When Federal Judge Taylor ruled that the NSA wiretapping is indeed unconstitutional, that is exactly what it is. So when Bush and his supporters say that if you are against the idea of wiretapping the "terrorists", then you support Al Qaeda---that would be false---as is this debate. Judge Taylor in her wisdom never said she was against the idea of wiretapping in-it-of-itself........she was judicially credited with ruling on the "constitutionality"of the wiretapping that Bush was doing "without a warrant"...which in her ruling she stated was indeed 'unconstitutional"because it violated both the First Amendment and the Fouth Amendment.
No one who cares about the the U.S. Constitution {and I hope that is most everybody} should be upset with this ruling----yet with all the "spin"being spewed by Bush and his supporters{because it is after all a very important election season} speaks for itself---Nobody!--not the judge, not a Democrat, not a pundit{with any credibility}said they were not in favor of wiretapping to track "terrorists", and to aid in the law-enforcement against terrorism and those who perpetrate it---just do it lawfully!! So all the debating about it all---is truly a "false" debate...and more to do with political fodder

EVERY discussion these days is political. Both sides of the aisle are guilty of perpetuating the divisions that so widely seperate us from rational debate of any issue, although the current controllers of the power have not done anything to lessen its influence. As long as there are deep divisions it is easier to play the fear card and hold the 3 G's (guns, gays, and God) close to the chest. Frotunately we know that these are the aces they have up their sleeves and so does most of the public (except for that gullible 33%).

Ilise, I'm very happy with Judge Taylor's ruling. I'm not so happy that any judge ever had to rule on the issue of whether or not to actually abide by the highest law in the land of the United States of America.

Bush and everyone connected with Bush can stay out of my phone calls. What do I have to hide? PLENTY.
-My calls to and from work are none of anyone's business and many are protected bvy HIPAA laws.
-My conversations with my daughter -NONE of their business.
-My over-the-phone kissy-poo with my husband

But Most of all---the fact that I am a democrat, I'm against his phony war, and I'm willing to work to elect democrats. Anyone who won't go along with keeping these clowns in power is a terrorist in their view.

If the Bushie bunch wants to think I'm a terrorist, well let me tell you the feeling is quite mutual. If they think everything should be out in the open, then let them quit classifying documents and open up those secret meetings, and lets have some oversight if what they do can stand the light of day.

They're the ones with eveyrthing to hide. If they want to listen to me discussing our household grocery list, it's only because I won't vote for them, NOT because I don't love my country.

GREAT post! You tell 'em, Lindy!

I agree, it's a false debate -- because that's the only kind they can hope to win. But they are annoyingly successful at spinning this wiretapping issue in their favor. I think the only reason that's true is because people aren't paying attention and/or are ignorant about FISA, Bush's lies and manipulations of the facts, and the Constitution itself. And don't even get me started on how the mainstream media plays into this! Rather than helping to clarify the issue and educate the public about how FISA poses no obstacle to spying on terrorists, they blithely report Bush's propagandized version for the most part, him and his private Supreme Court Judge, Gonzales, saying it is legal and is an essential tool in fighting terrorists, blah blah blah. They usually have a token comment by a Dem saying warrantless wiretapping goes against the Constitution, we can fight terrorism while obeying the laws of this land. But to hear the two views presented this way, it makes it seem to be just a political difference! Nobody is pointing out that FISA has worked fine for decades AND poses no obstacle to a speedy wiretap warrant. This ISN'T just a political difference! All things are NOT relative. There IS a right and wrong in some issues -- and this is one of those issues. Bush and his buddies, including his disgraceful, rubberstamp, lock-step Congress, are WRONG.

BRAVO!!! Lindy!.........I often wonder how Dubya can sleep at night....he is definitely a "terrorist" in my view.....a "terrorist" with both his foreign and domestic policy....and he is definitely terrifying every time he opens his mouth...[I did'nt know whether to laugh or cry earlier when he invaded my ears with that so-called news conference]

I NEVER plot an armed insurrection against the government over the phone.



Mac

Dont forget, Mac, they consider voting for the wrong person akin to an act of terror.


THE VICE PRESIDENT: Good afternoon. It's suggested I chat with you a bit just for a couple of minutes here about the Connecticut Democratic primary yesterday, and then I guess, we'll then be happy to respond to a couple of questions.

I was -- obviously, we're all interested in this year's election campaign. I know Joe Lieberman and have a good deal of respect for him given that we were opponents in the 2000 campaign; and of course, spent a fair amount of time watching the man and studying him over the years, especially in connection with our debate in 2000. And as I look at what happened yesterday, it strikes me that it's a perhaps unfortunate and significant development from the standpoint of the Democratic Party, that what it says about the direction the party appears to be heading in when they, in effect, purge a man like Joe Lieberman, who was just six years ago their nominee for Vice President, is of concern, especially over the issue of Joe's support with respect to national efforts in the global war on terror.

The thing that's partly disturbing about it is the fact that, the standpoint of our adversaries, if you will, in this conflict, and the al Qaeda types, they clearly are betting on the proposition that ultimately they can break the will of the American people in terms of our ability to stay in the fight and complete the task. And when we see the Democratic Party reject one of its own, a man they selected to be their vice presidential nominee just a few short years ago, it would seem to say a lot about the state the party is in today if that's becoming the dominant view of the Democratic Party, the basic, fundamental notion that somehow we can retreat behind our oceans and not be actively engaged in this conflict and be safe here at home, which clearly we know we won't -- we can't be. So we have to be actively engaged not only in Afghanistan and Iraq, but on a global basis if we're going to succeed in prevailing in this long-term conflict.

So it's an unfortunate development, I think, from the standpoint of the Democratic Party to see a man like Lieberman pushed aside because of his willingness to support an aggressive posture in terms of our national security strategy.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20060809-2.html

I've had it up to here with a war profiteer like Cheney calling me a terrorist because I dont like his phoney war.