In a letter posted online by National Review this week, the Senator’s adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, said Mr. McCain believed that the Constitution gave Mr. Bush the power to authorize the National Security Agency to monitor Americans’ international phone calls and e-mail without warrants, despite a 1978 federal statute that required court oversight of surveillance.
Mr. McCain believes that “neither the administration nor the telecoms need apologize for actions that most people, except for the A.C.L.U. and trial lawyers, understand were constitutional and appropriate in the wake of the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001…”
Although a spokesman for Mr. McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, denied that the senator’s views on surveillance and executive power had shifted, legal specialists said the letter contrasted with statements Mr. McCain previously made about the limits of presidential power.
In an interview…with The Boston Globe six months ago, Mr. McCain strongly suggested that if he became the next commander in chief, he would consider himself obligated to obey a statute restricting what he did in national security matters.David Golove, a New York University law professor who specializes in executive power issues, said that while the language used by Mr. McCain in his answers six months ago was imprecise, the recent statement by Mr. Holtz-Eakin “seems to contradict precisely what he said earlier.”
Gotta keep the faith with the War-on-Terror-voters.
Those who still have problems sorting out McCain and Bush should take this test. All the way through the McCain vs. The Carrot round.
>> 200 years ago, we might have considered staging a revolution.
Even just ten years ago, all good Americans would have been HORRIFIED at the thought of our country “disappearing” people, having secret torture prisons, secret unaccountable wiretapping of our own citizens, lying to start a war, etc. etc.
I want to believe that _good_ Americans are still against it and won’t stand for it. But are they such a minority?
#60, pedro,
When will you ever learn to use The Google??? While you’re at it, learn to undersatnd [sic] the written word.
It is not incumbent upon the reader to investigate or decipher what the writer has written. It is up to the writer to express his thoughts in as clear a manner as possible.
Telling your reader to “use The Google” is as lazy and wrong as they come. You made the comment. You provide the reference or citation. I know of no one who would spend time trying to prove a point they disagree with.
And what the fuck does that comment mean? I understand English is not your first language and generally try to give you some slack on that point. But, …
#28 I’ve ben doing him tuna sandwichs to see if, after all those things, he grants you a spot in the Mission Miracle that he has and sent you to cuba for some eye surgery.
is totally incomprehensible. Please, either explain or rephrase it.
#62 This is not academic papers we’re talking about. Is readily available information that the poster has chosen to ignore. On top of that, the poster is known to discredit everything that doesn’t fit his views.
This are people that need to be convinced by themselves, a huge task since they’re willing to lie to themselves in order to keep believing what they do. No ammount of facts will make them see.
They were given directions were to find the info. They should follow those directions instead of complaining.
In my view, unwillingness to find info is being lazy. This is not a classroom. If you want to opine, get informed.
>>(MM since I’m sure you won’t get the name)
Oh no. Of course. I never heard of the Beatles.
#61, ten years ago all of those things were happening. Rendition didn’t start with George Bush. The Clipper chip was suggested by Al Gore, and Janet Reno was on board. The left got all angry about the expansion of wiretapping authority. Bill Clinton went to war with Iraq because of WMD.
>>Google: barack obama flip flopping
Been there, done that. Just a bunch of right wingnut trash talk. Not even up to the standards of Michelle Malkin, Anal Cyst Limbaugh, or Ann Coulter. Rabid dogs, donning their white sheets and looking to hang a darkie.
They’d burn a cross on his lawn, but they’re not allowed to use matches.
>>In my view, unwillingness to find info
>>is being lazy.
Pete, I’ve spent countless hours trying to “find info” regarding what the fuck “I’ve ben doing him tuna sandwichs to see if, after all those things, he grants you a spot in the Mission Miracle that he has and sent you to cuba for some eye surgery. ” means, to no avail.
Pretty please with sugar on top, tell us what it means! The Great Mystery of dvorak dot org slash blog! “I’ve ben doing him tuna sandwichs to see if, after all those things, he grants you a spot in the Mission Miracle that he has and sent you to cuba for some eye surgery. !! Zounds!
#67 – Mustard, stand by. I’m going to drop some acid and read it again to see if that helps me understand it. If that fails I’ll find a blonde and ask her to decipher. I love tuna and all but, WTF?
#68 – Ketchup,
Don’t bother. Don’t you recognize word soup when you see it? It’s probably a cut and paste from a spam message.
Pedro, (multiple posts)
You should learn to use google. You should also learn how to copy and paste a link. You see, as many have already stated, abso-fucking-lutely no one will ever google what you tell them to.
I promise from my own blog (where I can see what links have been clicked) that it’s hard enough to get people to click through a link that you post. You will not get anyone to do your searching for you.
If you have a point to make or think you have some great source of information, try posting the damn link!!