Well, it looks like the Republicans have done it.

[smartvoter]

I haven't heard any newspeople point out that they can wiretap immediately with a judicial review three days later so there is no operational delay when they get a hot lead.

But after all this time of saying they can't wait for a warrant, they've managed to get the discussion down to wiretaps or death. And no one is correcting them. And it looks like Congress is going to cave and try to make what they're doing legal instead of doing what's right.

[mrcheerful]

1. Why don't you give things a chance to run the course?

After all Nixon wasn't put on the hot seat right away either. I'd rather see them take their time and nail the weasel right so he doesn't get pardoned the way Ford pardoned Nixon.

[smartvoter]

8. I know. It's just that we've seen them "rub out" inconvenient facts

before and it makes me nervous. I probably shouldn't have posted this at this stage...

[Breeze54]

10. Isn't that the problem? The MSM isn't helping...No Noise, no Action!

They send it for further investigation and then you never hear anything!?!
:shrug:

Media outlets ignored dispute over Specter's refusal to swear in Gonzales

http://mediamatters.org/items/200602070007

In reporting on Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales's February 6 testimony
before the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding the Bush administration's
warrantless domestic surveillance program, a number of major print and broadcast
media outlets failed to report the dispute and the party-line rejection of the
Democrats' demand that Gonzales be sworn in, or even the fact that committee
chairman Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) did not swear in Gonzales even though Gonzales
had reportedly agreed to testify under oath.

As the Los Angeles Times reported on February 7:
"The hearing's tone was set at the start as Democrats disputed the decision by
Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) not to require Gonzales to
testify under oath. Gonzales expressed a willingness to take the oath, but Specter
said it was not necessary, noting that administration officials usually were not
sworn in before testifying to Senate committees."
Committee Democrats countered by noting Specter's assertion that Gonzales had not
objected to being sworn in, that Gonzales had provided sworn testimony on domestic
surveillance in the past, that he had been sworn in on previous occasions other than
his confirmation hearing, and that Republican senators had insisted that former
Attorney General Janet Reno be sworn in for appearances other than her confirmation
hearing.
Ultimately, in a 10-8 party-line vote, the committee refused to swear in Gonzales.

While Specter's refusal to require that Gonzales testify under oath does not shield
Gonzales from liability if he said something untrue, it did spare him the inevitable
front-page photo of the attorney general with his hand up, swearing to tell the truth,
a courtesy that Democrats said was not similarly extended to Clinton administration officials.

Nevertheless, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and USA Today omitted
from their February 7 coverage of the hearing any mention of the dispute over
Specter's refusal to require Gonzales to testify under oath despite Gonzales's
purported willingness to do so.
ABC's World News Tonight, the CBS Evening News, NBC's Nightly News,
and PBS' The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer similarly failed to mention
in their February 6 broadcasts that Gonzales's testimony was unsworn.

In his February 7 "Washington Sketch" column,
Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank noted the committee's dispute
over whether to swear in Gonzales.
However, the Post's news coverage made no mention of Specter's refusal
to swear in Gonzales at the February 6 hearing.

Contact:
ABC E-mail: Contact page
ABCNews
7 W. 66th St.
New York, NY 10023
Contact:
ABC World News Tonight

Contact:
NBC NBC News
NBC News
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, N.Y. 10112

Contact:
NBC Nightly News
Contact:
PBS PBS
Public Broadcasting Service
1320 Braddock Place
Alexandria, VA 22314

Contact:
The New York Times Byron Calame,
NY Times public editor
E-mail:[e-mail]
Phone: [phone]
Address: Public Editor
The New York Times
229 West 43rd St.
New York, NY 10036-3959
New York Times
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

Contact:
The Newshour [e-mail]
MacNeil/Lehrer Productions
3620 S. 27th St.
Arlington, VA 22206
Phone: [phone]

Contact:
The Washington Post
Washington Post ombudsman:
[e-mail]
202-334-7582

Post e-mail directory
The Washington Post
1150 15th St. NW
Washington, DC 20071

Contact:
USA Today USA Today
USA TODAY / USATODAY.com
7950 Jones Branch Drive
McLean, VA 22108-0605

Contact:
Wall Street Journal Wall Street Journal
WSJ Editorial Staff: [e-mail]
WSJ Feedback: [e-mail]

I keep hearing how the 'dems' aren't taking a stand
but is that really true or are they out gunned right now?
:shrug:

[mrcheerful]

14. The same as their reaction to Water Gate for 4 years after the break in.

MSM wrote a page 11 article that wasn't even a paragraph and we heard nothing until all hell broke out about not only Water Gate but how Nixon was spying on everyone. Remember Water Gate happened in 1969. It wasn't until after his second term things started coming out. If I made any mistakes on this excuse me, I'm doing it from what I remember as a kid of 12 or 13 years old. What I remember best is the Vietnam police action.

[fooj]

2. Did you see Coretta King's funeral service today?

Over ten thousand people went nuts when President Carter mentioned wiretapping. I think that they are far from slipping through this noose. Just my 2 cents.

Peace.

[peekaloo]

3. Carter mentioned this in front of DimWit?

Sweet.

I didn't see it but NPR didn't mention Carter was attending/speaking. They just said Presidents Slu$h and Clinton were present.

[fooj]

4. Nailed his ass right to the wall.

It was a thing of beauty.

Peace.

[EFerrari]

5. Your keyboard to the Big Equalizer in the sky. n/t

[fooj]

6. Big Equalizer in the sky...LOL!!!

I like that!:toast:

peace.

[smartvoter]

7. I hope you are right. nt

[CabalPowered]

9. I thought it was something like 15 days during wartime?

Not sure but I swear Biden said something to that effect when the story broke. :shrug:

[formercia]

11. There are State laws against unauthorized wiretapping as well

and the President can't pardon someone convicted on State charges. Time to throw away the key.

[StClone]

12. They know it

The Corporate Media (don't ever call it the main stream media msm) plays dumb to stay on the gravy train. FISA was designed exactly for situations like this.

1)What Bush is doing is spying (data mining) on millions via telephone, email and internet activity. It's illegal.
2)The information compiled is illegal and can not be used to prosecute.
3)Captured suspects are not prosecuted (to avoid the conflict of in #2) they are renditioned.
4)To do this they want no oversight whatsoever even if it would not impede the operation just to push the unified President idea.

[pretzel4gore]

13. "nothing fails like success when working for the devil!"

believe me, the republicans DO NOT WANT to get away with this, like a kid with a liking for bennies, getting away with shooting up crystal speed! any friend would not consider his successful binges as something good, or even desireable, and neither would he! the gop is a political party addicted to some real bad dope, and their binges disgust anyone with any sense; clinton's presidency was successful in part because he was forced to adjust to opposition- bush, otoh, has never ENJOYED any effective oppposition, and lookit the mess they're in! they have no choice but to go for broke in overturning civil right and the constitutional guarantees that sustain them- which entail corrupting the judiciary, the mass media and destroying the country as a viable democracy! while bush and some of his top monkeyfarts maybe want to replace the old usa with a feudal one, it's unlikely that the mass of citizens who support bush want that