Thread: On this date-Bush spying

The NYT reveled on this date in history that the Bush administration has been spying on some US citizens foreign calls without obtaining the warrants that US law requires. If the president wanted to do this the legal way, he could have used the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which rarely turns down such requests and can grant them in hours in emergencies. Yet, President Bush, thinking he's King and not president, doesn't think that the law is something that he has to obey, it's just for the rest of us.

While the president was doing this unlawful activity he was also making speeches. How about this one he gave before today's news leaked out: "any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires - a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution". Thanks for the lies Mr. President! We love it when you treat us like fools!

Consider the following if you agree with President Bush on this issue. In giving himself this power, in this manner, just on his own say so, President Bush is also providing a basis for giving these powers to future presidents on their own say so. Pick someone that you do not really trust, say a Hillary Clinton or Dick Cheney depending upon your persuasion, or worse, an individual with desires leaning towards the dictatorial. President Bush’s expansion of presidential powers gives future presidents the same unsupervised surveillance rights that President Bush has taken for himself.

Today's entry excerpted from the 2007 Calendar: Poor George's Alamanac ( http://www.poorGeorgesAlmanac.com )

too bad they didnt have the same story when Clinton was doing the exact same thing.

partisan hacks.

If that is true, it is too bad. Though I am sure if someone leaked that to the NY Times they would have run it, just as tehy did about Bush.

Originally Posted by blueButGlad

If that is true, it is too bad. Though I am sure if someone leaked that to the NY Times they would have run it, just as tehy did about Bush.

Are you kidding! LOL. Of course they do not run stories about Clintons listening in on phone conversations. They have an agenda at the NYT. Did you know that Clinton pardoned many criminals (especially those that contributed to his campaigns). Did you hear a big todo in the media about this? Just a few peeps and then off the radar. Because he is a Democrat. Read Below from Wikipedia:

Clinton issued 140 pardons on his last day of office (January 20, 2001).[10] It is common practice for Presidents to grant a number of pardons shortly before leaving office, but Clinton's last day list was more numerous than those of previous presidents and some find his pardons more controversial. Pardons of particular note include:

• Carlos A. Vignali had his sentence for cocaine trafficking commuted, after serving 6 of 15 years in federal prison.
• Almon Glenn Braswell was pardoned of his mail fraud and perjury convictions, even while a federal investigation was underway regarding additional money laundering and tax evasion charges.[11] Braswell and Carlos Vignali each paid approximately $200,000 to Hillary Clinton's brother, Hugh Rodham, to represent their respective cases for clemency. Hugh Rodham returned the payments after they were disclosed to the public. Braswell would later invoke the Fifth Amendment at a Senate Committee hearing in 2001, when questioned about allegations of his having systematically defrauded senior citizens of millions of dollars.[12]
• Marc Rich, a fugitive, was pardoned of tax evasion, after clemency pleas from Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak, among many other international luminaries. Denise Rich, Marc's former wife, was a close friend of the Clintons and had made substantial donations to both Clinton's library and Hillary's Senate campaign. Several months after her last donation, emails reveal Republican attorney "Scooter" Libby asked her to approach Clinton about pardoning Marc Rich. Clinton agreed to a pardon that required Marc Rich to pay a $100,000,000 fine before he could return to the United States. According to Paul Volcker's independent investigation of Iraqi Oil-for-Food kickback schemes, Marc Rich was a middleman for several suspect Iraqi oil deals involving over 4 million barrels of oil.[13]
• Susan McDougal, who had already completed her sentence, was pardoned for her role in the Whitewater scandal; McDougal had served 18 months on contempt charges for refusing to testify about Clinton's role.
• Roger Clinton, the president's half-brother, on drug charges. Roger Clinton would be charged with drunk driving and disorderly conduct in an unrelated incident within a year of the pardon.[14] He was also briefly alleged to have been utilized in lobbying for the Braswell pardon, among others.

Clinton also at mid night of his last day in office made drastic changes to the EPA requirements for safe water. He changed the % of chemicals that were allowed in drinking water to deam it safe. He did this so Bush when he came to office would have to change it back. This then was reported in the NYT and other papers as: George Bush changes the standards of drinking water making it less safe to drink". They never mentioned Bill Clintons trick.

Or how about this for your hero Bill Clinton (Wikipedia)?:


Edgar and Vonna Jo Gregory pardons

In March 2000, Bill Clinton pardoned Edgar and Vonna Jo Gregory, owners of the carnival company United Shows International, for charges of bank fraud from a 1982 conviction (the couple were already out of jail, but the prior conviction prevented them from doing business transactions in certain states). First Lady Hillary Clinton's youngest brother, Tony Rodham, was an acquaintance of the Gregorys, and had lobbied Clinton on their behalf.[8] In October 2006, the group Judicial Watch filed a request with the U.S. Justice Department for an investigation, alleging that Rodham had received $107,000 from the Gregorys for the pardons, in the form of loans that were never repaid, as part of a quid pro quo scheme.[9]

Or how about this? The media darling! Never heard much about this did you? Why? Because the media is biased that's why!:

FALN Pardons of 1999


On August 11, 1999, Clinton commuted the sentences of 16 members of FALN, a violent Puerto Rican nationalist group that set off 120 bombs in the United States usually in New York City and Chicago, convicted for conspiracies to commit robbery, bomb-making, and sedition, as well as for firearms and explosives violations.[2] None of the 16 were convicted of bombings or any crime which injured another person, and all of the 16 had served 19 years or longer in prison, which was a longer sentence than such crimes typically received, according to the White House. Clinton offered clemency, on condition that the prisoners renounce violence, at the appeal of 10 Nobel Peace Prize laureates, President Jimmy Carter, the cardinal of New York, and the archbishop of Puerto Rico. The commutation was opposed by U.S. Attorney's Office, the FBI, and the Federal Bureau of Prisons and criticized by many including former victims of FALN terrorist activities, the Fraternal Order of Police,[3] members of Congress, and Hillary Clinton in her campaign for Senator. [4] Congress condemned the action, with a vote of 95-2 in the Senate and 311-41 in the House. [5] [6] The U.S. House Committee on Government Reform held an investigation on the matter, but the Justice Department prevented FBI officials from testifying.[7] President Clinton cited executive privilege for his refusal to turn over some documents to Congress related to his decision to offer clemency to members of the FALN terrorist group.

I think the liberals on this thread are afraid to address these points. Because it proves my point. There is a huge media bias towards the Democrats. They can do no wrong.

"did you know that Clinton pardoned many criminals (especially those that contributed to his campaigns). Did you hear a big todo in the media about this? Just a few peeps and then off the radar.Read Below from Wikipedia"

Well, yes I did hear about the big pardon controversy. It was big news (unlike your contention that it wasn't, maybe u were away then) , but like all news it fades. How many now remember Bush's fathers controversial pardons? Unlike the 'few peeps' you say it garnished, your OWN SOURCE, Wikepedia, says Clinton was "widely criticized" (and he was, with justification I believe). Wikepedia says the affair "has sometimes been called Pardongate in the press". Sounds like more than 'a few peeps' to me.

It will be a happy day when Bush leaves office but I bet he will pardon Scooter Libby from his involvement in the Plame affair (you remember, the betrayal of a CIA employee to the press). Talk about your disgraceful pardons, but maybe by some miracle he will not pardon him. I would not bet against it however.

As to the "huge media bias towards the Democrats", (like how they never reported about Clinton and Monica, for example?) which candidate Gore or Bush had the most editorial endorsments by that biased media in 2000? It was none other than Mr. Bush. Now you could blame 'media bias' for this trend not holding true in 2004, but hell, even Bush's hometown newspaper turned agains him for re-election. I think it was his abysmal performance that changed things in 2004.

And as for the media hiding facts, what about the current Bush giving a pardon to some drug dealer a couple years back. How much about that did you hear?

As for your EPA claim, maybe he did it to make Bush's life harder (like the outgoing GOP congress is now doing for the incoming dems, as has been reported) but it seems to me that if that were the plan he could have done many changes along the same vein, for even greater effect. One change does not sound like the sinister plot you make it out to be.

Frank (Political Hotwire)

Originally Posted by blueButGlad

"did you know that Clinton pardoned many criminals (especially those that contributed to his campaigns). Did you hear a big todo in the media about this? Just a few peeps and then off the radar.Read Below from Wikipedia"

Well, yes I did hear about the big pardon controversy. It was big news (unlike your contention that it wasn't, maybe u were away then) , but like all news it fades. How many now remember Bush's fathers controversial pardons? Unlike the 'few peeps' you say it garnished, your OWN SOURCE, Wikepedia, says Clinton was "widely criticized" (and he was, with justification I believe). Wikepedia says the affair "has sometimes been called Pardongate in the press". Sounds like more than 'a few peeps' to me.

.....)

It is interesting to me. The media reports things it MUST about Democrats but those things always die very quickly. But if it is a Republican! It is all pumped and pumped over and over. As far as the impeachment of Clinton goes, yes they flogged that horse but it cried for flogging. He lied under oath and obstructed justice. Big charges. But if it was a Republican!! Like say Nixon. He would be drummed out of office. Where is the shame for Clinton? Clinton is charged with tampering with witnesses and obstructing justice. Crimmeny! He should have done jail time for that. But instead he is doing book tours. This is all courtesy of the media. Yes I am suggesting that the Lewinski afair was down played.