Rob--all this asks for is action on the financial front. Does that mean that they automatically approve of ANY action on finances, conducted via any means, done with or without judicial or Congressional knowledge or approval?
If I say "I want the government to punish heroin users" and then, when the government declares the death penalty for heroin users, I'm not allowed to say "that's not what I meant"?
They were for it before they were against it.
jd you are so full of it, parse it however you like, the government was doing this legally with congressional oversight. It's exactly what they meant before they decided to attack the administration for anything and everything.
Carlos--I may be getting this wrong, but didn't the congressional oversight start about 5 weeks ago? They only told Congress about it when they found out the NYTimes had found out. If that's true, do you really think Congress has been doing oversight? How? And if you believe oversight is important (as you clearly do) and you now find out that this has had none, well...how does that make you feel?
It's treason. You can parse it however you want, it still aids the enemy.
"I may be getting this wrong, but didn't the congressional oversight start about 5 weeks ago."
I have read that congress has been aprised of the SWIFT program from it's onset ~ 7 years. Do you have anything to back that up?
Who in the world decided that the New York Times needed to protect me? What a bunch of jerks.
hmm
Commenting by HaloScan
