John Dean – who should know – said Bush became the first president ever to admit to an impeachable offense when he admitted he violated the FISA act.

Btw, we’ll put you down as answering the questions this way:

1. No. I admit that invading Iraq was about lining corporate profits for Bush and Cheney’s cohorts in the oil industry.

2. It’s true we could have demanded that Kuwait democratize. What a waste of American blood and treasure.

3. Yes, they lied. I, too, would rather have a president who lied over one who admits he is the biggest bungler in military history.

Thanks for playing!

When she was questioned about the wiretaps, Condoleezza Rice claimed that Bush never ordered anyone to do anything illegal. But proving the lie to the spin, it has since been learned that Bush was denied wiretaps but deliberately bypassed the court. Clearly —he has arrogated unto himself the power that should be reserved to the judiciary; he has undermined the Constitution and the very rule of law.

Treason?

And, in what one hopes is his final absurdity, Bush claims that he was only spying on people with “a history of blowing up trains, weddings and churches”. In fact, the wiretapping was on a scale scarcely imaginable.

He’s not merely subverted the rule of law, he’s lied about his role in doing it. If that’s not treason, what is?

I don’t recall Bush ever admitting he “broke the law.”

Cass Sunstein, University of Chicago law professor and self-described liberal, doesn’t think Bush “broke the law.”

I am an attorney. I have followed this story closely and have reviewed the relevant laws, namely the U.S. Constitution, the FISA and interpretive caselaw, and the Senate resolution authorizing Bush’s actions post-9/11. I don’t think Bush “broke the law.”

Indeed, I believe those who conclusorily state that Bush “broke the law” are “trampling the Constitution” to the benefit of the terrorists.

These creeps don’t even trust the God they say they worship. their own Bible says to be honest in business dealings, that not to do this is detestable to the Lord. I guess since God appointed them to high office (they surely didn’t get there by election), they are free to do anything they want. I didn’t sign up for an Imperial Presidency.

Surely trampling the Constitution outranks staining a blue dress.

“We looked at the possible scenarios. And the people responsible for helping us protect and defend came forth with the current program, because it enables us to move faster and quicker. And that’s important. We’ve got to be fast on our feet, quick to detect and prevent.

We use FISA still — you’re referring to the FISA court in your question — of course, we use FISAs. But FISA is for long-term monitoring. What is needed in order to protect the American people is the ability to move quickly to detect.

Now, having suggested this idea, I then, obviously, went to the question, is it legal to do so? I am — I swore to uphold the laws. Do I have the legal authority to do this? And the answer is, absolutely.” – George W. Bush 12/19/2005

The 1978 Foreign Intelligence Security Act (FISA) is the law of the land. It clearly states that you cannot wiretap Americans without a court order (as Bush so clearly stated in 2004). In order to ensure that the court doesn’t stop a wiretap that is required in an emergency there is even a section in FISA that allows the government to start the wiretap and they have up to 72 hours after they do so to get a court order from the FISA court AFTER the fact.

The FISA court has approved over 15,000 wiretaps, it has denied 4 (those 4 were then rewritten, re-presented and approved).

There was no valid reason to break the law of the land. But, while Bush was doing just that in 2004 he claimed that he wasn’t. He wanted everyone to know that there were constitutional guarantees in place ensuring that every wiretap was covered by a court order.

What other laws is Bush allowed to break on a whim in secret? Why is he not accountable to the laws of the land? Where is the “Rule of Law”?

This isn’t about the endless “war on terra” (which like the endless “war on drugs” is a phrase, not a “war”). This is about one man believing he is above the law. That the laws don’t apply to him, or to his actions. Dana Rohrabacher and Ed Royce made much of the “Rule of Law” over a lie in a civil deposition, now we have a Chief Executive who has admitted to breaking FISA. It’s been over a week and still not a peep from them on the “Rule of Law”. Guess the “Rule of Law” only counts if it comes with a semen-stained blue dress.

1. If the main product of Iraq were olive oil, rather than petroleum oil, would Bush have invaded it?

2. If we really went into Iraq to establish a beach head for democracy in the Arab world, wouldn’t it have been less costly in blood and treasure just to force the Kuwaitis to hold elections? After all, we saved their asses from Saddam in 1992. Seems like the least they could do is become a democracy.

3. In the run up to the war, did the Bush team lie about the reasons for war? No – well then doesn’t that make them the most incompetent war-makers in military history? Can you name another instance where a country was taken to war on bad intel?

Personally, as a proud American, I would PREFER to think my president lied to me than to think he bungled us into a war that has caused thousands of casualties among our brave service members and innocent Iraqi children and adults.

How do you Bush worshippers sleep with all this innocent blood on your hands, especially when it’s there because – as your Dear Leader insists – he screwed up?

So here’s the question: Did Bush lie about the reasons for war or did he merely make the worst blunder in military history?

Like your fellow traveler Madison, your resort to the elementary logical fallacy of ad hominem attack betrays your meritless position and the hatred of Bush I was referring to by those who take pleasure in every American soldier’s death and who would welcome another 9/11.

Also see my comments to Madison regarding Waco and Ruby Ridge.

Why can’t liberals argue intelligently without resort to logical fallacies? Because their arguments are bereft of logic, relying on blind hatred to intimidate their opponents. I’m not buying.

My civil liberties have been unaffected by anything Bush has done, though the civil liberties of almost 3,000 people were permanently affected by the terrorists on 9/11.

Your resort to the elementary logical fallacy of ad hominem attack betrays your meritless position and the hatred of Bush I was referring to by those who take pleasure in every American soldier’s death and who would welcome another 9/11.

Clinton should have been impeached for the “brown-shirt” tactics which caused the deaths of innocent women and children in Waco and Ruby Ridge.

And I worship only God and His son Jesus Christ.