A Discredit to the GOP

[Kilmer17]

It's a twisted debate.

The Dems are saying "we do not support these type of taps because they are illegal"

The Gop is saying "how can the Dems not support this type of legal taps"

And the editorial is saying "Shame on the GOP for calling out the Dems for not supporting something the Dems find illegal" without acknowledging that the entire premise is based on the position of the GOP that they ARE legal.

I need a drink.

[Predicto]

The Dems are saying "we do not support these type of taps because they are illegal"

The Gop is saying "how can the Dems not support this type of legal taps"

.

No, the GOP is saying: "Let me be as clear as I can be -- President Bush believes if al Qaeda is calling somebody in America, it is in our national security interest to know who they're calling and why.... Some important Democrats clearly disagree."

In other words, the Dems oppose all wiretapping.

Which they don't.

[Kilmer17]

Dont do that. There is no need for "in other words". Those words are clear and concise.

Some Dems DO oppose these taps. Not all taps, but that claim isnt being made.

[Chopper Dave]

Dont do that. There is no need for "in other words". Those words are clear and concise.

Some Dems DO oppose these taps. Not all taps, but that claim isnt being made.

That's a fair complaint. Here's the thing with the real quote though; Bush's whole explaination is that we need to know who they're calling and why? The thing is, they can just as easily find that out by not circumventing FISA. Then why would they do that? You know my theory.

[Kilmer17]

Again Dave, that makes an assumption about the legality.

[Predicto]

Don't do what? The claim is that the President cares who Al Queda calls in the US and what they are saying, and the Demos do not. The words ARE clear and concise, but they don't talk about "these kinds" of taps. They talk about not caring about Al Queda conversations.

[Kilmer17]

Dont convert the phrase "some important Dems" to "all Dems" and twist the conversation about these particular taps into a condemnation (or accusation of condemnation) about the opposition of ALL taps.

[Chopper Dave]

Again Dave, that makes an assumption about the legality.

Screw legality. We all know every administration breaks laws. I honestly don't even care about that. I care about the utter lack of regard for established procedure. It's meant to tell us something. It's meant to tell us that the Bush administration is above simple procedure, and that if they don't find something important enough, they can just skip around it without consequence. It's that type of arrogance, that type of smug disregard for the political world that existed before this administration, that I can't stand.

[Kilmer17]

Wait, your issue is following an established procedure?

It would be appropriate to point out the administrations for decades before Bush that did this kind of thing as well. It's a provision of the FISA act that got changed (someone give me the legal term) under Clinton that is in question.

[Chopper Dave]

Wait, your issue is following an established procedure?

It would be appropriate to point out the administrations for decades before Bush that did this kind of thing as well. It's a provision of the FISA act that got changed (someone give me the legal term) under Clinton that is in question.

Regardless, the established procedure RIGHT NOW is to go through FISA. There's no hindrance in doing so. You can't possibly justify this as anything but the administration telling us that they're above procedure that they happen to find petty.

[Kilmer17]

Established by whom? And how?

Where is the precedent?

[Predicto]

Dont convert the phrase "some important Dems" to "all Dems" and twist the conversation about these particular taps into a condemnation (or accusation of condemnation) about the opposition of ALL taps.

I really do not understand what you are saying. The quote from Karl Rove that it put up there says what it says. He is not engaging in a conversation about particular kinds of taps, is he?

The underlying policy debate between you and me may be about "these kind" of taps and whether they are legal, but the way that this debate is being fought by Mr Rove and Mr Mehlman is to characterize the Dems as being against taps, period. Which is what stink about all of this.

Am I making any sense?

[Kilmer17]

I really do not understand what you are saying. The quote from Karl Rove that it put up there says what it says. He is not engaging in a conversation about particular kinds of taps, is he?

The underlying policy debate between you and me may be about "these kind" of taps and whether they are legal, but the way that this debate is being fought by Mr Rove and Mr Mehlman is to characterize the Dems as being against taps, period. Which is what stink about all of this.

Am I making any sense?

Okay, we're simply reading it differently. I take the context of Roves speach into play. But I can see that if take only that specific sentence you could interpret it differently.

So I'll say this. IF IF IF Rove meant that all Dems opposed all taps, then the OpEd is spot on correct. I just dont read it that way.

[Predicto]

Okay, we're simply reading it differently. I take the context of Roves speach into play. But I can see that if take only that specific sentence you could interpret it differently.

So I'll say this. IF IF IF Rove meant that all Dems opposed all taps, then the OpEd is spot on correct. I just dont read it that way.

It's hard for me to read that quote any other way. The President wants to know when Al Queda calls this country, some important Demos disagree. Or even better: ""Do Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean really think that when the NSA is listening in on terrorists planning attacks on America, they need to hang up when those terrorists dial their sleeper cells inside the United States?" - Ken Mehlman.

I do not know if they really think that way, but I sure as heck believe that is what they want the average American scared of the next Al Qaeda attack to think. That the Demos think we have to hang up the phone.

[DjTj]

Time out here ... these are the quotes we are debating about:

But you wouldn't know that to listen to the GOP spin. "Let me be as clear as I can be -- President Bush believes if al Qaeda is calling somebody in America, it is in our national security interest to know who they're calling and why," Mr. Rove said at the Republican National Committee winter meeting last week. "Some important Democrats clearly disagree."

This is a lie because Democrats are simply asking Bush to go to the FISA Court, not that we shut down all our wiretapping operations.

Mr. Mehlman named names. "Do Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean really think that when the NSA is listening in on terrorists planning attacks on America, they need to hang up when those terrorists dial their sleeper cells inside the United States?" he asked.

This is a lie because Democrats want them to continue listening but to go to the FISA Court within 72 hours.

...and as far as the law is concerned, I believe the rules regarding phone taps have been the same since Carter. Under Clinton, I know there was a change in the law for physical searches under FISA, but the phonetap rules have stayed the same and they have always required a warrant.

[cadets08]

oh no!! The WashCompost editors don't like the Bush Administration!!

When did this happen? :doh:

AMEN!

[Predicto]

AMEN!

Got anything to say on the merits?

[Guest Gichin13]

I have not exhaustively researched the underlying law. Can folks correct me if I misstate something?

1. Bush authorizes wiretaps. Bush does not seek secret court beforehand.

2. Story leaks. Left objects, claims taps illegal because no court approval.

3. Bush states legal, national security overrides niceties of warrants. Besides, law was changed at some point to where previous approval not required (but need to get some sort of after the fact judicial review? or not?)

4. Reps paint the left as not recognizing "post 9/11 reality" in opposing critical national security measures.

5. Dems paint right as infringing civil liberties by engaging in unapproved domestic surveillance.

Is this a fair summary of both sides or am I missing something or misstating something?

[Larry]

I have not exhaustively researched the underlying law. Can folks correct me if I misstate something?

1. Bush authorizes wiretaps. Bush does not seek secret court beforehand.

2. Story leaks. Left objects, claims taps illegal because no court approval.

3. Bush states legal, national security overrides niceties of warrants. Besides, law was changed at some point to where previous approval not required (but need to get some sort of after the fact judicial review? or not?)

4. Reps paint the left as not recognizing "post 9/11 reality" in opposing critical national security measures.

5. Dems paint right as infringing civil liberties by engaging in unapproved domestic surveillance.

Is this a fair summary of both sides or am I missing something or misstating something?

Seems factually accurate.

I'd phrase some things differently, like "3. Bush claims President has full authority to ignore any law, and the Constitution itself, if he writes himself a memo that says he can". Or "4. Reps invent completely ficticous claim that wiretaps covered only known terrorists and their agents. Claim that what's needed here is an immediate full-blown investigation. Into whoever let the public in on what was going on."

But then I'm a bit biased on the issue.

[RabidFan]

Since when did an op/Ed piece become real news? Everyone knows that The WP editors hate the administration.

Since when did this administration using scare tactics become news too??

[Thiebear]

I have no problem with Congress or the Judicial to go through the taps and decide which ones were correct and which were not and why...

But lets keep the knee jerk rhetoric for YOUR party down just a skosh.

[Predicto]

I have no problem with Congress or the Judicial to go through the taps and decide which ones were correct and which were not and why...

But lets keep the knee jerk rhetoric for YOUR party down just a skosh.

But Thiebear, independent of the legal merits of the taps, do you think that it is appropriate for Rove to claim, in essence, that the Democrats don't care about Al Queda calls and would just hang up the phone? That is the point of this whole thread.

[twa]

But Thiebear, independent of the legal merits of the taps, do you think that it is appropriate for Rove to claim, in essence, that the Democrats don't care about Al Queda calls and would just hang up the phone? That is the point of this whole thread.

Just buttin in,but aren't the dems using this as just another reason to attack Bush? It is not like EITHER side has pure motives

IF the dems briefed had real problems with the "presidential power grab "or the legal aspect why wait until it became public?

I know the only thing Pelosi questioned was whether the president had approved NSA taps.

[DjTj]

Just buttin in,but aren't the dems using this as just another reason to attack Bush? It is not like EITHER side has pure motives

IF the dems briefed had real problems with the "presidential power grab "or the legal aspect why wait until it became public?

I know the only thing Pelosi questioned was whether the president had approved NSA taps.

By what I've heard from Pelosi, she sounds like she didn't even know it could possibly be illegal. Neither she, Daschel, nor Rockefeller are lawyers, so maybe it's possible they were just ignorant ...

I suppose that's why we have a FISA Court, so these kinds of complex legal questions are answered by some of the most distinguished judges in the country.

If they were playing this for politics, you would think they would have done something about it BEFORE the '04 election ... you know, before Daschle was voted out of the Senate.

[chomerics]

Just buttin in,but aren't the dems using this as just another reason to attack Bush? It is not like EITHER side has pure motives

IF the dems briefed had real problems with the "presidential power grab "or the legal aspect why wait until it became public?

Because it was classified information, they were not allowed to talk about it in public. A whistleblower was interviewed, and a book was written, so the "liberal" NY Times had to fess up and say they knew about it too. There were a number of liberal people who knew about it, but they were obligated not to say anything because it is illegal to.

BTW, I am not sure why Kilmr thinks this is legal, I have not read a valid defense yet as to how the seperation of powers need not apply in this instance, especially when there is written law stating specifically what a president HAS to do in order to wiretap, but Bush ignored the laws.