How is this partisan ?The media is our primary check and balance on our government, this is being introduced right after a media report about wiretapping of civilians. I doubt its coincidental, and more likely a solution to prevent futher revelations.This has nothing to do with terrorism, this to prevent the people of this country from knowing the specifics of what their government is doing surveillance-wise, which just may include their own actions being monitored.Why are they scared of that? Could it be that they realise that if we become aware of how overbearing and intrusive our goverment really is, then we will become furious and disable their ability to perform those intrusions.The people that pay attention are already damn furious and the sheep are getting suspicious.
goatrandy,thanks, that really means a lot. I appreciate it :-) I, too, thought your arguments against the reporting issue was valid :-) Just for that, you will be added as my friend as well.Actually, I've been involved in a couple of these types of debates, and others have said the same thing and added me as their friend as well. Good to know that even liberals (wink) enjoy good debate. ;-) I'll look for you on any further political posts :-)"your arguments are compelling, and well worded."Well, I try, and I think that, liberal or conservative, that our country's future is the main focus, and I appreciate people who really do care about America, regardless of their political affiliation. thanks again.
"that isn%u2019t what that guy said. he said primary check and balance. it is that."check and balance, is commonly used to describe the three branches of government. by calling the media a check and balance, I inferred that the media is somehow given equal (by saying primary, it implies that they are more powerful), or more power than the 3 branches to "check" each other. I am saying that if that is true, then we are in trouble because they are "unelected, unchangeable, and unfairly biased. self, appointed too." no distortion, just some fact."the first amendment guarantees the right to a free press. for a press to be free it has tobe able to investigate. if you are not free to investigate then laws prohibiting it arein violation. "From a previous post in this very comment section:@diggnate said:"I think that it's ridiculous that there is a bill that if it gets passed (and it won't) will restrict freedom of the press. I am a conservative, and support our President, but this is a congressional proposition, not a presidential one. This will, and definitely should not, be passed. It isn't, and should not be, ILLEGAL to report these stories, although it is irresponsible to do so. What they need to do is investigate the actual, IRREFUTABLE, illegal activity, which was to leak this to the media.What do we expect the liberal media to do? Ignore something that could potentially smear Bush? of course not ! I wish things were different, but the media WILL run with these things, so we need to worry about how to stop the leaks from happening in the first place....which IS, might I remind all the diggers, a current ILLEGAL activity, regardless of whether you thing that "whistleblowers" are "noble"."No disagreement starmanjones. But, free press doesn't equate to "primary check and balance." free press and the establishment of the 3 branches are separate parts of the constitution."if only they were jack bower and not mutants from the soviet gulag."Yeah, Yeah, Bush lied, we're in an unjust war, there is no such thing as terrorists, capitalism created terrorists, impeach bush, republicans are corrupt, etc, etc. We get it, you don't like the bush administration."again. you are reading and your brain is spinning it because that isn%u2019t what he said."I asked him a question. I wasn't saying that is what he said. I was pointing out that by saying that the media is a check and balance, it begs the question, "how much information is too much information?" just a question....never answered by the way."skip the pure democracy crap."again, it was just a question. and I gave my opinion. It is my belief that the President should be allowed to be the commander-in-chief of the military, and subsequently be able to conduct military operations, classified military operations, without fear of blown cover by the media. I gave my opinion and asked for his. "when they abuse their power against citizens we don%u2019t expect that they should be able to bury illegal actions by passing laws that make it legal. what bulls**t."I agree. Like I said before, this is not a good law. it will not, and should not be passed. I was making the claim that while it is not illegal (and shouldn't be), it is irresponsible. But, I expect no less from the liberal media. When they get an anti-bush story from a leaker, then the WILL run with it. That's the way they are. It is my assertion that the people who actually without doubt broke the law should be the ones we're after, the "whistleblowers" as you call them. Their leaking activity is illegal, and they should be prosecuted for it. Think what you want about bush and republicans, it is still against the law to leak classified information to the media.
>>"that isnt what that guy said. he said primary check and balance. it is that.">check and balance, is commonly used to describe the three branches of government. by>calling the media a check and balance, I inferred that the media is somehow given equal>(by saying primary, it implies that they are more powerful), or more power than the 3>branches to "check" each other. I am saying that if that is true, then we are in trouble>because they are "unelected, unchangeable, and unfairly biased. self, appointed too." no>distortion, just some fact.well, see... that the deal. he didn’t say they were part of the government. nobodybeleives that they are a branch of the goverment. it is however a VERY common notionthat they are part of the check and balance as a constitutional free press.>"the first amendment guarantees the right to a free press. for a press to be free it has>to be able to investigate. if you are not free to investigate then laws prohibiting it are>in violation. ">>From a previous post in this very comment section: @diggnate said: "I think that it's>ridiculous that there is a bill that if it gets passed (and it won't) will restrict>freedom of the press. I am a conservative, and support our President, but this is a>congressional proposition, not a presidential one. This will, and definitely should not,>be passed. It isn't, and should not be, ILLEGAL to report these stories, although it is>irresponsible to do so. What they need to do is investigate the actual, IRREFUTABLE,>illegal activity, which was to leak this to the media.cool. >What do we expect the liberal media to do? who exactly is the liberal media. are you defining liberal by there level of critisism ofbush? >Ignore something that could potentially smear>Bush? of course not ! I wish things were different, but the media WILL run with these>things, so we need to worry about how to stop the leaks from happening in the first>place....which IS, might I remind all the diggers, a current ILLEGAL activity, regardless>of whether you thing that "whistleblowers" are "noble"."lets not even go here. the neo-cons did everything they could to undermine clintonspresidency. they were worried about sex. now we have bush that has underminded the U.S.in every way and you are complaining about the press blowing the whistle on it? yikes.when the treasonaus bastards impeached clinton they were only about undermining the government. you’ve never seen either a liberal or the press do that.>No disagreement starmanjones. But, free press doesn't equate to "primary check and>balance." free press and the establishment of the 3 branches are separate parts of the>constitution.they are either free or not. and they have been the primary check that has stopped thelikes of watergate... iran/cantra on and on. all the big republican scandals. they’veearned their trust. they’ve done the job. he was right. you mischaracterised what he said.>>"if only they were jack bower and not mutants from the soviet gulag.">Yeah, Yeah, Bush lied, we're in an unjust war, there is no such thing as terrorists,>capitalism created terrorists, impeach bush, republicans are corrupt, etc, etc. We get it,>you don't like the bush administration.they have done those things and yes bush should be impeached for real crimes. i’d settlefor letting him slide off to some third world compound like we do the other despots.>>"again. you are reading and your brain is spinning it because that isn%u2019t what he>>said.">I asked him a question. I wasn't saying that is what he said. I was pointing out that by>saying that the media is a check and balance, it begs the question, "how much information>is too much information?" just a question....never answered by the way.when things are going wrong like they are right now... i think anything that we find out maybeneeded to fix it. understanding that if bush wasn’t an extremist then there wouldn’t be thetrail of an extremist following him. bush... in this case is setting that standard. i wouldsay that clinton also set a standard and he was impeached and then it went away and clintonstands as one of our greatest presidents. works like that. check and balance. when clintonsaid to the press... you need to keep this quite please... they trusted him. when bush saysthe same thing his track record makes that difficult.>"skip the pure democracy crap.">>again, it was just a question. and I gave my opinion. It is my belief that the President>should be allowed to be the commander-in-chief of the military, and subsequently be able>to conduct military operations, classified military operations, without fear of blown>cover by the media. I gave my opinion and asked for his.again. nobody beleives him anymore. he lied about everything to get there. so talking abouthis ability to be commander and chief is talking about what he has done to himself. >"when they abuse their power against citizens we dont expect that they should be>able to bury illegal actions by passing laws that make it legal. what bulls**t.">I agree. Like I said before, this is not a good law. it will not, and should not be>passed. I was making the claim that while it is not illegal (and shouldn't be), it is>irresponsible. But, I expect no less from the liberal media. When they get an anti-bush>story from a leaker, then the WILL run with it. That's the way they are. It is my>assertion that the people who actually without doubt broke the law should be the ones>we're after, the "whistleblowers" as you call them. Their leaking activity is illegal, and>they should be prosecuted for it. Think what you want about bush and republicans, it is>still against the law to leak classified information to the media.cool. then if we agree bush is really in trouble. peaceout humphry. :)
"well, see... that the deal. he didn’t say they were part of the government. nobodybelieves that they are a branch of the government. it is however a VERY common notionthat they are part of the check and balance as a constitutional free press."OK. again, I wasn't trying to put words in his mouth, I was simply pointing out what it sounded like to me. I understand what you're saying, but we may be splitting hairs.and remember common notion != constitutionally definedprobably more hair splitting, but thought it was worth pointing out."who exactly is the liberal media. are you defining liberal by there level of criticism of bush? "From a previous post of mine:"it's not the raising of questions, it's the outrageous accusations, and guilty assumptions, along with the unhidden editorializing of news stories, just by virtue of the volume of negative stories on Bush as opposed to the negative stories of any Liberal. The 2004 campaign was a shining testament of how liberal CNN is. I don't have time to do the research right now, but the Bush/Negative vs. Kerry Negative stories during the election year is absolutely astounding. sad really. there is plenty of partisanship, and it is left-wing for the major news outlets."And a reply from @sphearlesdigger:"Here is a nice study about bias in the media from the UCLA political science dept.<a class="user" href="http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664">http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664</a>""they are either free or not. and they have been the primary check that has stopped thelikes of watergate... iran/cantra on and on. all the big republican scandals. they’veearned their trust. they’ve done the job. he was right. you characterized what he said."I agree that they are free, as I said. I said that they are dangerous because they are "unelected, unchangeable, and unfairly biased. self, appointed too.""all the big republican scandals."proves what you really think. the media is out to be a "check and balance" on republicans. when the media jumps up in arms about the jack abramoff "scandal" then sheepishly crawls back in their holes when it is pointed out that there are as many democrats implicated as republicans, I don't hear the moveon.org and democraticunderground crowd yelling "you're supposed to be our check and balance!!!" nope."they’ve earned their trust. they’ve done the job."actually, there have been plenty of polls out that say that the general public does not trust the media. the media hasn't earned the trust of america, but they have earned the respect of the fringe left."the neo-cons did everything they could to undermine clintons presidency."Actually the republicans ran on a positive agenda called the "contract with america". "they were worried about sex."again, yes we thought that that was a very immoral example for a president to leave. you have to admit, clinton brought that on himself, and the republicans couldn't have ignored it. BUT, where it got legally out of hand was when clinton lied under oath. oh, and by the way, didn't even get convicted. Not to mention the fact that the media smeared republicans every day concerning this scandal, as if they were the ones who had adultery and lied under oath about it. more proof for a liberal media."now we have bush that has underminded the U.S. in every way and you are complaining about the press blowing the whistle on it?"the assumption you made is based on fringe left commentary and bush-hatred. like I said, we know you hate bush and republicans, but these are the "wild accusations" and "guilty assumptions" that I said that the media was guilty of, and obviously you are too. the point is, even if a constitutional expert came in and told you that the international surveillance program was legal, or say a tape was found ;-) or witnesses came forward saying that iraq did have a weapons program, you still would hate bush. By the way, both of those previous things have happened, but of course the media has ignored them. All this so called "corruption" is is a way for liberals and bush haters to attempt to legitimize and politicize their hatred and animosity."when the treasonous bastards impeached clinton"again, this is where you show your bias. they weren't treasonous. there was a lot of evidence suggesting that he broke the law (like a video testimony) and congress had to act on this illegal act. anti-clinton = treasonous. anti-bush = patriotic/honorable."when bush says the same thing his track record makes that difficult."edit: "when bush says the same thing his POLITICAL AFFILIATION makes that difficult." This is a political thing, nothing more. I have no respect for people who do smear jobs for political gain, liberal or conservative. it's just not right."again. nobody believes him anymore. he lied about everything to get there. so talking abouthis ability to be commander and chief is talking about what he has done to himself. "there are so many ways to answer this, and I'm not sure where to begin. one by one I guess."again. nobody believes him anymore."this is the effect caused by years of relentless browbeating by the liberal media. has bush made mistakes? yes. does the media deserve most of the credit for his poll numbers. i would say so, but that's just my opinion."he lied about everything to get there."another wild accusation. "so talking about his ability to be commander and chief is talking about what he has done to himself. "OK. lets assume that the american people don't trust him like you say, and lets say that its all his fault. just for kicks we'll assume that you are correct. Even so, he still has all the rights established in the constitution. AND, you guys are stuck with him for another ~3 years. his trustworthiness has nothing to do with his ability to act as commander-in-chief. it's still his right, and subsequently, he also has the right to conduct classified military operations without fear of blown cover. it's all established, regardless of what you think about him, his actions, or his party. and leaking that information is illegal. period. "cool. then if we agree bush is really in trouble. "I'm not sure how if we agree, then bush is in trouble, but I'm glad to see that you think that the whistleblower should be caught and prosecuted for his illegal activity. :-)
tablatronixMar 13, 2006
How is this partisan ?The media is our primary check and balance on our government, this is being introduced right after a media report about wiretapping of civilians. I doubt its coincidental, and more likely a solution to prevent futher revelations.This has nothing to do with terrorism, this to prevent the people of this country from knowing the specifics of what their government is doing surveillance-wise, which just may include their own actions being monitored.Why are they scared of that? Could it be that they realise that if we become aware of how overbearing and intrusive our goverment really is, then we will become furious and disable their ability to perform those intrusions.The people that pay attention are already damn furious and the sheep are getting suspicious.
diggnateMar 14, 2006
goatrandy,thanks, that really means a lot. I appreciate it :-) I, too, thought your arguments against the reporting issue was valid :-) Just for that, you will be added as my friend as well.Actually, I've been involved in a couple of these types of debates, and others have said the same thing and added me as their friend as well. Good to know that even liberals (wink) enjoy good debate. ;-) I'll look for you on any further political posts :-)"your arguments are compelling, and well worded."Well, I try, and I think that, liberal or conservative, that our country's future is the main focus, and I appreciate people who really do care about America, regardless of their political affiliation. thanks again.
diggnateMar 16, 2006
"that isn%u2019t what that guy said. he said primary check and balance. it is that."check and balance, is commonly used to describe the three branches of government. by calling the media a check and balance, I inferred that the media is somehow given equal (by saying primary, it implies that they are more powerful), or more power than the 3 branches to "check" each other. I am saying that if that is true, then we are in trouble because they are "unelected, unchangeable, and unfairly biased. self, appointed too." no distortion, just some fact."the first amendment guarantees the right to a free press. for a press to be free it has tobe able to investigate. if you are not free to investigate then laws prohibiting it arein violation. "From a previous post in this very comment section:@diggnate said:"I think that it's ridiculous that there is a bill that if it gets passed (and it won't) will restrict freedom of the press. I am a conservative, and support our President, but this is a congressional proposition, not a presidential one. This will, and definitely should not, be passed. It isn't, and should not be, ILLEGAL to report these stories, although it is irresponsible to do so. What they need to do is investigate the actual, IRREFUTABLE, illegal activity, which was to leak this to the media.What do we expect the liberal media to do? Ignore something that could potentially smear Bush? of course not ! I wish things were different, but the media WILL run with these things, so we need to worry about how to stop the leaks from happening in the first place....which IS, might I remind all the diggers, a current ILLEGAL activity, regardless of whether you thing that "whistleblowers" are "noble"."No disagreement starmanjones. But, free press doesn't equate to "primary check and balance." free press and the establishment of the 3 branches are separate parts of the constitution."if only they were jack bower and not mutants from the soviet gulag."Yeah, Yeah, Bush lied, we're in an unjust war, there is no such thing as terrorists, capitalism created terrorists, impeach bush, republicans are corrupt, etc, etc. We get it, you don't like the bush administration."again. you are reading and your brain is spinning it because that isn%u2019t what he said."I asked him a question. I wasn't saying that is what he said. I was pointing out that by saying that the media is a check and balance, it begs the question, "how much information is too much information?" just a question....never answered by the way."skip the pure democracy crap."again, it was just a question. and I gave my opinion. It is my belief that the President should be allowed to be the commander-in-chief of the military, and subsequently be able to conduct military operations, classified military operations, without fear of blown cover by the media. I gave my opinion and asked for his. "when they abuse their power against citizens we don%u2019t expect that they should be able to bury illegal actions by passing laws that make it legal. what bulls**t."I agree. Like I said before, this is not a good law. it will not, and should not be passed. I was making the claim that while it is not illegal (and shouldn't be), it is irresponsible. But, I expect no less from the liberal media. When they get an anti-bush story from a leaker, then the WILL run with it. That's the way they are. It is my assertion that the people who actually without doubt broke the law should be the ones we're after, the "whistleblowers" as you call them. Their leaking activity is illegal, and they should be prosecuted for it. Think what you want about bush and republicans, it is still against the law to leak classified information to the media.
starmanjonesMar 17, 2006
>>"that isnt what that guy said. he said primary check and balance. it is that.">check and balance, is commonly used to describe the three branches of government. by>calling the media a check and balance, I inferred that the media is somehow given equal>(by saying primary, it implies that they are more powerful), or more power than the 3>branches to "check" each other. I am saying that if that is true, then we are in trouble>because they are "unelected, unchangeable, and unfairly biased. self, appointed too." no>distortion, just some fact.well, see... that the deal. he didn’t say they were part of the government. nobodybeleives that they are a branch of the goverment. it is however a VERY common notionthat they are part of the check and balance as a constitutional free press.>"the first amendment guarantees the right to a free press. for a press to be free it has>to be able to investigate. if you are not free to investigate then laws prohibiting it are>in violation. ">>From a previous post in this very comment section: @diggnate said: "I think that it's>ridiculous that there is a bill that if it gets passed (and it won't) will restrict>freedom of the press. I am a conservative, and support our President, but this is a>congressional proposition, not a presidential one. This will, and definitely should not,>be passed. It isn't, and should not be, ILLEGAL to report these stories, although it is>irresponsible to do so. What they need to do is investigate the actual, IRREFUTABLE,>illegal activity, which was to leak this to the media.cool. >What do we expect the liberal media to do? who exactly is the liberal media. are you defining liberal by there level of critisism ofbush? >Ignore something that could potentially smear>Bush? of course not ! I wish things were different, but the media WILL run with these>things, so we need to worry about how to stop the leaks from happening in the first>place....which IS, might I remind all the diggers, a current ILLEGAL activity, regardless>of whether you thing that "whistleblowers" are "noble"."lets not even go here. the neo-cons did everything they could to undermine clintonspresidency. they were worried about sex. now we have bush that has underminded the U.S.in every way and you are complaining about the press blowing the whistle on it? yikes.when the treasonaus bastards impeached clinton they were only about undermining the government. you’ve never seen either a liberal or the press do that.>No disagreement starmanjones. But, free press doesn't equate to "primary check and>balance." free press and the establishment of the 3 branches are separate parts of the>constitution.they are either free or not. and they have been the primary check that has stopped thelikes of watergate... iran/cantra on and on. all the big republican scandals. they’veearned their trust. they’ve done the job. he was right. you mischaracterised what he said.>>"if only they were jack bower and not mutants from the soviet gulag.">Yeah, Yeah, Bush lied, we're in an unjust war, there is no such thing as terrorists,>capitalism created terrorists, impeach bush, republicans are corrupt, etc, etc. We get it,>you don't like the bush administration.they have done those things and yes bush should be impeached for real crimes. i’d settlefor letting him slide off to some third world compound like we do the other despots.>>"again. you are reading and your brain is spinning it because that isn%u2019t what he>>said.">I asked him a question. I wasn't saying that is what he said. I was pointing out that by>saying that the media is a check and balance, it begs the question, "how much information>is too much information?" just a question....never answered by the way.when things are going wrong like they are right now... i think anything that we find out maybeneeded to fix it. understanding that if bush wasn’t an extremist then there wouldn’t be thetrail of an extremist following him. bush... in this case is setting that standard. i wouldsay that clinton also set a standard and he was impeached and then it went away and clintonstands as one of our greatest presidents. works like that. check and balance. when clintonsaid to the press... you need to keep this quite please... they trusted him. when bush saysthe same thing his track record makes that difficult.>"skip the pure democracy crap.">>again, it was just a question. and I gave my opinion. It is my belief that the President>should be allowed to be the commander-in-chief of the military, and subsequently be able>to conduct military operations, classified military operations, without fear of blown>cover by the media. I gave my opinion and asked for his.again. nobody beleives him anymore. he lied about everything to get there. so talking abouthis ability to be commander and chief is talking about what he has done to himself. >"when they abuse their power against citizens we dont expect that they should be>able to bury illegal actions by passing laws that make it legal. what bulls**t.">I agree. Like I said before, this is not a good law. it will not, and should not be>passed. I was making the claim that while it is not illegal (and shouldn't be), it is>irresponsible. But, I expect no less from the liberal media. When they get an anti-bush>story from a leaker, then the WILL run with it. That's the way they are. It is my>assertion that the people who actually without doubt broke the law should be the ones>we're after, the "whistleblowers" as you call them. Their leaking activity is illegal, and>they should be prosecuted for it. Think what you want about bush and republicans, it is>still against the law to leak classified information to the media.cool. then if we agree bush is really in trouble. peaceout humphry. :)
diggnateMar 18, 2006
"well, see... that the deal. he didn’t say they were part of the government. nobodybelieves that they are a branch of the government. it is however a VERY common notionthat they are part of the check and balance as a constitutional free press."OK. again, I wasn't trying to put words in his mouth, I was simply pointing out what it sounded like to me. I understand what you're saying, but we may be splitting hairs.and remember common notion != constitutionally definedprobably more hair splitting, but thought it was worth pointing out."who exactly is the liberal media. are you defining liberal by there level of criticism of bush? "From a previous post of mine:"it's not the raising of questions, it's the outrageous accusations, and guilty assumptions, along with the unhidden editorializing of news stories, just by virtue of the volume of negative stories on Bush as opposed to the negative stories of any Liberal. The 2004 campaign was a shining testament of how liberal CNN is. I don't have time to do the research right now, but the Bush/Negative vs. Kerry Negative stories during the election year is absolutely astounding. sad really. there is plenty of partisanship, and it is left-wing for the major news outlets."And a reply from @sphearlesdigger:"Here is a nice study about bias in the media from the UCLA political science dept.<a class="user" href="http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664">http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664</a>""they are either free or not. and they have been the primary check that has stopped thelikes of watergate... iran/cantra on and on. all the big republican scandals. they’veearned their trust. they’ve done the job. he was right. you characterized what he said."I agree that they are free, as I said. I said that they are dangerous because they are "unelected, unchangeable, and unfairly biased. self, appointed too.""all the big republican scandals."proves what you really think. the media is out to be a "check and balance" on republicans. when the media jumps up in arms about the jack abramoff "scandal" then sheepishly crawls back in their holes when it is pointed out that there are as many democrats implicated as republicans, I don't hear the moveon.org and democraticunderground crowd yelling "you're supposed to be our check and balance!!!" nope."they’ve earned their trust. they’ve done the job."actually, there have been plenty of polls out that say that the general public does not trust the media. the media hasn't earned the trust of america, but they have earned the respect of the fringe left."the neo-cons did everything they could to undermine clintons presidency."Actually the republicans ran on a positive agenda called the "contract with america". "they were worried about sex."again, yes we thought that that was a very immoral example for a president to leave. you have to admit, clinton brought that on himself, and the republicans couldn't have ignored it. BUT, where it got legally out of hand was when clinton lied under oath. oh, and by the way, didn't even get convicted. Not to mention the fact that the media smeared republicans every day concerning this scandal, as if they were the ones who had adultery and lied under oath about it. more proof for a liberal media."now we have bush that has underminded the U.S. in every way and you are complaining about the press blowing the whistle on it?"the assumption you made is based on fringe left commentary and bush-hatred. like I said, we know you hate bush and republicans, but these are the "wild accusations" and "guilty assumptions" that I said that the media was guilty of, and obviously you are too. the point is, even if a constitutional expert came in and told you that the international surveillance program was legal, or say a tape was found ;-) or witnesses came forward saying that iraq did have a weapons program, you still would hate bush. By the way, both of those previous things have happened, but of course the media has ignored them. All this so called "corruption" is is a way for liberals and bush haters to attempt to legitimize and politicize their hatred and animosity."when the treasonous bastards impeached clinton"again, this is where you show your bias. they weren't treasonous. there was a lot of evidence suggesting that he broke the law (like a video testimony) and congress had to act on this illegal act. anti-clinton = treasonous. anti-bush = patriotic/honorable."when bush says the same thing his track record makes that difficult."edit: "when bush says the same thing his POLITICAL AFFILIATION makes that difficult." This is a political thing, nothing more. I have no respect for people who do smear jobs for political gain, liberal or conservative. it's just not right."again. nobody believes him anymore. he lied about everything to get there. so talking abouthis ability to be commander and chief is talking about what he has done to himself. "there are so many ways to answer this, and I'm not sure where to begin. one by one I guess."again. nobody believes him anymore."this is the effect caused by years of relentless browbeating by the liberal media. has bush made mistakes? yes. does the media deserve most of the credit for his poll numbers. i would say so, but that's just my opinion."he lied about everything to get there."another wild accusation. "so talking about his ability to be commander and chief is talking about what he has done to himself. "OK. lets assume that the american people don't trust him like you say, and lets say that its all his fault. just for kicks we'll assume that you are correct. Even so, he still has all the rights established in the constitution. AND, you guys are stuck with him for another ~3 years. his trustworthiness has nothing to do with his ability to act as commander-in-chief. it's still his right, and subsequently, he also has the right to conduct classified military operations without fear of blown cover. it's all established, regardless of what you think about him, his actions, or his party. and leaking that information is illegal. period. "cool. then if we agree bush is really in trouble. "I'm not sure how if we agree, then bush is in trouble, but I'm glad to see that you think that the whistleblower should be caught and prosecuted for his illegal activity. :-)