

[FairOpinion]

You are not following anyone's "lead" you sound like a broken record, constantly find an excuse to keep saying that President Bush broke the law, but you have NO EVIDENCE, because he did NOT break the law.

The point I was making, very obviously, that in the pre-9-11 world they were treating terrorism as a law enforcement issue, punishing the guilty, IF and when we catch, them, AFTER the committed their crime. AFTER 9-11 it became clear to most people, that the stakes are so high, that waiting until AFTER the terrorist act was committed is TOO LATE, several thousand lives and now potentially several hundred thousand lives too late. That's why the President asked for and got the Patriot Act.

The president's duty is to protect our lives and the country. You are interested in protecting the terrorists and bringing down President Bush.