RateItAll: The Opinion Network

He is a terrible President but impeachment seems a bit much. Then again, they impeached Clinton and he didn't deserve it either, so oh well.

His argument that the laws passed to give him the authority to fight Bin Laden and his bunch is pretty damned thin. But, he seems to be sliding past on it, much like he has done through his whole life.

The domestic spying law has been part of case law for some time, but not in the way W. has used it. In law school we debated the legality of W.'s interpretation of the law, which W. is not trained in law, but rather given his education to him b/c of his legacy. The consensus was that even though the law had been pushed to the limit under other presidents, it was not done so to the extent W. has done so. He spied on domestic to domestic call, without warrants, and bypassing any legislative process. Whereas others have done one or the other, but not all. Sadly, he will never be impeached b/c of the "fascist" regime of the one-party rule that America was duped into voting for this idiot again. Yeah, he is an idiot, and I would give my left arm to debate W. on any issue in a civil manner. With a little over a year left in law school, and then going to work on my PhD., I am afraid that will never happen, though. I just hope W. is as religious as he preaches when he is out of office and takes a page out of Carter, Clinton, and even Bush Sr.'s book and use his money, power, and prestige to give back as they do, even though many criticize them for it. Which is upsurd because they do it out of genuine sincerity, not political agendas. We need a Democrat in office badly.

This is approaching the definition of "high crimes and misdemeanors" as specified in the Constitution. Before Congress needs to act, I'd like to see the judiciary have their crack at doing the checks and balances thing they are supposed to do. Supposed to be the legislature making the law, the executive enforcing the law, and the judiciary interpreting the law and Constitution, and reconciling the two, not the President running roughshod over both the law and Constitution while Congress and the courts sit back and do nothing. Time for the buck to stop somewhere and someone to put his big foot down on this crap.

Impeach him for all of this stuff.

More serious than the others on this list. There is a right to privacy in this country - and if the president knowingly broke the law - it was an incredibly stupid decision for which he deserves to be held accountable. The President, as an American, is also bound to follow the laws of the land. I'm surprised that there would appear to be many who think otherwise.

I am tired of all of the double standards. Clinton runs wiretapping on political opponents and is upheld by the supposedly not liberal media. Later, Bush wiretaps people because they could possibly be involved with terrorist operations and they're up in an outrage! Do I have a problem with someoone wiretapping innocent people for no reason other than digging up dirt? Absolutely! I DON'T have a problem if it actually serves the purpose of protecting us. I see the outrage on Bush... where's the outrage on Clinton?

I think it's worthy of discussion (need more evidence before any kind of conclusion) but it is a serious issue that your precious 'liberal media' hasn't nearly spent enough time discussing. . .

I don't see how people can agree to this. Maybe there are some people here in America who plot to overthrow the government and who are plotting illegal things. It doesn't hurt to have them monitored, but it is reasonable to apply the domino theory to this concept. First we bug suspected criminals, and then eventually we bug everyone. I certainly do not want my fate to be that of Winston Smith.

Just one more example of Bushs blatant disregard for the constitution,due process,the rights and freedom of American Citizens.Before the knee-jerk Bush Lovers accuse me of "aid and comfort" to the enemy-let me remind you all that NO AMERICAN CITIZEN was involved in 9/11 !!! The hijackers were SAUDIS.In fact, several members of the Bin Laden family were in the US during the WTC and Pentagon attacks,and guess what- Bush had them FLOWN OUT OF THE COUNTRY "for their safety" when ALL flights were grounded for citizens.They were not even QUESTIONED! It seems strange that the Administration is so suspicious of the citizenry,yet refused to look into the SAUDI connections to 9/11 until you realize,"Oh ,yeah! Saudi Royals are Oil Barons and close business associates of the Bush family." The real reason they want to spy on innocent civilians is more likely to crush or discourage the growing dissent regarding the multitude of corrupt dealings that this administration is guilty of,from Abramoff to Halliburton-there is an ugly pile of evidence becoming more apparent to voters each day.The corporations that want to pollute with impunity are very upset at the hard time Environmentalists are giving them over such issues as drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuges or Exxons failure still,despite Record Profits,to pay for the massive cleanup of the Valdez Oil Spill,heaped on the back of taxpayers.Wake up now,or sleep you way into a nightmare.

Forgive me. I intend to reminisce here also. George Orwell authored a book called 1984 which I read with great interest, in my late teens. Seems to me that " big brother " turns out to be late, but, not so bad after all. The cameras that so many people feared would take away their privacy have turned out to identify criminals in the act, and, not only civilians ,but also some of our dirty law enforces and such...I'll use Rodney King as an example. It's pretty normal to want privacy but I'm sure glad there's someone seeing to my security and freedom first, and, while it is true, we follow some democratic views in the states, America's foudation is built on a republic.

Update: Blah...blah...blah...How convenient it must be for the brainwashed to forever toss in a sprinkling of "where were you when Clinton did this or that" in order to defend an obvious hack of a president. More like where were you? Just because the Dubya cult fell asleep at the wheel 10 years ago doesn't mean I have to keep quite now. Personally, I don't care who's president...if he/she is incompetent and immoral I'll be the first one to bitch about it. Original: Go ahead and beat me with a greasy liberal stick, but you have to ask yourself...how much autonomy are you willing to abandon for the sake of "national security" (a term whose meaning, like "political correctness" has been lost in obscurity)? You'd have to be a complete dolt not to see the reasoning behind Bush's motives...it's his attitude that he is somehow above the law because of a "war". Understandably, this is not a conventional war, but that should not give any person a sanctimonious requisite to supercede conventional law. Personally, I was dumbfounded with his arrogant response that he had just decided, upon his own, that it was his presidential right, without due process to let the NSA loose on an unsuspecting public. I don't care what any of the supporters on this subject say, but absolute power corrupts absolutly, and you betcha the NSA took those reigns and ran with it. It makes me suspect what else "the sheriff" has been up to. How many other liberties have you unknowingly set aside? Turn your back on this one folks and you have essentially given the green light for a monocratic future.

Funnier still is why Clinton wasn't investigated for it, but he was for shady real estate deals in Arkansas. Other than that I defer to Andrew Scott's review.

An independent investigation may very well show the motives behind this unchecked secret power to be relatively innocent and used for relatively appropriate purposes. Maybe the 1000 or so people who have been wiretapped without a warrant truly have been one step removed from a legitimate terrorist cell. Even under the best case circumstances, we must all recognize the potential for serious abuse of wiretapping privileges, and why the practice must be independently audited and regulated in the future. If it turns up that the Bush administration spied on citizens who clearly would have no possible terrorist connection, such as mainstream political groups or newspaper reporters they want to defeat, then this is a rather serious abuse of power. However, I'm not convinced the unregulated power has been used for such unethical purposes. The American people have a right to an independent audit, and I think the longer this gets delayed, the more of an issue it will become.

Whoa, this really upsets me, unless, of course, al Qaeda is on the other end of the line. Umm, would it not have been helpful on September 10th to have had a president who gave a sh()t about this? I love the outrage. The screechy, breathless diatribes about trashing the constitution. Pardon me while I laugh at all of you who made excuses and tut-tutted about the Clinton Administration being in possession of over 700 FBI files (filled with all sorts of sensitive, extremely private info) of prominient republicans (all American citizens!) . Not only were you not outraged then, but now, after 9/11, you want to call this an abuse of authority? Where were you and your sanctimonious, non-partisan outrage eight years ago? Or, could it be , this president happens to be republican? Does the name Craig Livingstone ring a bell? On whose staff was he employed? How quickly they forget. Anyway, 70% of Americans ho-hum this issue, and that's what is driving the lib wing-nuts crazy. Zero traction. FDR did much worse than this and the country survived.

There could be something to this charge, so we shall have to watch the evidence unfolding at the hearings coming up.