Freedom. Democracy. Integrity
Let's get Jack Cafferty into the WH press pool.
CAFFERTY: Question of the hour is this - do you think it's an impeachable offense, impeachable, for the president to authorize domestic spying without a warrant?
Tom in Washington, Virginia, writes, "Yes, I do think that unauthorized wiretaps are an impeachable offense, as Nixon proved. Mr. Bush's contemptible administration believes that a frightened populace is more easily malleable, so they forever wave the bloody shirt of 9/11 to justify doing, well, just about anything they want. And if you disagree, then you're helping the terrorists win. But when was the divine right of kings reinstated? Did I miss a meeting somewhere?"
Zach in Chevy Chase, Maryland: "While the authorization of the spying itself might not be an impeachable offense, it is certainly unconstitutional as it skip the check and balance of judicial review. Whether or not you trust Bush now to only spy on terrorists is irrelevant. If this surveillance is found to be legal, any future president can spy on Americans for any purpose without any oversight."
Michael in Redwood City: "It's certainly more of an impeachable offense than was Bill Clinton's affair with Monica. George learned from Bill's experience, though, and avoided the perjury trap by admitting his transgression up front and then challenging us to do something about it. He probably won't be impeached, too many Republicans in Congress for that. But history won't be kind to him, either."
Joe in Sheepfuck, South Dakota: "Absolutely not. The Constitution grants no right to privacy, the courts have. Why don't we just hand over the entire playbook to the terrorists? The mainstream media seems to every time a covert procedure could gain an advantage."
Palm in Reynoldsburg, Ohio -- Pam, rather: "Does this mean Watergate was not a crime?"
And Lance in Madison, Wisconsin: "I'd love to chime in on your question today, but I believe my emails are being tapped, so I'll refrain from answering."
Tom in Washington, Virginia, writes, "Yes, I do think that unauthorized wiretaps are an impeachable offense, as Nixon proved. Mr. Bush's contemptible administration believes that a frightened populace is more easily malleable, so they forever wave the bloody shirt of 9/11 to justify doing, well, just about anything they want. And if you disagree, then you're helping the terrorists win. But when was the divine right of kings reinstated? Did I miss a meeting somewhere?"
Zach in Chevy Chase, Maryland: "While the authorization of the spying itself might not be an impeachable offense, it is certainly unconstitutional as it skip the check and balance of judicial review. Whether or not you trust Bush now to only spy on terrorists is irrelevant. If this surveillance is found to be legal, any future president can spy on Americans for any purpose without any oversight."
Michael in Redwood City: "It's certainly more of an impeachable offense than was Bill Clinton's affair with Monica. George learned from Bill's experience, though, and avoided the perjury trap by admitting his transgression up front and then challenging us to do something about it. He probably won't be impeached, too many Republicans in Congress for that. But history won't be kind to him, either."
Joe in Sheepfuck, South Dakota: "Absolutely not. The Constitution grants no right to privacy, the courts have. Why don't we just hand over the entire playbook to the terrorists? The mainstream media seems to every time a covert procedure could gain an advantage."
Palm in Reynoldsburg, Ohio -- Pam, rather: "Does this mean Watergate was not a crime?"
And Lance in Madison, Wisconsin: "I'd love to chime in on your question today, but I believe my emails are being tapped, so I'll refrain from answering."
No comments:
Post a Comment