Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dc_dux
ace....you and I obviously place a different level of importance on Congressional oversight.
|
I place a high level of importance on the role of Congressional oversight. I believe if a President is unchecked, he/she would ultimately try to assume total control of government. The role of Congress is the key to making sure that does not happen.
In this case:
I think we know what happened and why.
I think we know the legal arguments used by the Administration.
I think we know the Administration knew they were breaking the original FISA law.
I think we know the Administration wanted to keep the issue secret.
I think we know the Administration made a decision not to approach Congress to change the law.
I think we know the Administration got caught in this abuse of executive power issue.
And given all of the above, to me the question is: What is next? I think we fix the FISA law and move on. I know others have a different opinion, and that is o.k. with me. If the majority want to hold the Administration accountable, we should proceed with that. Bush is responsible and I am sure he would attempt to clearly communicate what he did and why in the proper setting at the proper time and take full responsibility. To me the key is that Congress needs to act, do something and stop talking about this.
I have written the above in different ways, but my points have been consistent. I think I am clear, but you don't seem to understand. Probably a failing on my part.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by host
Got a challenge for you, ace....point out example(s) that you believe are inaccurate in this description of what has "gone down", since the NY Times first published the reporting, in December, 2005, of illegal federal government wiretapping and datamining of US residents, and WHY it is inaccurate, and I'll "stand down" if the information you post justifies it, or I'll post my supported opinion why I disagree with you.
IMO, the title of the thread is even truer today than when I posted it....
|
I have no issue with the factual information. However, some of the rhetoric is "over the top" in my opinion. For example: I don't believe I live in a "police state", do you?