So Gonzalez's accusation that Clinton "spyed" too could be . . . .

[patrice]

based on Conjecture and, therefore, he might not know Exactly who was "spying" then, so, as in All Things - Clinton is blamed, when in reality it COULD have been Republicans spying on Republicans during the Clinton administration . . . . ? What do you think?

[rodeodance]

1. I think, that if you look closely at his latest starments he is very care-

ful in choosing his words so as not to lie (but ends up only saying a half truth).

[patrice]

2. So, Gonzalez didn't lie about Clinton, but didn't say everything about it?

I live with Libertarin corporate attorney (Yalie), who tells me the truth about what they do.

I keep thinking there has to be more than so-called Pro-Lifers with skin in this game. They're mostly window dressing.

[freesqueeze]

3. Is this where they're claiming...

that Clinton supposedly broke a law in 1992 that wasn't established until 1995?

>> 236,000 jobs per month for EIGHT YEARS!
>> 70% approval, the week after impeachment colapsed!

They just can't adjust to the massive failure that is the Bush administration.

[patrice]

9. They sound like children.

Very im-mature.

[koopie57]

4. That is a funny arguement

cuz the * administration came into office saying the grown-ups would be in charge and morality would rule the day, then why are they justifying their actions based on what the Clinton administration did? That sounds like Barbara should ask her son, if the Clintons would all step down from office, would the bushies do the same?

[patrice]

10. And . . . They've gone Financialy F - - - G INSANE with DEBT!!!!

We are not Slaves.

[papau]

5. Gonsalez implies Clinton broke law - Clinton did not break law -see below

From Media Matters:

While Gorelick did express concerns that the highly restrictive requirements that apply to criminal searches might "restrict the President's ability to collect foreign intelligence," she stated that such "ability" would not be infringed upon if these searches were to be governed by "the basic provisions" of FISA:

GORELICK: Nevertheless, I reiterate the Administration's willingness to support appropriate legislation that does not restrict the President's ability to collect foreign intelligence necessary for the national security. We need to strike a balance that sacrifices neither our security nor our civil liberties.

If we can achieve such a balance -- and I believe we can if we use the basic provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act -- we can accomplish a number of things.

Furthermore, York's claim that, even after FISA had been amended to require court orders for physical searches, Clinton "still maintained that he had sufficient authority to order such searches on his own" is false, according to Think Progress. Following the 1995 amendment, the Clinton administration never argued that the president's "inherent authority" allowed him to bypass FISA, as the Bush administration has done in the case of its domestic surveillance activities.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0512210142dec21,0,3553632.story?coll=chi-newsopinioncommentary-hed

In the Supreme Court's 1972 Keith decision holding that the president does not have inherent authority to order wiretapping without warrants to combat domestic threats, the court said explicitly that it was not questioning the president's authority to take such action in response to threats from abroad.

Four federal courts of appeal subsequently faced the issue squarely and held that the president has inherent authority to authorize wiretapping for foreign intelligence purposes without judicial warrant.

FISA contains a provision making it illegal to "engage in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute." The term "electronic surveillance" is defined to exclude interception outside the U.S., as done by the NSA, unless there is interception of a communication "sent by or intended to be received by a particular, known United States person" (a U.S. citizen or permanent resident) and the communication is intercepted by "intentionally targeting that United States person." The cryptic descriptions of the NSA program leave unclear whether it involves targeting of identified U.S. citizens. If the surveillance is based upon other kinds of evidence, it would fall outside what a FISA court could authorize and also outside the act's prohibition on electronic surveillance.

FISA does not anticipate a post-Sept. 11 situation. What was needed after Sept. 11, according to the president, was surveillance beyond what could be authorized under that kind of individualized case-by-case judgment. It is hard to imagine the Supreme Court second-guessing that presidential judgment.

But we cannot eliminate the need for extraordinary action in the kind of unforeseen circumstances presented by Sept.11. I do not believe the Constitution allows Congress to take away from the president the inherent authority to act in response to a foreign attack (SO NAME THE FOREIGN POWER THAT ATTACKED US????). That inherent power is reason to be careful about who we elect as president, but it is authority we have needed in the past and, in the light of history, could well need again.

----------

John Schmidt served under President Clinton from 1994 to 1997 as the associate attorney general of the United States. He is now a partner in the Chicago-based law firm of Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw.

[man4allcats]

6. I haven't yet seen the text of Gonzalez's statement,

but the Right has been generally playing this "Clinton did it too" thing for all it's worth, and why not? BushCo is in trouble, and they know it. They will do or say anything to try to mitigate the effects. So did Clinton conduct surveillance? Yes. Did he do it illegally? No! See the debunking of the Right's claim at The Echelon Myth. There is also an allegation from the Right that Clinton used spying to gather economic intelligence from abroad. Again, ThinkProgress explains the fallacy:

<snip>

The Washington Times has an article (link inside ThinkProgress link above) titled “‘Warrantless’ searches not unprecedented.” It demonstrates a startling degree of ignorance about the issue.

The opening sentence reads “Previous administrations, as well as the court that oversees national security cases, agreed with President Bush’s position that a president legally may authorize searches without warrants in pursuit of foreign intelligence.” That isn’t even the issue. The issue is whether the President can authorize electronic surveillance of U.S. persons without warrants. (No one disputes that it can do so abroad. That’s what it means to have an intelligence operation.)

Of course the Right will continue, despite any evidence to the contrary such as that cited above, to try to get as much mileage as it can out of these fallacious claims. No surprise there. When have they ever allowed themselves to be bothered with facts or the truth of anything?

[patrice]

11. Bush dropped the National Security "ball" beginning with 9/11 and

most of Everything since.

Also . . .

Many Millions of Dollars are Missing.

[robbedvoter]

7. Risen documents that W CHANGED POLICY AS SOON AS INSTALLED IN POWER

(pre-911):

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011306Z.shtml
    James Risen, author of the book State of War and credited with first breaking the story about the NSA's domestic surveillance operations, said President Bush personally authorized a change in the agency's long-standing policies shortly after he was sworn in in 2001.
    "The president personally and directly authorized new operations, like the NSA's domestic surveillance program, that almost certainly would never have been approved under normal circumstances and that raised serious legal or political questions," Risen wrote in the book. "Because of the fevered climate created throughout the government by the president and his senior advisers, Bush sent signals of what he wanted done, without explicit presidential orders" and "the most ambitious got the message."

[WI_DEM]

8. Has Clinton made a statement on this accusation?

[patrice]

12. I hope he suggests that maybe they've got their own spying on one another

mixed up with some honest other persons' facts.

Don't you think Republicans spy on Republicans? Of course, they DO! They have to supervise their Corporate Masters' investments. There are more than "Pro-Lifers" and Racists with skin in their game.

Follow the money.