By Joan Chittister

National Catholic Reporter

(snip)

At this Christmas party everyone -- whoever they were, wherever they were from -- began talking about the latest breaking news story on the latest White House scandal. Surprisingly enough, though, the overall tone of the conversation, unlike most political discussion in mixed company these days, was not argumentative. Instead, the general response was a kind of quiet dismay. Faulty intelligence, misinterpreted intelligence -- exaggerated, insufficient, decades-old intelligence -- was one thing. Spying on the American public in sweeping, unspecified, unmonitored fishing expeditions, however, was entirely another.

One woman put it this way: "Where is Monica Lewinsky when we need her?" Nobody laughed. The comment made the point: There are scandals and then there are scandals.

(snip)

It's another kind of scandal when a president cannot control a need for power. Deceit, spuriousness, pride and calculated dishonesty fall into the category of "sins of the spirit." These are not confined to private or personal sexual behaviors. "Sins of the spirit" have to do with intellectual malice, with the cultivation of behavior and attitudes that attack the very ideals of the human community and pollute a whole way of being alive. This day's scandal yielded no ordinary political conversation. The group wrestled with the problem. Didn't the attack on the World Trade Center demand a more intense kind of intelligence gathering? Didn't the president have the responsibility to do this? Wasn't it imperative that it be done?

Yes, yes, and yes. The answers came easily, it seemed. Then what was the problem? A continuing discomfort hung in the air; something begged to be said yet. People put their eyes down and bit at the inside of their lips. Then a woman dared the breach: "We may need to do this kind of thing -- but not like this. Not without legal permission, not without the approval of the Congress. Not in the United States of America. We elected a president. Not a king."


www.nationalcatholicreporter.org/fwis/

Whatever...:rolleyes:

To say that what GWB did is better than or worse than something Clinton did is just stupid. At least GWB is focusing his energy on preventing the next 911 instead of getting his rocks off with a White House intern.

Which action is more of a play for power? The one where a man seeks to dominate every woman he sees sexually or one where a man seeks powers to spy on our nation's enemies? At least the latter believes he's doing his job.

Which action is more of a play for power? The one where a man seeks to dominate every woman he sees sexually or one where a man seeks powers to spy on our nation's enemies? At least the latter believes he's doing his job.

Yes, Monica is every woman, right.
They're not really comparable scandals. Clinton getting head isn't as big a deal, personally to me as a guy doing some scary **** that has much more potential to affect me. Let's be honest, nobody outside the Clinton family and those who gave him head were really affected by that scandal. We all have to worry about it when the President further localizes power to himself that he did not previously have.

My favorite limerick:

Lewinsky and Clinton have shown
what Kaczynski must surely have known:
that an intern is better
than a bomb in a letter
when deciding how best to be blown

Clinton at least didn't have any scandals that really involved the office of the President (except literally!)

President Bush has created scandals through actual policy.

Yes, Monica is every woman, right.
They're not really comparable scandals. Clinton getting head isn't as big a deal, personally to me as a guy doing some scary **** that has much more potential to affect me. Let's be honest, nobody outside the Clinton family and those who gave him head were really affected by that scandal. We all have to worry about it when the President further localizes power to himself that he did not previously have.

Have you forgotten that during one of those episodes Clinton was discussing troop deployments during combat?

Clinton at least didn't have any scandals that really involved the office of the President (except literally!)

President Bush has created scandals through actual policy.

Clinton's scandals involved the office of the presidency by neglect. He was a party-time president, more concerned with a great legacy and having fun than with facing difficult decisions and taking steps to deal with hard issues. He did everything he could to avoid problems. That's the biggest scandal of all.

Clinton's scandals involved the office of the presidency by neglect. He was a party-time president, more concerned with a great legacy and having fun than with facing difficult decisions and taking steps to deal with hard issues. He did everything he could to avoid problems. That's the biggest scandal of all.


Clintons affairs took less time out of his day than that from Bush's vacations where he works less of the time presumably than in the white house.

Have you forgotten that during one of those episodes Clinton was discussing troop deployments during combat?

So? How does this relate to him getting nookie? What's the connection? Should sex and all things related to it stop as soon as military action is being considered?

What's the direct connection between him gettin' some and troop deployment?

You will notice all of these so called "scandals" have been fabricated by the left-wing media. Bush was not spying on Americans. There is zero evidence of this. He was monitoring the communications of known terrorist agents in accordance with the law. But the media has twisted this into "Bush was spying on your grandmother because he hates freedom."

You will notice all of these so called "scandals" have been fabricated by the left-wing media. Bush was not spying on Americans. There is zero evidence of this. He was monitoring the communications of known terrorist agents in accordance with the law. But the media has twisted this into "Bush was spying on your grandmother because he hates freedom."


ROFL!!!

The neo-cons are the most dishonest bunch of people to ever live on this planet, they lie to themselves everyday to keep up the illusion that they live under a great leader who can do no wrong. They can't even get simple facts right...


George W. Bush as the New Richard M. Nixon: Both Wiretapped Illegally, and Impeachably

Both Claimed That a President May Violate Congress' Laws to Protect National Security.

On Friday, December 16, the New York Times published a major scoop by James Risen and Eric Lichtblau: They reported that Bush authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to spy on Americans without warrants, ignoring the procedures of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

It was a long story loaded with astonishing information of lawbreaking at the White House. It reported that sometime in 2002, Bush issued an executive order authorizing NSA to track and intercept international telephone and/or email exchanges coming into, or out of, the U.S. - when one party was believed to have direct or indirect ties with al Qaeda.



Initially, Bush and the White House stonewalled, neither confirming nor denying the president had ignored the law. Bush refused to discuss it in his interview with Jim Lehrer.

Then, on Saturday, December 17, in his radio broadcast, Bush admitted that the New York Times was correct - and thus conceded he had committed an impeachable offense.

There can be no serious question that warrantless wiretapping, in violation of the law, is impeachable. After all, Nixon was charged in Article II of his bill of impeachment with illegal wiretapping for what he, too, claimed were national security reasons.

These parallel violations underscore the continuing, disturbing parallels between this Administration and the Nixon Administration - parallels I also discussed in a prior column.

Indeed, here, Bush may have outdone Nixon: Nixon's illegal surveillance was limited; Bush's, it is developing, may be extraordinarily broad in scope. First reports indicated that NSA was only monitoring foreign calls, originating either in the USA or abroad, and that no more than 500 calls were being covered at any given time. But later reports have suggested that NSA is "data mining" literally millions of calls - and has been given access by the telecommunications companies to "switching" stations through which foreign communications traffic flows.

In sum, this is big-time, Big Brother electronic surveillance.


http://writ.corporate.findlaw.com/dean/20051230.html


Now what were you saying Contra?


Just what exactly is in the Kool-Aid Bush is whipping up????:eek7: :eek7:

You will notice all of these so called "scandals" have been fabricated by the left-wing media. Bush was not spying on Americans. There is zero evidence of this. He was monitoring the communications of known terrorist agents in accordance with the law. But the media has twisted this into "Bush was spying on your grandmother because he hates freedom."

The point is this.... "Then a woman dared the breach: "We may need to do this kind of thing -- but not like this. Not without legal permission, not without the approval of the Congress. Not in the United States of America. We elected a president. Not a king."

The point is this.... You have no point. Except maybe that you are convinced that Clinton was a sleeze-ball and need Lewinsky to manufacture a scandal against Bush

"Then a woman dared the breach: "We may need to do this kind of thing -- but not like this. Not without legal permission, not without the approval of the Congress. Okay...so you have no clue about constitutional authority and separation of powers but instead "trust" Congress with all our state secrets :rolleyes:
psssssst...Do a google on "Congress, scandals"

Not in the United States of America. We elected a president. Not a king."Why elect anyone if you want Congress to approve of everything?


There is a reason why ONE man is the Commander in Chief and not an entire body of political fat-cats

We live in a system of checks and balances. Here's the rest of the article ...

"In Colonial America, "general warrants" -- declarations issued by King George III -- allowed British soldiers to search for smuggled goods in any house, day or night, without giving notice or warning. People were harassed simply on the suspicion that they might be breaking tax laws.

James Otis, a Boston lawyer and advocate-general of the Boston vice-admiralty court, mounted vigorous arguments against these "writs of assistance" on the basis of rights long-granted in English common law. Nevertheless, given the court's sympathy for the Crown, Otis lost the case. So, he resigned his position in the government on the grounds that he could not defend what he believed to be legally groundless and wrong.

After the War of Independence that followed, the new nation wrote into its Bill of Rights the Fourth Amendment or the right of American citizens to be "secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects."

Now, in our time, that security is being threatened again. Wire taps, electronic eavesdropping in public places, monitoring the e-mail of U.S. citizens -- everything we ever accused Soviet Russia of doing and then some -- have been authorized secretly, without "reasonable cause," in great sweeping disregard for the public at large. And, as in any government with tendencies toward monarchical privilege, it is being defended as "good for the country."

But what is not good for the country is any branch of government that has the power to ignore the other two components of a system of checks and balances. What is not good for the country is to shred the Constitution in the name of personal authority. What is not good for the country is to make democracy a sham by excluding the representatives of the people from the kinds of decisions that render powerless the people whose power this government is supposed to protect. What is not good for the country is the kind of presidential precedent that, under the guise of defending the country, begins little by little to destroy it.

Any appeal to fear in order to justify the unjustifiable destruction of civil rights is what we really need to fear.

Yes, yes, yes, indeed, to protection, to surveillance, to security. But not outside the laws of this country, not beyond them, not despite them.

The most dangerous thing about the present moment is that the citizens of the country -- made comatose by fear -- may not see the danger in this kind of precedent-setting attack on the history, the tradition, the people and the Constitution of the United States.

It may behoove us to remember that so engrained were the notions of civil rights in English Common Law that tampering with them lit the spark of revolution here long before now.

From where I stand, history is clear: King George III made a serious mistake by imposing general warrants in 1761 -- good as he thought them to be for the sake of the country at that time."

Why doesn't anyone understand that the job of president of the United States was made 100 times harder because of terrorism? Are you all so ignorant or something? Bill Clinton didn't face attacks on the United States that killed thousands of people did he? Oh he did? What date was that and yes the link is required.

So? How does this relate to him getting nookie? What's the connection? Should sex and all things related to it stop as soon as military action is being considered?

What's the direct connection between him gettin' some and troop deployment?

Apparently it means little or nothing to you, but I prefer the president be focused on the task at hand when discussing where and when to place troops that will shortly be in combat. I would think the same if he were watching "Hogan's Heros" on TV at the time. It goes to his whole negligent attitude towards governing. He was more interested in partying.

Apparently it means little or nothing to you, but I prefer the president be focused on the task at hand when discussing where and when to place troops that will shortly be in combat. I would think the same if he were watching "Hogan's Heros" on TV at the time. It goes to his whole negligent attitude towards governing. He was more interested in partying.

Would that be like taking lots and lots of vacations instead of working as the president while troops are on the ground?
There's an example of an argument one could make between two things these presidents did that are comparable.

everything we ever accused Soviet Russia of doing and then some -- have been authorized secretly, without "reasonable cause," in great sweeping disregard for the public at large.

This is all one needs to read from your article to recognize the extremist-loony thinking

Would that be like taking lots and lots of vacations instead of working as the president while troops are on the ground?


No. There's a difference between taking a "vacation", which presidents never really have since they're on-call at ALL times, and discussing troop movements while one of the least powerful women in the administration services the most powerful man.


There's an example of an argument one could make between two things these presidents did that are comparable.

They aren't compatible. The president is never truly on vacation, and hasn't been since the advent of electronic communication.

Yes, Monica is every woman, right.Oh, Sweet Jesus! Were you asleep for the years Billy was in office? The guy was chasing every piece of ass that crossed his line of sight! There is a parade of women who accused Billy of sexual harassment, groping, and even rape (Cathleen Willy and Paula Jones are just two that come to mind). I'm sure there are a ton of other women who accepted his advances that we'll never hear about.

They're not really comparable scandals. Clinton getting head isn't as big a deal...No? Then why all the attempts to lie and cover it up? Remember Hillary's "vast right-wing conspiracy" speech in which she said the Monica story was all a bunch of lies? Ooops...

Honestly, I don't give a damn about the president getting a knob job. If he didn't think there was anything wrong with it, then he should have just came out and admitted the whole thing. That would have been the end of it.

Apparently it means little or nothing to you, but I prefer the president be focused on the task at hand when discussing where and when to place troops that will shortly be in combat.
I have to agree with hadit here. Yes, the president should be focused on the important issues of his office when he's in his office. He should focus on his own sexual gratification when he's in the private residence. But, that being the case, if there were a matter of national importance that required the president's attention, I'd expect him to stop whatever it is he's doing and address it. I don't care if he's sleeping, taking a shower, reading a book, playing video games, banging his wife or getting a blow from a White House intern. He should stop immediately and get to the people's business.