Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man said on 12/23/05 10:59 AM

will you keep the same position if say Hillary Clinton became President in 2008?


 Originally Posted By: the G-man of Zur-En-Arrh on 12/23/05 11:11 AM

If Hillary follows the law and uses the law to go after terrorists (as opposed to harassing political opponents), I don't see a problem with it.


Change “Hillary” to “Barack Hussein Obama” and my answer’s the same.

Oh, and speaking of Obama, he’s what he said about a resolution to censure the President for “illegal” wiretapping back in 2006:

 Originally Posted By: the G-man of Zur-En-Arrh

The Washington Post has a hilarious description of Democratic senators, "filing in for their weekly caucus lunch yesterday" and reacting to Feingold's proposal to censure President Bush for fighting terrorism:

  • "I haven't read it," demurred Barack Obama (Ill.)....


\:lol\: Some things NEVER change....


Now, let’s find out how these posters feel, given what they wrote when Bush did it:

 Originally Posted By: whomod

Keith Olbermann’s Special Comment tonight:
  • The eavesdropping provisions of FISA have obviously had no impact on counter-terrorism, and there is no current or perceived terrorist threat.... guilty of stupidity.... guilty of treason… ...


 Originally Posted By: Jim Jackson

Who watches the Watchmen?
That the President asserts that it's not infringing on civil liberties leaves me cold.


 Originally Posted By: Jason E. Perkins

What he's doing now isn't legal. He should be investigated.


Poor Perkins....

;\)

Oh, and then there was this guy. He was pretty outraged and kept demanding a full investigation, posting about it repeatedly over the course of a couple of years:

 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
... the Bush administration's spying scandal...


 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
….so outrageous, so unrelated to the War on Terror and such an unconstitutional breach of authority that he knows that even a court that has rejected just 4 warrant requests in 25 years will reject what he's doing. ...


 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
This was a case of the White House deciding it didn't have to follow a law.


 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

The fact that his lawyers (that he picks) thinks it's OK doesn't make it Constitutional.


 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
even Ashcroft had problems with Bush's wiretapping!


 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

It never ceases to amaze me how quick some people are willing to chuck their rights just so that they can feel safe.


 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
…care about the constitution & don't want a President operating above it when he didn't have to…


 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
Checks & balances folks.


 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
This has to be investigated.


So, MEM, you say you're still against it. Do you still think that Obama is violating the law and should be investigated? And who should do the investigation?

Pelosi?
Reid?
Eric Holder?
A Special Prosecutor?

Inquiring minds want to know, especially since, as noted above "Obama's Justice Department has gone even further than the Bush administration"