Bush chides Democrats over intel bill

Discussion in '2008 Archive' started by carpro, Feb 23, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,927
    Likes Received:
    296
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080223/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush

    Bush chides Democrats over intel bill

    By DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press Writer

    EXCERPT

    WASHINGTON - President Bush said Saturday that Democratic leaders in the House are blocking key intelligence legislation so trial lawyers can sue phone companies that helped the government eavesdrop on suspected terrorists after the Sept. 11 attacks.
     
  2. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    If the Bush administration is not asking phone companies to do something illegal, then why are trying to get the Congress to give them immunity? Surely they are not afraid of a few lawsuits that would be without merit if there is nothing illegal going on.

    It is clear that the Bush administration cares little to nothing about the civil liberties of the American people. I hope that Democrats and Republicans who care about protecting our civil liberties will continue to stand up to the Bush administration on this issue.
     
  3. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,927
    Likes Received:
    296
    It is just as clear to me that democrats care more about protecting the income of their very powerful supporter, trial lawyers, than they care about national security.

    Bush will win this one because he is fundamentally right.
     
  4. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    If President Bush is fundamentally right then the U.S. constitution means nothing.
     
  5. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,927
    Likes Received:
    296
    :laugh:

    A little overly dramatic, don't you think? You take your opinion far too seriously.
     
  6. sag38

    sag38
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    4,394
    Likes Received:
    1
    True Carpo :applause:
     
  7. Dagwood

    Dagwood
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2007
    Messages:
    399
    Likes Received:
    0
    Isn't it funny that no one has committed on Bush's refusal to back down on the immunity part of the legislation. If it were a democratic president, these same people would be hollering about him putting the phone companies ahead of the needs of our fighting men and women.

    I would love to see a Bush supporter comment on this (without the cute little remark Carpro).
     
  8. LeBuick

    LeBuick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    11,537
    Likes Received:
    0
    Naw, Ken is right which is why Bush is trying to amune the telecom companies. Those companies must have told him they feel exposed and want some assurance they won't be liable. I believe in civil liberties or at least I believe in preserving our right to privacy. Since this is all in the name of terroism, why is it too much to ask the president to present his case to a judge who will then decide if he has enough evidence to justify taps? This would safe guard against actions like Hoover used while over the FBI.
     
  9. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,927
    Likes Received:
    296
    Ken is clearly wrong, just as you are.

    Democrats are not concerned with the security issues. They want to ensure the livelihood of their very rich and very powerful trial lawyer supporters.

    Bush will win this one because it's the right thing to do.
     
  10. Dagwood

    Dagwood
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2007
    Messages:
    399
    Likes Received:
    0
    I noticed you are blind to Bush putting the protection of the phone companines ahead of the safety of our troops. What about this?
     
  11. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,361
    Likes Received:
    790
    Law suits can be for tying up legislation rather than proving some wrong has been done. Protecting the Phone companies is reasonable. there is no reason to sue phone companies for doing what is requested by them from the Governement. If you want to prove wrong doing do it by sueing those who made the search. Not the phone companies.
     
  12. LeBuick

    LeBuick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    11,537
    Likes Received:
    0
    How rediculous, there are lawyers being paid on both sides of this issue.
     
  13. LeBuick

    LeBuick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    11,537
    Likes Received:
    0
    There is if the Government asked them to do something that's illegal. As of today, what they did is/was illegal. Even if it is leggalized in the future it doesn't change the fact that laws were broken.
     
  14. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,927
    Likes Received:
    296
    You are obviously wrong.

    If not, there would already be lawsuits galore filed by greedy lawyers for those with imagined privacy violations.
     
  15. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    If so, then why is the Bush administration risking its pet legislation over something that isn't already happening?
     
  16. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,927
    Likes Received:
    296
    There is no risk. It will pass as he wants it.

    Most actions have been publicly admitted. How many criminal charges have been filed?

    Does zero sound right?
     
  17. LeBuick

    LeBuick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    11,537
    Likes Received:
    0
    According to this article there are lawsuits...

    http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9715930-7.html
     
  18. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,927
    Likes Received:
    296
    Of course.

    To prevent thousands of lawsuits for imagined invasions of privacy like these, the bill passed by the Senate will eventually be passed by the House.

    House democrats are playing a game of brinkmanship they are destined to lose and look bad doing it.

    No criminal charges that I am aware of have been brougt against anyone. Must not have been illegal, huh?:thumbs:
     
    #18 carpro, Feb 24, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 24, 2008
  19. LeBuick

    LeBuick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    11,537
    Likes Received:
    0
    Because no charges have be filed is no proof no crime was committed. There are lots of crimes in which no one has been charged.

    Our Constitution says warrants will only be issued based on probable cause and when supported by oath or affirmation which means going presenting your case before a judge BEFORE you violate ones rights. Changing the law afterwards to make legal the crime may be something the president can get away with but I personally disagree.

    We still do have a right to an opinion unless Bush has violated that also. :BangHead:
     
  20. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,361
    Likes Received:
    790
    Really?

    What laws? Who was directly injured? What case is pending against them to suggest such?

    The USC just dismissed a case because no injury could be found.


    And by the way. If your not talking with a known terrorist then there is no chance you could be injured by the measure.
     
    #20 Revmitchell, Feb 24, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 24, 2008
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...