--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In a message dated 8/20/06 10:45:17 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  
> Well,  yeah, but at least he would be obeying the  law....
> You don't know that he isn't. You have the opinion of one very
> liberal  judge playing politics with the matter.

Oh, wait, I thought it was *liberals* who were going
to be accusing judges of playing politics, and here
it's the right-winger!

Actually, of course, there's a significant bunch of
legal experts, not all of them liberals by any means,
who believe he's breaking the law.  Even some who are
among the few real conservatives left (you know, the
ones who are big on civil liberties).

Former Georgia Republican Congressman Bob Barr,
for instance, writing in the Atlanta Journal
Constitution back in December of last year:

President Bush responded to a question at a White House news 
conference about what now appears to be a clear violation of federal 
electronic monitoring laws by trying to argue that he had not ordered 
the National Security Agency to "monitor" phone and e-mail 
communications of American citizens without court order; he had 
merely ordered them to "detect" improper communications.

This example of presidential phrase parsing was followed quickly by 
the president's press secretary, Scott McLellan, dead-panning to 
reporters that when Bush said a couple of years ago that he would 
never allow the NSA to monitor Americans without a court order, what 
he really meant was something different than what he actually 
said. . . 

By using the White House counsel's office to bury investigators in a 
sea of motions, pleadings and memoranda, an administration can drag 
out an investigation to the point of exhaustion. By the time the 
investigation actually slogs through this legal maze to bring real 
charges or issue a report, the courts, public and media are so sick 
and tired of hearing about it that the final charges fall stillborn 
from the press.

A critical component of White House Scandal Defense 101 is rallying 
the partisan base. This keeps approval ratings in territory where the 
wheels don't start falling off. The way to achieve this goal is you 
go negative and you don't let up. If you're always attacking your 
accusers, the debate becomes one of Democrat vs. Republican, rather 
than right vs. wrong. Anyone who questions the legality of the 
decision to wiretap thousands of Americans unlawfully is attacked, as 
either an enabler of terrorists or a bitter partisan trying to 
distract a president at war.


To subscribe, send a message to:

Or go to: 
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:

Reply via email to