home

ACLU Calls for Special Counsel To Investigate NSA Warrantless Surveillance

The ACLU has a full page ad in today's New York Times calling for a special counsel to investigate Bush and the NSA warrantless electronic surveillance. This is an abridged version, minus most of the text, but you can view the full ad here.

In a press release, the ACLU says:

The ACLU said President Bush's actions were a clear violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which was passed by Congress in response to revelations that former President Nixon was using "national security" claims to spy on American citizens he considered his "enemies."

"President Nixon was not above the law and neither is President Bush," said ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero. "President Bush cannot use a claim of seeking to preserve our nation to undermine the rules that serve as our foundation. The Attorney General, who may have been involved with the formulation of this policy, must appoint a special counsel to let justice be served."

< Causey Pleads Guilty in Enron | NSA Gets Caught With Hand in Cookie Jar >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Re: ACLU Calls for Special Counsel To Investigate (none / 0) (#1)
    by Aaron on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 05:34:43 AM EST
    Actually this ad comparing Bush to Nixon is an insult to Richard M. Nixon, and the Nixon family is currently looking into filing a lawsuit for defamation of character.

    Re: ACLU Calls for Special Counsel To Investigate (none / 0) (#2)
    by soccerdad on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 05:41:48 AM EST
    By special counsel do they mean special prosecuter or are they different? If I remember correctly the Court of Appeals in DC appoints the SPs. But who calls on the Court to make the appointment?

    Re: ACLU Calls for Special Counsel To Investigate (none / 0) (#3)
    by Edger on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 05:51:52 AM EST
    Good. Maybe it's finally begun. Let's hope enough GOP Senators and Congressmen have enough sense after all this to realize that they can be both self-serving for the '06 elections, and do the right thing; distance themselves from this sinking ship, and impeach bush/cheney.

    Re: ACLU Calls for Special Counsel To Investigate (none / 0) (#4)
    by Edger on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 06:12:33 AM EST
    Teaching With Documents: Constitutional Issues - Watergate and the Constitution FAQs and Web Resources on the Impeachment Process - American Bar Association

    Re: ACLU Calls for Special Counsel To Investigate (none / 0) (#5)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 06:21:06 AM EST
    Give 'em hell ACLU, the American people are counting on you to preserve this 200-odd year old experiment.

    I like the idea of making lying to the American people grounds for impeachment. We could get rid of a lot of deadwood in DC that way.

    Re: ACLU Calls for Special Counsel To Investigate (none / 0) (#7)
    by Edger on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 07:18:18 AM EST
    Careful what you wish for justpaul,
    Congress passed in its prosecution of Clinton for lying about his affair with Monica Lewinsky. If Bush and Cheney are impeached, it will...be for lying and spying...

    President Nixon resigned office rather than face certain impeachment after a House committee voted for three counts of impeachment (Nixon had lost Congressional support for staying in office). These counts related to the Watergate burglary and obstruction of justice, but a fourth count about Nixon's illegal bombing of Cambodia was not passed. The message: burglary and lying is worse than bombing countries. link



    Re: ACLU Calls for Special Counsel To Investigate (none / 0) (#8)
    by swingvote on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 07:30:39 AM EST
    Edger, There is nothing that says that we have to stop at the President just because the ACLU is on a political crusade. From everything that has been said by the Democrats for the last three years, I would think lying to the people is a very serious matter (I think it is, especially when it's used to justify policy). And the Republicans would seem to agree, at least when it involves perjury and obstruction of justice (I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they are also concerned with general lying). Either way, politicians lying to the public is wrong, and I think it would be grand if we could impeach them for it. I take it you disagree?

    Re: ACLU Calls for Special Counsel To Investigate (none / 0) (#9)
    by ltgesq on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 07:36:37 AM EST
    There are just two problems with this ad campaign. one, by now richard Nixon has been successfully rehabilitated in the eyes of the general republican. Outside of the watergate burglery, no one remembers (or cares about) the vast illegal activities that his administration was engaged in. And, two, does anyone beleive that GWB or Cheney would resign before being impeached from office? Even if he were impeached, would he leave? This man has no respect for the court, no respect for the constitution, and no respect for anyone other than himself. He is a drunken, bratty, spoiled little bastard who has never in his life had to deal with the consequences of his actions. Impeachment? If Bill clinton (and I am no fan of his, believe me) had done one tenth of the things Bush has done, he wouldn't just have been impeached, they would have tried and executed him. I can say with absolute certainty that if there were impeachment proceedings, we would have another terrorist incident in this country -- even if Barbara had to go out and light the fuse herself.

    Re: ACLU Calls for Special Counsel To Investigate (none / 0) (#10)
    by Edger on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 07:42:39 AM EST
    I take it you disagree? Unwarranted assumptions are useless assumptions, justpaul.

    Re: ACLU Calls for Special Counsel To Investigate (none / 0) (#11)
    by swingvote on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 07:46:07 AM EST
    Edger, You need to learn to differentiate between assumptions stated as fact and questions. You can usually do this by looking at the end of the sentence to see if there is a question mark there. Should I take your latest response to be an indication you do not disagree and do feel that lying to the public should be grounds for impeachment of all politicians, or are you going to continue playing the sphinx?

    Re: ACLU Calls for Special Counsel To Investigate (none / 0) (#12)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 08:08:54 AM EST
    Right on JP...I've got no problem with any office holder caught lying to the American people being automatically impeached.

    Re: ACLU Calls for Special Counsel To Investigate (none / 0) (#13)
    by Edger on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 08:46:38 AM EST
    justpaul, Lying is and has usually, if not always, been grounds for impeachment, which is as I think it should be. Unwarranted assumptions are useless assumptions, whether framed as statements or as questions. Sarcasm and attempts at lecturing are also generally not endearing nor helpful.

    Re: ACLU Calls for Special Counsel To Investigate (none / 0) (#14)
    by swingvote on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 09:08:43 AM EST
    Edger, So it's going to be the Sphinx, is it? So be it.

    Why does the ACLU run this ad (actually two slightly different ads) in the New York Times only, and not in my local rag in 75% red country? They are preaching to the choir.

    Re: ACLU Calls for Special Counsel To Investigate (none / 0) (#16)
    by Edger on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 09:15:49 AM EST
    justpaul, Use whatever labels you like, sphinx, ham sandwich, whatever... if labelling fills some sort of need for you. Have a nice day.

    Re: ACLU Calls for Special Counsel To Investigate (none / 0) (#17)
    by soccerdad on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 09:19:11 AM EST
    JP you did read and understand Edger's 9:46 post?

    I agree with Lea p More preaching to the choir. A little more candor- even many dems have soured on the ACLU. Most americans cant see the wisdom of defending Flint and others as a whole. The ad might have made more impact if they had also included Clinton. If we are making this about a lie- he lied to the american public as well. The ad will simply be viewed as partisan.

    Re: ACLU Calls for Special Counsel To Investigate (none / 0) (#19)
    by Dadler on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 09:37:55 AM EST
    Sandy, Are all lies the same? You think Clinton's lies reach anything NEAR Bush's about war, torture, secret prisons, etc.? If so, I suggest you take a critical thinking course. Clinton was a raging disappointment, but his "lies" were about personal matters, his own sexual dysfunction; Bush's lies are about life and death political issues. They don't approach each other in significance. Other things about Clinton and Bush are very similar, but their respectively most famous "lies" are most certainly not.

    Re: ACLU Calls for Special Counsel To Investigate (none / 0) (#20)
    by Dadler on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 09:38:53 AM EST
    That said, tho, I agree that this ad should've appeared in a more diverse group of newspapers. However, we must remember, many of those newspapers would reject running the ad. Especially smaller circulation papers.

    Re: ACLU Calls for Special Counsel To Investigate (none / 0) (#21)
    by Edger on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 09:57:33 AM EST
    Well, it didn't take long for the smear roaches to come out of the woodwork over this. About ten minutes ago a group calling itself StopTheAclu.com said:
    It makes me sick. Groups like the the ACLU and CAIR wanting sensitive, classified information released is as irresponsible a position as I can think of. It would only lead to our enemies obtaining the information, and avoid the trap. Perhaps this is what the ACLU wants.
    I can't find any further information on this group. One rather curious thing I noticed is that they appear to be trying to cover their tracks at least slightly. In the menu on their site the ONLY menu button that DOES NOT WORK is the "About Us" button. Even cutting and pasting the URL from the page source code opens a dead page. Afraid to identify themselves?

    Re: ACLU Calls for Special Counsel To Investigate (none / 0) (#22)
    by soccerdad on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 10:03:32 AM EST
    Edger, where were these people when Bush et al were leaking classified material to justify the war. The aluminum tubes issue was a case in point.

    Re: ACLU Calls for Special Counsel To Investigate (none / 0) (#23)
    by Edger on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 10:10:30 AM EST
    Soccerdad, Duuno - I never heard of them before this morning. But from their site their look like they're geared up and ready to go to work - look like they've been preparing for this for awhile. I'll try to dig a bit on them.

    Dadler - I agree. However- is this ad here to convince us? Of course I like the ad. Big deal. For most, a lie is a lie is a lie. Catholics and Orthodox christians believe there is tiering in sins- not the right wing rapturist. Last- you know any republicans that are excercising logic and critical thinking? Sorry, I dont. It is why Oreilly and others have captivated them. They take everything at face value. The add should address the infringment of our privacy- Better ad- they should do to Bush what they did to Dukakis (spelling?)- show terrorist leaving prison thanks to his illegal procedures. Critical thinking course? I believe we all need a "how republicans think course"- I was raised republican pentacost- My parents will see this ad and simply ask "what about clinton's lie?" So regardless Clinton's vs. Bush's- the lie itself has repercussions that I fear inables this ad from making an impact on anyone outside of democrats.

    Re: ACLU Calls for Special Counsel To Investigate (none / 0) (#25)
    by soccerdad on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 10:28:19 AM EST
    Edger - check this out

    Re: ACLU Calls for Special Counsel To Investigate (none / 0) (#26)
    by Edger on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 10:31:39 AM EST
    StopTheACLU is run by a rabid ACLU hating wingnut named "Jay". I haven't been able to find a last name. Here's his original blog which he now describes as as a backup/crosspost site for Stoptheaclu.com

    Re: ACLU Calls for Special Counsel To Investigate (none / 0) (#27)
    by Edger on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 10:33:51 AM EST
    Soccerdad, Interesting, thanks. Never seen an infestation of just ONE roach, have you? ;-)

    Re: ACLU Calls for Special Counsel To Investigate (none / 0) (#28)
    by Dadler on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 10:41:39 AM EST
    Sandy, Your parents are beyond help if, at this point in their free American existence, they can't tell the difference between the subtle shades of black and white in the world. Do they admit their own failings, or do they simply claim Jesus absolves those they never talk about? I went to the largest evangelical Christian high school in the NATION, trust me, I know the mindset. However, it isn't always up to me to stroke an utter lack of intellect. I can do as much reaching out as possible, but some people, by their own lack of respect for their own free American brains, are not up for reaching out to me. They live isolated, insulated lives, and always expect the world to bend to THEIR prejudices, not the other way around. We agree with each other on many things, and I added a post saying I don't think this ad will make much a difference, but I also noted how many newspapers (in your folks' hometown?) would refuse to run ANY add by the ACLU, unless the ACLU were defending THEM. In short, how Republicans think depends on the Repubs you're talking about. Your parents, I fear, are intellectual extremists, far beyond the reach of rationality. Also, I don't get your Bush/Dukakis plan for what Ad you'd like to see. I'd like anything with genuine imagination and creativity, the things that measure, to a great degree, how much freedom a nation is really taking advantage of.

    Re: ACLU Calls for Special Counsel To Investigate (none / 0) (#29)
    by Sailor on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 10:46:52 AM EST
    Edger, you mean these guys: http://stoptheaclu.com/ = [ 72.22.69.15 ] inexpensivewebs.com 7717 Briar Dr. Prairie Village Kansas 66208 US Domain Name: STOPTHEACLU.COM Administrative Contact: Dale Archdekin darchdekin@kc.rr.com Record updated on 2005-12-13 06: 59: 26 Record created on 2002-12-20 Record expires on 2006-12-20

    Re: ACLU Calls for Special Counsel To Investigate (none / 0) (#30)
    by Edger on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 10:53:23 AM EST
    Looks like one guy involved, Sailor...thanks! There is also this: José Luis Cruz restructured Stop The ACLU gaining 759 shares at a total cost of B$22,453,549.66 using a Caucus (artefact) José Luis Cruz: http://blogshares.com/user.php?id=39054

    Re: ACLU Calls for Special Counsel To Investigate (none / 0) (#31)
    by Edger on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 11:05:54 AM EST
    Sorry, TL - I just realized I cut and pasted a url - please delete it if you like.

    Re: ACLU Calls for Special Counsel To Investigate (none / 0) (#32)
    by BigTex on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 11:26:22 AM EST
    This is a stupid stunt. The House will not impeach over this, so this can't be classified as anything other than a stunt because of the comparison to Nixon. Now, had they gone with a different argument reaching the same call for an investigation it would be a different story. But as it stands now, and likely will stand after November, the House will be solidly GOP, enough so that any repeat of Clinton would not happen. Also, is impeachment good for the country? When Clinton was impeached for obstruction of justice the country had a backlash against the GOP. The work of Congress was brought to a virtual standstill as the investigation and then impeachment hearing went forward, all the while the result was known bneforehand... impeachment, but no conviction. Is this course of action good for the country, or simply political games? It seems to be the latter with the implied call for impeachment. Lastly, sorry for the long post, it would be interesting to see how ACLU would defend a liable lawsuit. The standard is knowing falsehood or a reckless disregard for the truth. Given the considerable debate on if the law was broken, and the legal arguments advanced by the administration that the law was not broken, this smacks of reckless disregard. The administration will likely not go that route, but if ACLU gets it's wish for an investigation, and no wrongdoing is determined it would be very interesting to see how a liable calim fared.

    Dadler We send our regrets to family functions. They had become the "he who yells loudest wins" events. Referring to what Atwater did to Dukakis to discredit him- I think it could be used to discredit Bush. Most of this is from Wikepedia and the net- Young George W. Bush, and Rove worked with LEE Atwater to create the Willie Horton scandal that scuttled Dukakis in 1988. A particularly aggressive media program, including a television advertisement related to the case of Willie Horton, a convicted murderer who subsequently committed a rape while on a furlough from a life sentence in a Massachusetts prison, led to George H. W. Bush overcoming Michael Dukakis's If memory serves me- the commercial showed hardened criminals leaving the prison in a revolving door manner. Implying the Dukakis was not tough on crime or protecting the public. I remember the impact it made- I just think it would jar the memory of people in my parents age group as well. I just think the American Public need be made aware that Bush's not obtaining warrants (warrants that could have been easily obtain within 3 days after the fact) can and will lead to criminals being released. How's that for nationally security. I know- I am reaching.

    Re: ACLU Calls for Special Counsel To Investigate (none / 0) (#34)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 11:38:15 AM EST
    Also, is impeachment good for the country?
    If it can be proven that the NSA spied on American citizens without a warrant, and the White House had knowledge of it...I'd say not only would impeachment be good for the country, it would be absolutely necessary if the Constitution is to be preserved. It may be a political game to the Democratic party, in fact I'd bet it is, but it isn't a game to me. I cherish our rights.

    Sandy.... The ad might have made more impact if they had also included Clinton. Yes, that was my question...why is Clinton's pic not up there? Dadler.... You think Clinton's lies reach anything NEAR Bush's So, it's not the 'lie' you worry about. It's how serious you percieve it to be huh? In affect, your guy's lies are better than my guy's so he should get a pass. Nice spin on the old 'liberal' double standard dude.

    Kdog... I think we'll see that the ACLU (an oganization I 'used' to have the highest respect for) will find that Bush did nothing wrong. (IE - unconstitutional) Many presidents (including FDR & Clinton) have used this option in the past. The fact that someone is an American citizen (let's use John Walker Lynch as an example) doesn't mean that they are beyond reproach. (As far as I'm concerned, Lynch should face a firing squad). Although, I do have to admit it is nice to see the ACLU (now known as the American Communist Liberties Union) concerning themselves with actual 'American' citizens instead of the 'perceived' rights of foreign terrorists & people who are slipping under the fence illegally.

    well at least even Hardball is going to make my point- Push the issue that Bush's action could backfire and set terrorist free. Maybe a similar commericial like the Bush Sr. administration did to dukakis- imposed on Bush isnt all that far reaching.

    Re: ACLU Calls for Special Counsel To Investigate (none / 0) (#38)
    by Patrick on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 01:29:23 PM EST
    I think any investigation into this matter would be very difficult, considering there are certainly going to be real issues surrounding national security which will impeed the investigators. That said, I also believe any investigation which does not 100% agree with the views of many at this site will be be construed as more deceit, regardless of whether it is or not. It seems like a no winner for everyone, although I agree it needs to be sorted out.

    Re: ACLU Calls for Special Counsel To Investigate (none / 0) (#39)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 01:42:01 PM EST
    The fact that someone is an American citizen (let's use John Walker Lynch as an example) doesn't mean that they are beyond reproach.
    Of course they are not beyond reproach BB. But they have a right to counsel, a right to be free from warrantless searches, all the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Are these rights not sacred? Isn't that what we are trying to protect. I'm sure the Iranian president is free to spy on whoever he pleases...I prefer freedom. As I said on another thread..this isn't run-of-the-mill Bush-hating. This is freedom-loving.

    Kdog... Are these rights not sacred? Of course...however...in a time of war, sometimes some of these things have to be suspended for awhile... If I think you are calling your uncle in Bagdad tonight to discuss the latest plans to kill Americans... I need to listen in and not wait the time 'required' to get a warrant. Now, having said that, if I plan on listening to you for a few days, I do need to go out and get it all legal. this isn't run-of-the-mill Bush-hating. This is freedom-loving. I love freedom as much as the next guy...(having been shot at in what my country called at the time "my duty" to up hold it) however, as I have said in previous posts, ...freedom isn't going to mean too much to me if Chicago disappears in a mushroom cloud! I'd much rather 'put out' an individual or two to stop that from happening. The "rights" of several million people far outway those of a few malcontents that have their phones tapped....in my humble opinion.

    Re: ACLU Calls for Special Counsel To Investigate (none / 0) (#41)
    by Slado on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 02:38:24 PM EST
    Impeachment? This ranks up there with Fitzmas as another liberal fantasy that will only find life on the blogosphere. First of all it is debatetable whether Bush even commited a crime. Legal experts with both persuasions have taken both sides of this argument. So before you get to impeachment he has to be guilty of something. Also no one seems to remember Carter & Clinton did the same thing. Strike One Nevermind that 70% of the American people (not a real stat) probably favor the president spying on people receiving calls form known terrorists. For the president to be impeached he'd have to be guilty of something that was not overwhelmingly supported by the American people. Clinton was not official booted out of office because he was still popular. Bush isn't as popular but spying on terrorists is. Strike two. Thirdly the house and senate will be Republican by this time next year. Strike three. Having fantasies is a good thing but believing in them makes you sound kooky. Koo Koo ca choo

    Re: ACLU Calls for Special Counsel To Investigate (none / 0) (#42)
    by Slado on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 02:45:37 PM EST
    Oh my god there is a poll. Looks like spying wins hands down. Rasmussen

    Re: ACLU Calls for Special Counsel To Investigate (none / 0) (#43)
    by Edger on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 02:46:22 PM EST
    makes you sound kooky. Koo Koo ca choo
    Unnh, right...

    Re: ACLU Calls for Special Counsel To Investigate (none / 0) (#44)
    by Dadler on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 03:27:00 PM EST
    BB, Are you completely daft? Lying about murder is one thing, lying about stealing a piece of candy an entirely other matter. Such are degrees of seriousness. Every situation, every lie, is its own matter. In THIS matter, that of BUSH, I think the seriousness of his dishonesty much more worse that Clinton's, for the obvious reason: Bush lied about why he sent people off to war. Now, if you really do think a lie about a personal sexual matter reaches the same level of importance FOR THE COUNTRY, well then, we have nothing to agree on here. Except of course that the earth is round. Right?

    Re: ACLU Calls for Special Counsel To Investigate (none / 0) (#45)
    by Dadler on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 03:32:05 PM EST
    BB, BTW, what was the ACLU doing when you "used" to respect them? They've ALWAYS defended those who were seen as indefensible. That hasn't changed. What about when they defended Nazi's right to march? That was decades ago.

    Re: ACLU Calls for Special Counsel To Investigate (none / 0) (#46)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 03:36:22 PM EST
    BB..The govt. has the power to put a tap in place and get a FISA warrant AFTER THE FACT. The current govt. couldn't even be bothered to do that. Why? My gut tells me some of these taps weren't essential for nat'l security, but something else...something sinister. Hopefully we will eventually find out the truth.

    Re: ACLU Calls for Special Counsel To Investigate (none / 0) (#47)
    by Dadler on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 03:38:12 PM EST
    Slado, Your poll is great, in that it asks a question phrased to get a certain response. The issue, my friend, is do the American people TRUST this administration's judgement in determining WHO is a "terrorist"? Ask that question, and I doubt you'd get a similar response. And since "terrorist" has become the new "communist" for the right, forgive me if I don't share the bogeyman-is-out-there attitude you do.

    Re: ACLU Calls for Special Counsel To Investigate (none / 0) (#48)
    by Sailor on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 04:24:41 PM EST
    Can you say 'push polling'? I thought you could.

    Dadler- Concerning the poll- You are so right- The Question SHOULD have read: Do you think the NSA should be allowed to spy on Americans without a court order? Also Dadler- to put a death to my previous post- this op ed by RJ Eskow on Huffington Post pretty much reflects how I feel.
    "Nothing aggravates bloggers more, it seems, than the notion that the Internet can be an "echo chamber" where the like-minded reinforce each other constantly without influencing the world at large. Nevertheless, I see a lot of truth in the idea. Yes, we know that the Republicans are venal, and corrupt, and un-American, and immoral. Like Jane, I've singled out the so-called "moderates" like John McCain and observed that there is no "moderation" where criminality and unconstitutional behavior are involved."
    I guess that is why I wouldnt really see the harm in including Clinton as a liar- if it caught their attention and we are willing to admit to his faults - to me is more important than repercussions of his lie. Than maybe we can overcome appearing like the McCains of the democrat party. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/thanks-jane-but-im-sta_b_13033.html

    Re: ACLU Calls for Special Counsel To Investigate (none / 0) (#50)
    by Dadler on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 05:42:03 PM EST
    Sandy, And I have no problem with including Clinton, except to the extent it will allow the right to equate the great BJ lie with Bush's get-us-into-another-Vietnam lie. Hell, I wish Clinton would TALK about his woman thing. But I knew he was lost when he decided to consult with clergy about his problem as opposed to therapists. Then again, the clergy he tended to be the African-American raise-the-roof-let's-praise-god type, who, in my fairly decent experience in the south, tend to be much more forthright about the sins of the flesh, including their own. They're not afraid to talk about it, for the most part, as opposed to the more buttoned-up-tight white congregations.

    Re: ACLU Calls for Special Counsel To Investigate (none / 0) (#51)
    by merlallen on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 05:55:30 AM EST
    I swear, these wingnuts share a brain. A drug addled brain.

    Re: ACLU Calls for Special Counsel To Investigate (none / 0) (#52)
    by Edger on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 06:14:24 AM EST
    John-Q-Public Wants Bush Impeached Not scientific, but it's good enough for me by Greg Lloyd Smith WASHINGTON, D.C. (OfficialWire) 12/27/05
    More than 86 per cent of those polled online by MSNBC feel that George W. Bush should be impeached. While it's not scientific, to tell you the truth, it's good enough for me. Let's face it, most of Bush's supporters will have already taken part in the poll, since word of it spread through the Internet's red-zones before it made its way into the blue. The problem for Bush is that many of those so-called supporters will have voted to impeach.


    Dadler... Bush lied about why he sent people off to war. NO...he didn't and you all need to let that go. How many times do you need to see...hear.. whatever... that 90% of the people on the planet (including all your Dem honchos) "knew" that Saddam had WDM's and needed to be stopped! Jesus... get on with your life ..wake up & smell the coffee... stop going over the same tired (and proven false) argument! Now, if you really do think a lie about a personal sexual matter reaches the same level of importance FOR THE COUNTRY, Yes..I do.. it's about character...about the commander in chief... and a lie is a lie. The only difference here is that Clinton is a "proven" liar and Bush is just accused of doing it! BTW, what was the ACLU doing when you "used" to respect them? As I already said... they were defending "Americans" .... and not illegals or foriegn terrorists. Charlie.... Ya mean like your right to bear arms? No...and that right has not & will not be taken away. What orifice did you pull that out of shmendrik? I'll see your John Walker Lind and raise ya a timothy mcveigh and a terry nichols Well guess what shmendrik... both those gents got (will get) what they deserve....and Mr. Lind should be next.

    Re: ACLU Calls for Special Counsel To Investigate (none / 0) (#54)
    by soccerdad on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 08:09:09 AM EST
    BB a second string propagandist at best.

    Soccerdad... Show me where anything I said was false or inaccurate? Happy New Year

    Re: ACLU Calls for Special Counsel To Investigate (none / 0) (#56)
    by soccerdad on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 12:38:40 PM EST
    he didn't and you all need to let that go. How many times do you need to see...hear.. whatever... that 90% of the people on the planet (including all your Dem honchos) "knew" that Saddam had WDM's and needed to be stopped!
    patently false

    Re: ACLU Calls for Special Counsel To Investigate (none / 0) (#57)
    by Slado on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 02:16:42 PM EST
    Soccerdad You're right It's probably more like 85% and the names include Kerry, Clinton, Clinton, Kennedy, Reid etc... But who cares. Let's just make stuff up, believe what we want and impeach the president because we can't beat him when it counts. Sound familiar? The real question is what is Bush guilty of? Other then pissing off liberals? Nothing. The Senate will hold hearings, there will be hypocrasy and hand wringing and then nothing. Just another news cycle that will be spun later by lefties as fact.

    Re: ACLU Calls for Special Counsel To Investigate (none / 0) (#58)
    by Sailor on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 03:29:41 PM EST
    that 90% of the people on the planet (including all your Dem honchos) "knew" that Saddam had WDM's and needed to be stopped!
    Show links to support 90% figure. Not even most of the UN thought he had WMDs, the IAEA didn't think so, Americans, including elected officials, didn't see all the evidence, only what bushco picked. None of them bush, cheney, runsfeld, et al said 'we THINK he has WMDs'. They said 'We know where they are'. (See tikrit, 25 miles, see powell's fotos in the UN of 'mobile weapons labs'; see condiliar w/ aluminum tubes (whuch, BTW, anyone in the uranium enriching biz knew they were unsuitable for that purpose) see bush and 'niger yellowcake' an allegation that was disproved and rejected by US intel services months before bush said it in the SOTU.) And when it was proven a lie they moved the goalposts to 'saddam is a bad, bad man' and 'we need to democratize the ME at the point of a gun, while we steal their oil and set up permanent military bases'. bush lied about not eavesdropping on americans w/o a warrant. There isn't enough bandwidth to discuss all of bush's lies.

    Re: ACLU Calls for Special Counsel To Investigate (none / 0) (#59)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 07:09:59 PM EST
    Well, they got it half right.

    Close only counts in horseshoes, folk dancing, and tossed hadn grenades.