Why over Bush on the supposedly spy scandal when Clinton and Carter did the same thing?

www.fas.org...

www.fas.org...

nationalreview.com...



Now why not over these when the Presidents did the same about searches or surveillance without a court order? Makes you wonder....



[edit on 21-12-2005 by deltaboy]

Not really, when you go on a witch hunt everything is a crime.

So your argument is that because we had two former dirty presidents we shouldn't give a hoot if the current president may be doing dirty things?

Is that your argument?

Did you give a hoot when those two former presidents were in office? Besides, the more important question is can you prove it’s “dirty”?

[edit on 21-12-2005 by WestPoint23]

No...the question is why the media didnt cover much about their activities when they seem to be over this President. Its like Congress just finally found out or something and want to get to the bottom of this.

Are you saying that there was no public outcry, no protests, no debates about the Constitution, with past Presidents?

EDIT: To answer your question, previous Presidents made their activities known, look at the memos, so the courts, congress, and the senate had a right to challenge his decision. Bush did not. Clinton even cited National Security after a terrorist attack on US soil (The Oklahoma Bombing) but still made his activities known.

[edit on 21-12-2005 by curme]

Are you saying that there was, curme?





seekerof

I remember the hoopla when the Clinton adminstration went after that CIA agent Aldrich Ames, the illegal searches. It was a big story, but I'm a little older trhan most, and some have longer memories than others.

Don't try change the subject, whether some other president did it does not make it right. Bush broke the law and says he will continue to break the law, that is the issue. You definitely work for the administration, i have seen this attempt somewhere else, pathetic.

Without the ability to form complete sentences how can you get a job with the administration?

"Ohh, someone else did it too"

Regan got shot so why doesn't Bush do that too?

[edit on 21-12-2005 by ArchAngel]

Excuse me there, NinjaCodeMonkey is it? Can you please show me or prove to me that President Bush broke the law?

Arch Angel we’re not asserting that President Bush should do this or shouldn't do that, we are simply asking why there wasn’t as much media and public outcry from what those former presidents did as there currently is with President Bush. It’s not that hard of a concept to grasp.

[edit on 21-12-2005 by WestPoint23]

Carter did not do the samething but Clinton did. Two wrongs don't make a right. Bush should be impeached for violating the 4th amendment and abusing his executive powers. Bush was caught in a lie! How can you trust him? Last year he said that searches still needed court ordered warrants but now we know those statements were lies. Clinton is not president and if he was I would be saying the same thing.

Question for people on the Bush bandwagon about illegaly spying on Americans.

Why do people consider Bush conservative? Other then being against abortion nothing is conservative about him. I thought being conservative was about self responsibility not the government "protecting" them through illegally spying on Americans. Supporting the Patriot Act, spying of Americans with out warrant, and what ever other violations of law will come out durring this administration is a more liberal move then a conservative one. Party affiliation really does blind people.

Less outcry for Clinton because he was liked and he was doing good for the country. All Presidents do bad things, granted, but Clinton also managed to get people jobs and build a strong economy - his crimes were less obvious because not everything sucked under his rule.

Bush gets slagged because he's a bad President and doesn't do good things for the nation. His crimes are far worse and for the most part are kept under secrecy for as long as possible. He has little to nothing worthy to claim for his troubles, negative attention is about the only attention he can attract.

If Bush managed ANYTHING good for America besides some patriotic dreams to further business agendas and was respected throughout the world, he would get away with a lot more.

Besides, it's all a script. Clinton forfilled his destiny by making America rich and Bush is forfilling his by getting into the Middle East and making Hilary look like an angel so she can pretend to 'fix' Dubyas mistakes while taking advantage of everything Bill and George setup for her. It's all the same people under the covers.

This whole 'team' outlook on politics is exactly why every 4 years the same arguements are made. People need to drop the fighting over Red/Blue and start realising the multimillion dollar campaigns are just a play to keep everyone thinking it's a competition and not a script.

Boring. We might aswell just cut straight to the major world war which thins out the population and forces humanity to rebuild because we're still p-ing in the wind and complaining about the rain.

It might interest you to know that the current debate and thread is not about illegal searches, but about phone calls conversations. I do hope you can get your facts straight.



And it might be a moot point, but I’ll try on more time, can you please show me where President Bush broke the law? You can say it as much as you want, but words are cheap you know?



That is a subjective view, you know that don’t you? It also might interest you to know that “bad” Presidents don't get re-elected by the majority of the American Citizens.

[edit on 21-12-2005 by WestPoint23]

Carter:
Foreign Intelligence Electronic Surveillance
EXERCISE OF CERTAIN AUTHORITY RESPECTING ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE: EO 12139




The 4th Amendment was not violated, and till a court of law finds and decrees that Bush violated any laws, his is innocent till proven guilty, UFObeliever, period.




Ever heard of warrentless surveillance?



At any rate, remember, 'innocent till proven guilty', k?
President had legal authority to OK taps
Fit to Print? Neither the Bush administration nor the NSA broke the law, so why did the New York Times break the story?

Furthermore, the story is nearly 4 years old:
Bush Submits His Laws for War
Mobilization Against Terrorism Act






seekerof

Do not try to sugar coat Bush abuse of power, with changing the attention to other presidents.

The fact still remind the same, he abuse his power when he had not need to do it and a patriot act to back him off.

I beg to differ, being it was not made into a big story. Slight mentions do not remotely amount to what the media is playing on this current situation, curme.
NY Times’ James Risen Not As Concerned With NSA Eavesdropping Under Clinton

Btw, heard from Bill or Hillary on what Bush has supposedly done illegially? Let me know when you do.







seekerof

[edit on 21-12-2005 by Seekerof]

First off, you are not the president of the United States, therefore, you really have no clue as to what Bush had no need to do or what he did have need to do, especially in relation to the war on terrorism and national security.

Secondly, 'abuse' is subjective, especially when politics is involved.

Thirdly, the man is innocent till proven guilty. Hello?






seekerof

[edit on 21-12-2005 by Seekerof]

Don't worry I do know that it is about illegal wire taps on phone conversations. I got the memo.

4th ammendment
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Warrentless searches are illegal. Searches include wire tapping American citizen's phone conversations. Problem solved it is illegal. Hope it clears things up.



[edit on 21-12-2005 by UFObeliever]

Marge, I hope I explained the purpose of this thread clearly enough the first time. And I also agree that to claim this so called “abuse” of his powers is very premature, especially since I don’t think you are in a position to know what the government needs and does not need to do in order to protect this country.