well, i sent these questions to all of the "guests" on the McLaughlin Group. If any answer (and Tony Blankly has in the past) I'll let you know whether you like it or not.
Her are the questions:
1) How do you not call for presidential impeachment proceedings when it's becoming clearer and clearer that Bush circumvented the FISA law? FISA was set up to make it as easy as possible for a president to obtain a warrant for wiretapping. The threshold for evidence of need is the smallest legal modicum possible. Why, then, would Bush attempt an around-end of this law if he felt his actions were legal? Time being of the essence cannot be an argument concerning FISA. Bush could start his wiretapping three days before approaching the FISA judges. And these judges have granted nearly all requests (only four denied) since FISA's inception. So, where (to you) is the legal basis for Bush's actions regarding this?
2) As a follow-up: If Bush was legally entitled to circumvent FISA, then why did he lie about it at first? And, after that, why did he claim the 5th, then admit it, then claim that Clinton and Carter did it (which they didn't), then assert that had he been doing this before 9/11 he might have been able to prevent 9/11? It's a fact that Bush knew bin Laden was planning to attack us with airplanes. It's a fact that Bush knew law enforcement was surveilling illegal aliens on our soil who were taking flying lessons and had direct ties to bin Laden. It's a fact that Bush did nothing about it and shooed away those who tried to clue him in to the information. And Bush's current argument that announcing he was covertly wiretapping phone conversations would alert terrorists and cause them to shut up or find new ways to communicate doesn't seem to hold water in light of the information we know he had prior to 9/11. So, why did he need to lie about the existence of wiretapping ("When we talk about wiretapping, we're talking about getting a court order. That hasn't changed...")? Terrorists have to know that any communication of theirs is being sought by the very people they seek to harm. If I was a terrorist I think I'd be smart enough to figure that out.
3) This wasn't on the show, but I'd like to know your thoughts. Jack Abramoff has claimed that he met with George Bush, that he knows George Bush. Bush's office has claimed the opposite. In fact, TIME has a photo showing Bush and Abramoff together at a meeting. Bush's office has said Abramoff wasn't present at the meeting, but key Indian tribe clients who were there assert the opposite. Key Indian clients who were in the same picture. So, the question is: Who do we believe? The constituents present or the Office? Abramoff has been tied to more than two dozen Republican politicians and the White House. There is photographic proof that Abramoff was at a meeting (not a party) with Bush and the White House is trying to tell us it never happened. Who do we believe? This administration has a detailed and public record of lying and dissembling in the face of known facts. Who do we believe?While I hold no hope that you will reply to this, I thank you for hopefully reading it.