News Which U.S. President's Lie Carries More Implications?

[Astronuc]

Are you kidding? Why do you think they passed the FISA and the FOIA? The US government has a legacy of 'cabals', secrecy, and spying on it's citizens. You're right that those wars did not bring about such practices but they didn't need to, they were already common place.

Nixon had the FBI spying on people domestically. I don't believe previous presidents used the NSA to spy domestically - but who knows?

Interestingly, the Republicans are employing push/pull polling in Maurice Hinchey's (Dem - NY) district. Apparently they are given false or misleading information in order to dissuade voters to vote for Hinchey and encourage voting for the Republican challenger. Hinchey has been pushing for impeachment of Bush with the basis that Bush and various officials from the administration lied (and deliberately so) to Congress.

Hinchey Statement On Revelation That President Bush Authorized Leak Of Classified Information To Bolster Administration's Public Case For War
http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/ny22_hinchey/morenews/040606bushleakauthorization.html

The heart and motive of this case is about the deliberate attempt at the highest levels of this administration to discredit those who were publicly revealing that the White House lied about its uranium claims leading up to the war. The Bush Administration knew that Iraq had not sought uranium from Africa for a nuclear weapon, yet they went around telling the Congress, the country, and the world just the opposite.

- Hinchey

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Nixon had the FBI spying on people domestically. I don't believe previous presidents used the NSA to spy domestically - but who knows?

He had HUAC and COINTELPRO. No reason to go for the NSA. Considering that the NSA has since developed the most advanced and useful technology for passive spying on anyone it's pretty obvious why Bush has gone to the NSA as opposed to the FBI. In Nixon's time I'm sure that the FBI had the best to offer.

 

[edward]

Are you kidding? Why do you think they passed the FISA and the FOIA? The US government has a legacy of 'cabals', secrecy, and spying on it's citizens. You're right that those wars did not bring about such practices but they didn't need to, they were already common place.

You are correct to an extent, but nothing in the past even remotely approaches the levels of the secrecy and spying of the Bush Administration. As for the examples given of past presidents "spying on Americans", for the most part they got caught.

Bush doesn't have to worry about getting caught. If anything substantial comes to light He can simply say that everything was approved by (his boy) the U.S Attorney general.

We can't assume that FISA and FOIA are working to protect the American people? Bush has totally sidestepped them.

 

[Astronuc]

Articles of Impeachment Against George W. Bush

I heard one of the authors, David Kipen of CCR, discuss the book. He makes some compelling arguments for impeachment.

http://mhpbooks.com/aoi.html

The Center for Constitutional Rights new book, Articles of Impeachment Against George W. Bush, makes the case for impeaching President Bush.

http://www.democracyinaction.org/dia/organizationsORG/ccr/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=2702

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1933633085/?tag=pfamazon01-20

 

[SOS2008]

He had HUAC and COINTELPRO. No reason to go for the NSA. Considering that the NSA has since developed the most advanced and useful technology for passive spying on anyone it's pretty obvious why Bush has gone to the NSA as opposed to the FBI. In Nixon's time I'm sure that the FBI had the best to offer.

Bush has surpassed Nixon:

Just the other day, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales told the House Judiciary Committee that the names of the lawyers who reviewed Mr. Bush's warrantless wiretapping program were a state secret.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/16/o...585bf27c6&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

Puleeeze!

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

You are correct to an extent, but nothing in the past even remotely approaches the levels of the secrecy and spying of the Bush Administration. As for the examples given of past presidents "spying on Americans", for the most part they got caught.

Got caught? HUAC and COINTELPRO among others were fully legal and sanctioned organizations with the purpose of spying on, investigating, and sabotaging people that were involved in "Unamerican Activities" that existed for decades. What does getting caught have to do with the normal 'legal' operating procedures of the US government?

 

[McGyver]

Many of you have included some great contributions to my Question and Discussion. But, I was wanting to compare President Clinton's conduct to President Bush's. These comparisons are more relevant as they took place in our current political era. The 1960's and 1970's were periods that held unique political dynamics - different from today.

The party who can better answer my Clinton v. Bush comparison Question will likely do better in Fall '06 and Fall '08. These two Presidencies will define the Democrat and Republican parties, respectively, for at least the next two elected Presidents.

 

[franznietzsche]

The party who can better answer my Clinton v. Bush comparison Question will likely do better in Fall '06 and Fall '08. These two Presidencies will define the Democrat and Republican parties, respectively, for at least the next two elected Presidents.

I think you couldn't be more wrong. Clinton is completely irrelevant to the current democratic party. Everything I see from them, especially since their fairly complete defeat in '04 (entirely due to their own stupidity), is uncontrolled anger. They have become the party of hate. Rationality and logic are gone. Centrism and compromise are gone.

For example, take the fools who want bush and cheney thrown out agnew/nixon style. That would make Dennis Hastert president, not something you should be dancing and cheering about. And you certainly don't want Bush thrown out if Cheney isn't.

That said, I'm terrified of Bush. I would want him gone, except the alternatives don't get better down the line. No, we're stuck with him for now, since we lack a good ol' recall election at the national level (I bet you bitter California democrats are wishing we had one now that it would help you, eh?). And to be honest, I don't trust the democratic party any more than I trust the republicans. Especially not when all I see from them (including the members of this forum) is vitriol and bias, not reason and logic.

 

[McGyver]

I think you couldn't be more wrong. Clinton is completely irrelevant to the current democratic party.

Clinton and Bush remain to respective standards to emulate. Period. Gore SHOULD have beaten Bush in 2000, but he FAILED to capitalize on the Clinton/Gore 8 years due to Clinton's sex issues. Democrat candidates who can emulate Clinton's (centrist appearing) domestic focused campaign and initiatives (he did promote NAFTA) will win. Hillary is NOT electable due to her failed marriage during her husbands tenure, not to mention she snubs people.

Bush, albeit a failed Presidency, is the Republican ideolog - carrying the religious right, big business, and moderates narrowly. If he and Cheney weren't so hawkiish, reckless, and arrogant - they'd be at a 60%+ approval, and Iraq would be different too.

No candidate on either side has yet to emerge over the last 6 years and capture their party's majority more than Bush and Clinton. In these regards, they remain the idealogies to beat in '06 and '08.

 

[franznietzsche]

Clinton and Bush remain to respective standards to emulate. Period. Gore SHOULD have beaten Bush in 2000, but he FAILED to capitalize on the Clinton/Gore 8 years due to Clinton's sex issues. Democrat candidates who can emulate Clinton's (centrist appearing) domestic focused campaign and initiatives (he did promote NAFTA) will win. Hillary is NOT electable due to her failed marriage during her husbands tenure, not to mention she snubs people.

Bush, albeit a failed Presidency, is the Republican ideolog - carrying the religious right, big business, and moderates narrowly. If he and Cheney weren't so hawkiish, reckless, and arrogant - they'd be at a 60%+ approval, and Iraq would be different too.

No candidate on either side has yet to emerge over the last 6 years and capture their party's majority more than Bush and Clinton. In these regards, they remain the idealogies to beat in '06 and '08.

Again, i think you are wrong. The republicans will hold to the 'Bush Standard' only because the only people left to run for president in '08 on the republican ticket are the congressmen that helped define that standard, barring a strong democratic victory in Nov. that I'm not sure will happen. But the democrats? No, I don't see centrism winning out in the Democratic principle. Trying to be centrist and putting up Kerry over Dean didn't help any. I think we'll see stronger extremism from them in the face of continued republican control of both the Senate and the House.