Angry

Yeah, like 900 secret FBI files in the possession of a White House employee
whom no one could remember hiring. Or having a friendly commodity trader
"parking" five grand in your old lady's account, and then, presto, it's
$100,000.00. Or using the IRS to harass personal enemies. Or giving secret
manufactuing technology to the Chinese in exchange for bags of money. Or
having your former national security advisor stuff his pants full of secret
documents so the marginal notes pertaining to Able Danger would never see
the light of day. Or -- oh wait, wrong guy. And I was just getting
started.

What Bush did with surveillance was perfectly legal, moral and the proper
thing to do. The legal precedent is clear beyond question. This is a point
that Carter, Clinton, Reagan and Bush would all agree upon, since they had
exactly the same view, and did exactly the same thing. In fact,
Clinton-Gorelick took it further than Bush ever dreamed.

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
Save the anger for things that
matter (like politicians who break the law, lie about it until they are
exposed, and then claim that they don't have to obey the law).

His days are numbered: [...]

I wish I could share your optimism. I think it's pretty clear that a
majority of Americans are quite willing to simply overlook criminal acts
on his part. The current scandals aren't any different than those that
preceded the most recent election, and we all saw how much effect *those*
had.

The stench of hypocrisy, since the last attempt to impeach a President, is
astounding. I see no end in sight.

Of course, the alternative explanation is that the election WAS rigged,
and that there really aren't so many people willing to overlook that sort
of thing after all. One hopes the recent Diebold scandals (illegal
certification, untraceable vote hacking, etc.) will produce some movement
toward resecuring the elections. Maybe once that's done, the results will
seem more rational.

I'm not holding my breath. To start with, it would require that those in
power acknowledge the flaws with electronic voting, and agree to address
those flaws. For some odd reason, they seem to think it's perfectly fine
to have unverifiable, easily hacked election results. You'd think that
EVERY SINGLE POLITICIAN would be jumping up and down demanding auditable
elections. But a majority of them are not. I wonder why. What do they
have to fear from it?

Either way, it's not clear that we're headed for an improved situation any
time soon.

Pete