Quote:

Matter-eater Man said:
Bush yes men



If they weren't immediately going along with it, that means they aren't "yes men." Which tends to discredit your theory that this was approved "because [Bush] said so."

I also notice you ignored the point about the Justice Department auditing the program and apparently not finding problems.

I guess that was one of those "odd numbered" days, or whatever, when they ARE "yes men."


Quote:

Jim Jackson said:
And watch, another terrorist event will happen on Bush's watch and then all you Cons can blame us Liberals for it.

I'll bet you'll even argue for us to go to interment camps just for our own good. Yep, I can see it now.

Then another one will happen and maybe Bush will say we should just suspend the Consitition for the duration of this war on a concept.



With all due respect, that kind of hysteria is exactly why "your" camp always ends up looking silly and/or weak when issues of security and defense come up.

Reasonable people can disagree on this issue, sure. However, at the same time, ideas and programs (or opposition to same) have consequences. If one party or another wants to kill what some have called a successful program in combatting terrorism, that side needs to be aware of the potential consequences.

By all accounts this is a fairly narrowly tailored program. And, yet, the liberals--including you--are trotting out the tired old "Bush is Nazi" rants instead of addressing the substantive posts about legality and/or explaining why they don't think this will hurt our ability to prevent acts of terror.

You can parade all the John Murthas, John Kerrys and Max Clelands out here you want to tell us they're vets. However, if those vets are going to engage a debate or endanger civilians people are still going to trust the Republicans on security issues more.