Bush takes one more step toward outright fascism.

Yea there is that but unless you were not paying attention you would realize that this is less about the wire taps and more about the president's actions concerning transparency and allowing the checks and balances built into the government work as they were designed.He blatantly does not want a democracy. He wants an authoritarian regime with himself as the head.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

the sky is falling too.....take some time to read up on Woodrow Wilson's presidency. We probably came as close to a police state as we have thus far under his presidency. None of this is anything new.Bush doesn't want to be dictator. Does he respect Congressional oversight to the extent of the Constitution?Nah, but Congress doesn't respect the Constitution either. If it did, we wouldn't have a whole bunch of federal programs.

Oh, for Christ's sake. I'm conversationally using "Clinton" as shorthand for "the Clinton White House," and you know it.Edited by Dan Carroll, : No reason given.

---

"We had survived to turn on the History Channel
And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied:
You're what happens when two substances collide
And by all accounts you really should have died."
-Andrew Bird

All you are saying boils down to that we shouldn't care because others have screwed up in the past. It is a depressing degree of complacency. But then again I suppose it is to be expected if the rapture is any minute now.I am more curious to see if you or any others who may still agree with Bush are willing to discuss the issue in the OP that resides in the real world. Forget the diversions. What Bush is doing is anti-democratic. He has failed in his oath to the people to uphold the Constitution. The actions of past presidents or congress does not change that simply fact.How anyone could still support this man is a wonder to me.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

How many signing statements, rand?

This is not a very accurate reading of history. Yes there were many excesses, most notably the "Palmer Raids". But there was not the comprehensive use of government agencies to collect data and spy on ordinary citizens. There is plenty that is new. We have agencies with legal, organizational and technical intelligence capabilities, including Homeland Security, the FBI, the NSA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the CIA, that didn't exist in 1918. Anything available to Palmer seems pathetic by comparison. Also different is the level of direct White House involvement today. Even the Attorney General has taken orders directly from Bush to deny security clearances to investigators, thus preventing an investigation of possible executive excesses. That is new. The only thing approaching it in scope came not in the Wilson administration, but when Nixon ordered his AG Elliot Richardson to fire Archibald Cox, the Watergate Special Prosecutor. Wilson was a piker compared to Bush when it comes to executive meddling in the privacy of ordinary citizens.

deerbrah, has Bush rounded up and imprisoned thousands of Americans like Palmer did, without valid warrants, etc,...?I suspect a few hundred may actually have been detained and imprisoned in this manner, but so many as under Wilson. Plus, Iraq is much smaller than our grand intrustion into Europe, and don't forget that he also took us into Mexico to "teach them to elect good people", and landed troops in Russia.Now, the technology has changed, but you fail to realize that Bush has authorized nothing new essentially. These spy agencies have been spying on Americans for decades, and Bush didn't install Echelon and Carnivore. That was established prior to his taking office. So all of this spying has been on-going regardless of who was in office, and that means under Clinton and Carter as well.Bush may be seeking more direct presidential access and use, or maybe he is just being shown as many presidents have been shown before, that presidents are expendable and the intelligence services (from their perspective) are not.

Dan, same thing holds true. The AG's client is suppossed to be the American people. His, or in this case her, job is not to be some sort of conciellerge (sp?) for the White House gang.

I have no idea what a "conciellerge" is, so I couldn't say if the Attorney General is supposed to be one or not. But I can tell you that the Attorney General's job duties include taking legal action on behalf of the White House, or even defending it in court if the need arises.Of course, you're still deflecting. If you have a specific case in which Clinton has misused the Attorney General, and made the position into his "conciellerge," please feel free tell us about it. But if you're just tossing out vague accusations of wrongdoing, then you don't seem to have much of a point. Especially when stacked up against the concrete examples of Bush-wrongdoing in this thread.(Speaking of which, if you do choose to tell us about something specific, it should probably be in a new thread. Jazzns is right, you're doging the subject of Bush, which is the subject of this thread.)Edited by Dan Carroll, : No reason given.

---

"We had survived to turn on the History Channel
And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied:
You're what happens when two substances collide
And by all accounts you really should have died."
-Andrew Bird

Dan, the AG is not suppossed to be the White House's personal defense lawyer. They are the prosecutors for heavens sake. They are suppossed to prosecute crimes committed by the White House, not act as a defendant's lawyer for them.

1) Read up.No, the Attorney General is not the White House's personal defense lawyer. They have many more duties than that. But they also, as I said earlier, take legal action on behalf of the White House, and when necessary, argue its defense in court.2) I still don't see a specific example of Clinton's misuse.3) You're still deflecting the main subject of the thread.

---

"We had survived to turn on the History Channel
And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied:
You're what happens when two substances collide
And by all accounts you really should have died."
-Andrew Bird

So the AG defends the White House of criminal charges, eh?And who might be the prosecutor then? The AG's office is the one officially responsible for prosecuting federal crimes, including those committed by the president, his staff or the vice president. Reno refused to appoint an independent prosecutor and so her office acted as the investigating prosecutor in the case.The fact she acted as their the defense attorney, as you rightly point out that she acted in that capacity, proves my point entirely.

Unless I am mistaken, the OP is about Bush, not Clinton. It seems quite off topic to be pursuing an extended discussion back and forth about Clinton and his AG. Am I wrong?

I'm sorry, are you talking about a case in which criminal charges were brought against the White House? Or any kind of case in which it actually went to court? Your accusations are so vague, I can't tell. That depends entirely on who's bringing the suit. Since you have completely failed to provide a specific example, it's impossible to say. Actually, I'm pointing out that when necessary, the Attorney General can do so. That's not Clinton's policy, that's US law. But since you've thus far been unable to even tell us what case you're talking about, I can't tell you whether or not it happened in that case.But heck, I'm a sport. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that whatever the hell case you may or may not be talking about actually happened. We'll assume that there are all sorts of facts and specifics that, for one reason or another, just can not be listed on this forum, let alone on a new, appropriate thread. And we'll assume that if we could list them, those facts tell us that Clinton abused his power horribly by having the Attorney General fulfill her duties.He's such a bad man.Glad we got that sorted out. Now, remember Bush? The topic of the thread? Got anything to say about that?

---

"We had survived to turn on the History Channel
And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied:
You're what happens when two substances collide
And by all accounts you really should have died."
-Andrew Bird

There was considerable evidence of criminal wrongdoing by the White House. Reno refused to appoint an independent prosecutor, and did wind up prosecuting a few minor players, such as Maria Hsia and others, but let all the bigwigs off the hook despite having videotaped evidence of Gore and Clinton directly being involved in the acts she allowed some smaller prosecutions of bit players in the process.She denied Congress the right to access this information and denied their requests she enforce Congressional subpoenas, all based on arguing the cases were in grand jury, where she kept them for a long time. She stonewalled all proper investigations into blatant bribe-taking by the DNC and White House. What she and the WH did was for worse and blatant than anything Bush is accused of, except the conspiracy allegations of 911 which may or may not have validity.