December 2005

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31
Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 01/2004

Contact Mahatma

« Democrat's Appear to be Out of Touch | Main | An Important Day »

December 26, 2005



You shouldn't have to wait long. It was clearly a righty who leaked it. Arn't you guys in touch with one another?


Right! Karl Rove is clearly working on George W. Bush's re-election campaign...oh wait!

Terri G

The question is why do we really care what Bush thinks about his approval ratings?? It's not like he can run for a third term or anything. I suppose he cares because he wants to make the Republican party, as a whole, look better than the Democrats. (Not that that is hard to do...)
I still don't understand exactly what is going on but the sad thing is that I'm not sure I really care.


while your argument is well constructed, it is incorrect. Bush authorizing the wiretaps is not illegal. Roving wiretaps have been used since Kennedy, and they have been shown to be legal in most cases. Bush is using the authority given him by the inherent powers in the constitution, as well as the inherent abilties given by Congress use of force proclamation.

To see you fall prey to the propaganda of the left is truly appalling. Look a little farther and you will see the truth, as you usually do.



check out my post in regards to the legality of Bush's "illegal" wiretapping. It is nothing of the sort.


I once read or heard about a doctor who came upon a car accident in which a man was seriously injured. The doctor performed a crude tracheotomy on the scene, saving the man’s life but leaving an ugly scar. The man sued the doctor.

The democrats’ snit over this spying case reminds me of that ungrateful man. We’ll never know how many lives were potentially saved as a result of such spying. The real shame here lies with democrats who see this as an opportunity to stick it to Bush and who are, as usual, unconcerned with the potentially tragic consequences of their actions.

We live in a dangerous world where groups of well-organized, well-funded people want to kill as many of us as they can. That’s the reality and it’s about time we started acting as if we understood that.

I realize that we need to protect the civil liberties of the innocent. Or I should say, we need to protect those who by all appearances are innocent, since we can never really be sure. So the question should be, has the Bush administration targeted only people who could reasonably be suspected of having some connection to terrorism? As long as they meet that test, I’m satisfied.



I performed my own legal research into the wiretaps. They are illegal as the law is currently written and construed. I believe there is a valid case that could be made for the law being an unconstitutional limitation upon the President's authority.

In essense, although the best and most common interpretation of the law creating the FISA courts would unequivocably be interpreted as requiring approval (even post hoc) for the wiretaps, that law itself may be an unconstitutional over-reaching by Congress.

Frankly Carol's argument is the most compelling to me, proving once and for all that something can be technically illegal but perfectly moral. Like the entire Iraq war for example...technically illegal (or arguably a case for it being illegal can be made) but morally the right thing to do.

At the risk of sounding like John Kerry, let me plead that I was for the wiretaps right after I was against them.


The comments to this entry are closed.