This tired defense of "Clinton did it too" is weak at best. The bottom line to me is that Bush superceded the law because he couldn't be bothered with the minor (and it truly IS minor considering the FISC's track record of rubber stamping virtually all of the requests put before it) process required to get approval to monitor suspected terrorists or terrorist associates. Doesn't it bother any of the other conservatives out there that this president has little to no regard for the rule of law? If this was Clinton, the same rabid defenders of this administration would be all over this story. Yes, Clinton was an embarrassment to the country and lied under oath; in addition, it appears that he attempted to circumvent the law regarding this issue. Does that give President Bush a pass? No! If the rule of law and founding documents of this country mean nothing to those we entrust with the privilege of administration of this republic, we are no better than a banana republic. It is time that clear thinking Americans think beyond their respective parties, and think ahead to future administrations (and the legacies and precedents given to them). A worthwhile consideration is this: If the current administration was not of my party, and if the president was one of the worst I could imagine, would I condone the actions taken by the current administration by THAT administration? I know that many opinions would be different if the Bush administration's string of arrogant abuses of the law (and if you doubt that this case is an abuse of law, read the statute - it's very clear; here's a link to it: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sup_01_50_10_36.html)

were on the other side of the aisle politically.

Accountability should be non-partisan.

[ reply ]

Link to this comment: http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/newsbriefs/85/378#378