Comments on: It’s All Over But The Face-Saving http://informedspeculation.com/2007/05/16/its-all-over-but-the-face-saving/ Refunds Cheerfully Given To All Who Disagree Sat, 07 Apr 2012 09:00:47 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: Scott http://informedspeculation.com/2007/05/16/its-all-over-but-the-face-saving/comment-page-1/#comment-291904 Scott Fri, 18 May 2007 19:49:52 +0000 http://decision08.net/2007/05/16/its-all-over-but-the-face-saving/#comment-291904 Really? Only poor judgement and stubborness to impliment a program that your own Justice Department says is illegal? Lying to the public about it? Having your AG lie to the Congress? And this story is only worth a "quick reaction?" I think that Republicans have counted on the ignorance of the public for too long. This one is a dramatic, easily understood story and it isn't going to reflect well on Republican apologists. The President's refusal to address it yesterday was a pathetic performance. Keep it up; this is the exact kind of leadership that will make these next 18 months your last opportunity to lead any body of government for quite a while. Really? Only poor judgement and stubborness to impliment a program that your own Justice Department says is illegal? Lying to the public about it? Having your AG lie to the Congress? And this story is only worth a “quick reaction?”

I think that Republicans have counted on the ignorance of the public for too long. This one is a dramatic, easily understood story and it isn’t going to reflect well on Republican apologists. The President’s refusal to address it yesterday was a pathetic performance. Keep it up; this is the exact kind of leadership that will make these next 18 months your last opportunity to lead any body of government for quite a while.

]]> By: peter http://informedspeculation.com/2007/05/16/its-all-over-but-the-face-saving/comment-page-1/#comment-291467 peter Thu, 17 May 2007 17:58:33 +0000 http://decision08.net/2007/05/16/its-all-over-but-the-face-saving/#comment-291467 Your statement that Bush “gives fuel to the accusations that he runs an essentially lawless administration when it suits him” isn’t taken to its logical conclusion. Bush’s own Justice Department tells him that the warrantless surveillance is illegal and he does it anyway. Violation of FISA is a felony, and Bush has acknowledged ignoring its requirements. This not only “gives fuel to” accusations that he willfully broke the law: it is hard to view it any other way. What should the consequences be for breaking the law? Your statement that Bush “gives fuel to the accusations that he runs an essentially lawless administration when it suits him” isn’t taken to its logical conclusion.

Bush’s own Justice Department tells him that the warrantless surveillance is illegal and he does it anyway. Violation of FISA is a felony, and Bush has acknowledged ignoring its requirements. This not only “gives fuel to” accusations that he willfully broke the law: it is hard to view it any other way.

What should the consequences be for breaking the law?

]]>