I'm absolutly certain....

[off piste]

...... That online pornography figures heavily into the Global War on Terrorism.......

U.S. Obtains Internet Users' Search Records

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-google20jan20,0,6995079.story?coll=la-home-headlines

Federal investigators have obtained potentially billions of Internet search requests made by users of major websites run by Yahoo Inc., Microsoft Corp. and America Online Inc., raising concerns about how the massive data trove will be used.

A Justice Department spokesman said the government was not interested in ferreting out names — only in search trends as part of its efforts to regulate online pornography. But the search-engine subpoenas come amid broader concerns over how much information the government collects and how the data are used.

Under a section of the Patriot Act expanding the use of so-called national security letters, companies such as Google can be asked to turn over potentially useful data — even about people who aren't suspected of wrongdoing — while being barred from disclosing those requests.

[Slider]

How do you think Osama survives those cold Pakastani nights? ???

So they got library records, phone calls, and search engine history. Any bets on whether medical or financial records are next? That IRS database must look awfully tempting.

Slider

[off piste]

I can't help but wonder, whether in the end, as we're all being............"processed", that the un-enlightened liberals and gun grabbers will see the irony in whttling away at the 2nd Amendment all these years.....

[TrailBate]

I support the right to bear arms!!! Just not for 3,000 round assault rifles.

And Slider, Republicans from several states have already tried to get access to medical records of abortion clinics.....

[Slider]

I can't help but wonder, whether in the end, as we're all being............"processed", that the un-enlightened liberals and gun grabbers will see the irony in whttling away at the 2nd Amendment all these years.....


The only irony I see here is the attempt to tie the recent alarming attacks on civil rights to liberals. You really can't be serious.

Slider

[off piste]

Gee, I said "un-enlightened librals", to deliberatly avoid a blanket styatement, and then "gun grabbers", to identify the non-partisan anti gun crowd. Trailbait didn't have any problems seeing that. It seems I was talking about two different things entirely -- the fact that some pretty disturbing stuff is going on with respect to our rights, and the irony that if and when that process comes to an endpoint, the smaller whittling away of our gun rights over the last few decades will have left us without one of the resources against such tyranny. I merely identified the two groups (that I know of), that were the whittlers. But as usual, it's a partisan thing to you, to the point that the attack on civil liberties now takes a back seat to a comment about liberals, with was taken out of context in the first place. I think, that when you make the jump to being able to find blame on the "government", versus the "republicans", or the "democrats", or the "little green men", and realize that for the most part the entire government is pretty much out to left field, you'll have made headway. Until then, I think you're just going to continue to be nothing but a party shill, as bad as the ones on the right. Hell, right now, on a gun board I post on, someone posted this very subject. Of course, we have the right wing equivalent of you over there, as well as more balanced people, as over here. They shrugged it off very quickly with "it's necessary", "if you don't have anything to hide you shouldn't be worried", etc. Then, someone posted about the "dems" in Mass trying to pass the seatbelt law again in another thread. Guess what? Your counterpart schills are having a meltdown over that one.

Hmmmmmmm, I'm beginning to wonder if I'm a Libertarian. I certainly don't fit into either of the messed up parties that you or your opponents belong to.

[Slider]

Your gun rights seem pretty broad to me. With a license, you can own pretty much as many as you want, and even the controls on semi-automatics have lapsed. If you wanted to mount some sort of violent protest to an over-reaching governent, getting weapons would not be a problem.

On the other hand, the president claims he can now monitor any phone calls he says might be a threat, has the legal authority to review the books you take out of the library, and claims the power to monitor your behavior on the internet and use of search engines. If your revolution was to be stopped, it would happen long before you got to the point of firing that gun.

It isn't about partisanship, but about accurately identifying the most threatening challenges to our civil liberty. Those are not coming from gun control laws, but from the far-right's attempt to undermine a far broader swath of the Bill of Rights.

Slider

[off piste]

More on this:

Google is resisting Bush Administration attempts to force it to hand over records about the behaviour of millions of people who use its search engine.


http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/google-fights-bush-on-search-data/2006/01/21/1137734186112.html

[catbbq]

Hmmmmmmm, I'm beginning to wonder if I'm a Libertarian. I certainly don't fit into either of the messed up parties that you or your opponents belong to.


Welcome friend, the water is fine.

[off piste]

;)

[TrailBate]

ah, yes, the Libertarians. I remember last year when some Libertarian showed up at a poor black neighborhood that was suffering from a high rate of gun violence. he tried to hand out free toy guns to children. Dude was chased out of town.....

[off piste]

Yep, you're right Trailbait -- just Googled it. I guess that pretty much seals things. We have the filth of the Republical Party, the sickness that your party represents, and the absurdity of the Libertarians. Not much hope left for the regular folk.

[catbbq]

The libertarians put the party back into political party.

[TrailBate]

Yep, you're right Trailbait -- just Googled it. I guess that pretty much seals things. We have the filth of the Republical Party, the sickness that your party represents, and the absurdity of the Libertarians. Not much hope left for the regular folk.


I guess it's the corruption of the Republicans, the spineless and aimlessness of the Democrats, and the plain insanity of the Libertarians. What are independents? Just clueless?

[GeepNutt]

Hey there's nothing wrong with being a Conservative....

Even our friends in Canada have finally seen the light, ay! ;D

[TrailBate]

If I read that story correctly, liberals won more seats in whatever their version of the house/senate is.....

[GeepNutt]

Yeah, it's kinda like Massachusetts government. We elect a Republican govenor and then fill up the house and senate with Democrats.

[Tim]

Kind the opposite, Geep - we keep electing scads of Democrats to the legislature, and then a Republican governor 'cause we don't really trust them!

[GeepNutt]

Kind the opposite, Geep - we keep electing scads of Democrats to the legislature, and then a Republican governor 'cause we don't really trust them!


That was my point, however I didn't articulate it that well!

[FriedRys]

Yep, you're right Trailbait -- just Googled it. I guess that pretty much seals things. We have the filth of the Republical Party, the sickness that your party represents, and the absurdity of the Libertarians. Not much hope left for the regular folk.


I guess it's the corruption of the Republicans, the spineless and aimlessness of the Democrats, and the plain insanity of the Libertarians. What are independents? Just clueless?
The silent majority, a.k.a. the non-voters. :-\

[off piste]

Yep, you're right Trailbait -- just Googled it. I guess that pretty much seals things. We have the filth of the Republical Party, the sickness that your party represents, and the absurdity of the Libertarians. Not much hope left for the regular folk.


I guess it's the corruption of the Republicans, the spineless and aimlessness of the Democrats, and the plain insanity of the Libertarians. What are independents? Just clueless?


I'm not sure if any studies have been done on independents, but apparently one has been done on republicans and democrats (probably by an independent):



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11009379/

Political bias affects brain activity, study finds

[catbbq]

Yep, you're right Trailbait -- just Googled it. I guess that pretty much seals things. We have the filth of the Republical Party, the sickness that your party represents, and the absurdity of the Libertarians. Not much hope left for the regular folk.


I guess it's the corruption of the Republicans, the spineless and aimlessness of the Democrats, and the plain insanity of the Libertarians. What are independents? Just clueless?


I'm not sure if any studies have been done on independents, but apparently one has been done on republicans and democrats (probably by an independent):



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11009379/

Political bias affects brain activity, study finds


The best part... "Notably absent were any increases in activation of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, the part of the brain most associated with reasoning."

[Mr_Cheeze]

I guess it's the corruption of the Republicans, the spineless and aimlessness of the Democrats, and the plain insanity of the Libertarians. What are independents? Just clueless?
Fixed that for you. Don't kid yourself, they're virtually all corrupt. That's why it's tiresome seeing these liberals go on and on about the current administration.

The silent majority, a.k.a. the non-voters. :-\


More like the people who are duped into believing that to vote for any third party is a wasted vote. I know so many people who always complain about whomever is in office. Doesn't matter which party. But when push comes to shove, they end up voting for one or the other, believing it will make a difference. It never does. Why is it that most people cannot seem to see this simple point? Government is just so overly large and wasteful, it's the basis of everything that is wrong in this country. We could easily thrive as a nation on a single digit tax.

I agree completely about Libertarians. I tried that once. Those people are just wacky. Fundamentally they have some good ideas but just go off the deep end with their quasi-anarchic complete platform. Yet, i'll still cast a vote for them if there are no viable alternatives. Screw it. I'm never giving my vote to a D or R again.

[TrailBate]

I guess it's the corruption of the Republicans, the spineless and aimlessness of the Democrats, and the plain insanity of the Libertarians. What are independents? Just clueless?
Fixed that for you. Don't kid yourself, they're virtually all corrupt. That's why it's tiresome seeing these liberals go on and on about the current administration.






No, it's tiresome to hear republicans go on and on about Clinton's bj, when the republicans have their problems with Frist, Delay, Abramoff, "Scooter", the FEMA disaster, torture, illegal prisons, treason, no WMD's, etc. Bush lets the oil companies write the country's energy policy, the drug companies write the country's health policy. THere is no comparison to the level of corruption in this administration.

[catbbq]

I guess it's the corruption of the Republicans, the spineless and aimlessness of the Democrats, and the plain insanity of the Libertarians. What are independents? Just clueless?
Fixed that for you. Don't kid yourself, they're virtually all corrupt. That's why it's tiresome seeing these liberals go on and on about the current administration.






No, it's tiresome to hear republicans go on and on about Clinton's bj, when the republicans have their problems with Frist, Delay, Abramoff, "Scooter", the FEMA disaster, torture, illegal prisons, treason, no WMD's, etc. Bush lets the oil companies write the country's energy policy, the drug companies write the country's health policy. THere is no comparison to the level of corruption in this administration.


"Notably absent were any increases in activation of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, the part of the brain most associated with reasoning."

[GeepNutt]

I guess it's the corruption of the Republicans, the spineless and aimlessness of the Democrats, and the plain insanity of the Libertarians. What are independents? Just clueless?
Fixed that for you. Don't kid yourself, they're virtually all corrupt. That's why it's tiresome seeing these liberals go on and on about the current administration.






No, it's tiresome to hear republicans go on and on about Clinton's bj, when the republicans have their problems with Frist, Delay, Abramoff, "Scooter", the FEMA disaster, torture, illegal prisons, treason, no WMD's, etc. Bush lets the oil companies write the country's energy policy, the drug companies write the country's health policy. THere is no comparison to the level of corruption in this administration.


Illegal Campaign contributions from the Chinese

Whitewater

Travelgate

FBI files of 900 Republicans associated with the Reagan & Bush teams found in the Clinton White House

Paula Jones, Juanita Broaddrick

Pardoning Marc Rich, his brother, and FALN bombers

Waco, and more.....

Yup, no comparison ;D

[slapheadmofo]

Don't think of it as a vote for the Libertarians, think of it as a vote against the two party system.

[TrailBate]

Illegal Campaign contributions from the Chinese

Where Clinton was found to have no knowledge of? Check into the millions Delay took from some Russians.

Whitewater

3 investigations. stupid republican political farce. tried, acquitted.


Travelgate

I dont' even know what this is.


FBI files of 900 Republicans associated with the Reagan & Bush teams found in the Clinton White House

no evidence. dismissed.


Paula Jones, Juanita Broaddrick

yep, back to Clinton's penis again.


Pardoning Marc Rich, his brother, and FALN bombers

Clinton DID pardon a lot of people, from what I've seen....Let's see how George W does....


Waco, and more.....

yes, how dare the government go after a religious whack, guilty of murdering his predecessor, for stockpiling and selling weapons, ignoring warrants, and shooting and killing ATF agents. Had Clinton done nothing, he'd be "soft on terrorism."


yup, a nice list of baseless charges, or acquittals.

[GeepNutt]

Illegal Campaign contributions from the Chinese

Where Clinton was found to have no knowledge of? Check into the millions Delay took from some Russians.

Whitewater

3 investigations. stupid republican political farce. tried, acquitted.


Travelgate

I dont' even know what this is.


FBI files of 900 Republicans associated with the Reagan & Bush teams found in the Clinton White House

no evidence. dismissed.


Paula Jones, Juanita Broaddrick

yep, back to Clinton's penis again.


Pardoning Marc Rich, his brother, and FALN bombers

Clinton DID pardon a lot of people, from what I've seen....Let's see how George W does....


Waco, and more.....

yes, how dare the government go after a religious whack, guilty of murdering his predecessor, for stockpiling and selling weapons, ignoring warrants, and shooting and killing ATF agents. Had Clinton done nothing, he'd be "soft on terrorism."


yup, a nice list of baseless charges, or acquittals.




Hey, all I'm saying is there's dirt on both sides. Don't think for a second that Clinton is a Boy Scout. He was just smart enough to put enough people between him and the people in question, same as Bush and his people are sure to have done. They don't get in these positions by being stupid.... ::)

[TrailBate]

Hey, all I'm saying is there's dirt on both sides. Don't think for a second that Clinton is a Boy Scout. He was just smart enough to put enough people between him and the people in question, same as Bush and his people are sure to have done. They don't get in these positions by being stupid.... ::)


Not at all. And I'm no big fan of Clinton, especially after Rwanda. Clinton definately had his dirt, but a lot of the dirt was manufactured by Republicans.

[Mr_Cheeze]

Illegal Campaign contributions from the Chinese

Where Clinton was found to have no knowledge of? Check into the millions Delay took from some Russians.



Clinton: "I had no knowledge of that."
Clinton bumlickers: "Ok, we believe you."

Clinton: "I had no involvement in Whitewater. That was somebody else."
Clinton rumpswabs: "Ok we believe you. He had no involvement, dammit!"

Clinton: "I don't even know what 'Travelgate" is. Ask Hillary."
Clinton caca scoopers: "I don't even know what this is."

Clinton: "What files of Republicans? Oh that! heh heh... hey that was dismissed. As Sgt. schultz said on Hogans Heros, 'I Know nothing!'"
Clinton ballwashers: "Yea... what he said."

[TrailBate]

Clinton: "I had no knowledge of that."
Clinton bumlickers: "Ok, we believe you."

Like Reagan with Iran-Contra, or Bush with just about everything these past 5 years. Plus they had no evidence to bring charges against Clinton.

Clinton: "I had no involvement in Whitewater. That was somebody else."
Clinton rumpswabs: "Ok we believe you. He had no involvement, dammit!"

Like i said, 3 Investigations, $52 million in trials, acquittal.



Clinton: "What files of Republicans? Oh that! heh heh... hey that was dismissed. As Sgt. schultz said on Hogans Heros, 'I Know nothing!'"
Clinton ballwashers: "Yea... what he said."

Once again, it was investigated. Investigators found there was no basis for the charges.

You seem to be insisting he's guilty, despite all evidence to the contrary. Typical of Bush supporters......

[Mr_Cheeze]

http://eschenck.typepad.com/ernie_schenck_calls_this_/images/shakespeare_2.jpg
The gentleman doth protest too much.

[Slider]

Or protests not enough.

Forget the evidence, the aquittals, the accusations. Ignore all that. Even further, assume Clinton was guilty of anything anyone ever said about him. Every single thing.

Instead of looking at the charges, simply look at the gravity of what we are talking about.

Clinton:

Real estate scam
Blowjobs
Chinese campaign contributions
Firing some low level fedeeral workers in Travelgate
Even FBI files in the whitehouse

No look at the Bush administration, and this will only be a small part:

Fabricating evidence to start a war
Sending under armored troops to fight that war
Screwing those troops in a wide variety of other ways
Treason, outing an undercover agent
Handing out billions in no-bid contracts to connected companies
Covering up those handouts
Undermining the Bill of Rights
Spying on US citizens illegally, in many ways
Totally botching Katrina, and now covering that up
We can't forget shuttling his Saudi friends out of the country after 9/11, preventing any interviews that would have helped catch bin Laden

I have a three hour drive to NY for a sales trip, so the list stops here. You get the picture. There is no comparison whatsoever between Bush and Clinton. None.

Slicer

[GeepNutt]

Funny how all the lefties look at the Chinagate scandal and focus on the campaign contributions but forget about the espionage at Los Alamos, theft of nuclear secrets, etc.

For those who like to throw around the "treason" word frequently, it is incomprehensible to me how they can give their boy Bill a free pass on this one.

[TrailBate]

Funny how all the lefties look at the Chinagate scandal and focus on the campaign contributions but forget about the espionage at Los Alamos, theft of nuclear secrets, etc.

For those who like to throw around the "treason" word frequently, it is incomprehensible to me how they can give their boy Bill a free pass on this one.


because......???

[Mr_Cheeze]

Because the only thing Bubba ever did wrong was get a blowjob in the O.O.; don't you know that? All of that other stuff... eh, faggeddaboudit. Clinton only got a bj while Bush is the new Stalin. There's simply no comparison.

Reading material (http://prorev.com/wwindex.htm)
(Disclaimer: this link comes from a totally nonpartisan resource, lest anyone believe otherwise. There is plenty of unflattering material about Bush, et. al. to find within this sites boundaries, as well. )

[Slider]

Funny how all the lefties look at the Chinagate scandal and focus on the campaign contributions but forget about the espionage at Los Alamos, theft of nuclear secrets, etc.

For those who like to throw around the "treason" word frequently, it is incomprehensible to me how they can give their boy Bill a free pass on this one.


The main reason is that it didn't happen. Look to your boy Scooter Libby - one of the current treason guys - for the truth. He was pulling sleazeball disinformation moves as far back as the Reagan administration. The Chinese tested their miniature warhead - the subject of the "secrets" you are talking about - in 1992, while Bush senior was president. Tell me - where do you think they got that technology?

Slider

[TrailBate]

Because the only thing Bubba ever did wrong was get a blowjob in the O.O.; don't you know that? All of that other stuff... eh, faggeddaboudit. Clinton only got a bj while Bush is the new Stalin. There's simply no comparison.




Did you miss the part about there being no evidence, or of the acquittals? I know you republicans like to assume guilt, even after proven not-guilty......

[GeepNutt]

Actually a NY Times investigation concluded that most of the US China "information exchange" began during the Carter administration as part of the governments official recognition of the "Peoples Republic of China".

So they were well on their way before Reagan and Bush took over.

If you want to blame Reagan for something start with the fact that his administration began privatizing security at these labs.

But you can't give Clinton a free ride either, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not, there is just too much evidence to the contrary....

[GeepNutt]

Did you miss the part about there being no evidence, or of the acquittals? I know you republicans like to assume guilt, even after proven not-guilty......


Just because you are found "not guilty" doesn't mean you are innocent.

See O.J. ;D

[TrailBate]

Did you miss the part about there being no evidence, or of the acquittals? I know you republicans like to assume guilt, even after proven not-guilty......


Just because you are found "not guilty" doesn't mean you are innocent.

See O.J. ;D


Hey, at least OJ is going after the real murderers.....

[Mr_Cheeze]

Hey, at least OJ is going after the real murderers.....


... at private golf courses around the world.

[Slider]

Actually a NY Times investigation concluded that most of the US China "information exchange" began during the Carter administration as part of the governments official recognition of the "Peoples Republic of China".

So they were well on their way before Reagan and Bush took over.

If you want to blame Reagan for something start with the fact that his administration began privatizing security at these labs.

But you can't give Clinton a free ride either, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not, there is just too much evidence to the contrary....


I wasn't looking for a Clinton free ride, and my point wasn't to defend Clinton. The point was that none of those guys, Republican or Democrat, come anywhere near Bush Jr. for sleaze and incompetence. This is a new standard, and it is screwing us all at a level never seen in our lifetimes.

Slider

[kernel crash]

Well according to the latest polls, the majority of Americans, seem to be giving Bush a pass on this National Security "scandal" because they feel he is using the technology to spy on suspected terrorists not on your neighbors down the street. Meanwhile Jimmy Carter is all a gushing over the latest elections results in the Middle east. Doesn't it make you guys squirm a little seeing how excited Jimmy is acting over Hamas? Talk about the worst president in our lifetime. I nominate the old peanut farmer himself.

[TrailBate]

Well according to the latest polls, the majority of Americans, seem to be giving Bush a pass on this National Security "scandal" because they feel he is using the technology to spy on suspected terrorists not on your neighbors down the street.

yeah? Which poll is this? If I saw a poll that said, "Do you approve of Bush spying on terrorists," I'd answer 'yes', too. How about the poll that asks, "Do you approve of Bush illegally spying on Americans."?

Meanwhile Jimmy Carter is all a gushing over the latest elections results in the Middle east. Doesn't it make you guys squirm a little seeing how excited Jimmy is acting over Hamas? Talk about the worst president in our lifetime. I nominate the old peanut farmer himself.


Is Carter the president right now? What did he say exactly?

[Slider]

Must be that NYTimres poll, out today. I read the results as a lot more mixed than Kernel portrays them. And the key question about whether the respondents approve or disapprove of Bush's wiretaps without approval is very beside the point. They're illegal, regardless of whether they are desired or not. The president cannot make his own laws.

Slider
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

January 27, 2006
New Poll Finds Mixed Support for Wiretaps
By ADAM NAGOURNEY and JANET ELDER
Americans are willing to tolerate eavesdropping without warrants to fight terrorism, but are concerned that the aggressive antiterrorism programs championed by the Bush administration are encroaching on civil liberties, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

In a sign that public opinion about the trade-offs between national security and individual rights is nuanced and remains highly unresolved, responses to questions about the administration's eavesdropping program varied significantly depending on how the questions were worded, underlining the importance of the effort by the White House this week to define the issue on its terms.

The poll, conducted as President Bush defended his surveillance program in the face of criticism from Democrats and some Republicans that it is illegal, found that Americans were willing to give the administration some latitude for its surveillance program if they believed it was intended to protect them. Fifty-three percent of the respondents said they supported eavesdropping without warrants "in order to reduce the threat of terrorism."

The results suggest that Americans' view of the program depends in large part on whether they perceive it as a bulwark in the fight against terrorism, as Mr. Bush has sought to cast it, or as an unnecessary and unwarranted infringement on civil liberties, as critics have said.

In one striking finding, respondents overwhelmingly supported e-mail and telephone monitoring directed at "Americans that the government is suspicious of;" they overwhelmingly opposed the same kind of surveillance if it was aimed at "ordinary Americans."

Mr. Bush, at a White House press conference yesterday, twice used the phrase "terrorist surveillance program" to describe an operation in which the administration has eavesdropped on telephone calls and other communications like e-mail that it says could involve operatives of Al Qaeda overseas talking to Americans. Critics say the administration could conduct such surveillance while still getting prior court approval, as spelled out in a 1978 law intended to guard against governmental abuses.

The findings came in a poll conducted as Mr. Bush prepares to deliver his fifth State of the Union address on Tuesday. It found that Mr. Bush will face a nation that has grown sour on Washington and skeptical that he will be able to achieve significant progress in health care, the economy, the Iraq war and the cost of prescription drugs for older patients before he leaves office in three years.

The poll also signaled concern for Republicans as they prepare to defend their control of the House and the Senate in midterm elections this November. Investigations into Congressional corruption are taking a toll as the elections approach: 61 percent of Americans now hold an unfavorable view of Congress, the highest in 10 years.

This finding holds particular peril for Republicans as the party that has been in charge. More than half of the respondents said they believed that most members of Congress would exchange votes for money or favors.

Republicans were seen as more likely to be unduly influenced by lobbyists. And the Republican Party is now viewed unfavorably by 51 percent of the nation, its worst rating since Mr. Bush took office. By contrast, 53 percent said they held a favorable view of Democrats.

The telephone poll was conducted with 1,229 adults, starting Friday and ending Wednesday. Its margin of sampling error was plus or minus three percentage points.

The poll found that Americans were to a large extent perplexed as they weighed conflicting forces: the need presented by Mr. Bush to take extraordinary action to fight terrorism, and a historical aversion to an overly intrusive government.

The poll found that 53 percent of Americans approved of Mr. Bush's authorizing eavesdropping without prior court approval "in order to reduce the threat of terrorism"; 46 percent disapproved. When the question was asked stripped of any mention of terrorism, 46 percent of those respondents approved, and 50 percent said they disapproved.

At the same time, 64 percent said they were very or somewhat concerned about losing civil liberties as a result of antiterrorism measures put in place by Mr. Bush since the attacks of Sept. 11. And respondents were more likely to be concerned that the government would enact strong antiterrorism laws that excessively restrict civil liberties than they were that the government would fail to enact antiterrorism laws.

The poll was conducted just as the White House commenced an elaborate campaign to defend the surveillance program, and thus may have been too early to offer a full measure of that campaign's effectiveness. There were no measurable changes in the poll findings from one day to the next.

The findings, and follow-up interviews with some participants, clearly suggest that Mr. Bush has an opportunity to make the dispute over the program play to his political advantage. He has been pointing to the threat of another terrorist attack to justify the eavesdropping program and is trying, for the third election in a row, to suggest that he and his party are more aggressive about protecting the nation than are Democrats.

"Say they're targeting someone in Al Qaeda outside the country, and that person then calls someone in the United States about a plot or something really bad: I don't have a problem with that phone being monitored," Debbie Viebranz, 51, a Republican from Ohio, said in a follow-up interview. "But I don't think they should do it for no reason."

Donnis Wells, 69, a Republican from Florence, Miss., said: "I don't think civil liberties are the more important thing we need to handle right now. I think we need to protect our people."

Still, interviews reflected clear apprehension about the program. "If there is a warrant and done by the courts, I would agree," said Robert Ray, 54, an independent from Kentucky. "But they're trying to do it without using the courts. I just don't trust them."

In the poll, 70 percent of respondents said they would not be willing to support governmental monitoring of the communications of "ordinary Americans"; 68 percent said they would be willing to support such monitoring of "Americans the government is suspicious of."

Beyond surveillance, the poll found that Americans hold unfavorable views of the president and the Republican-controlled Congress as Mr. Bush prepares to give his State of the Union speech. Americans, while declaring themselves generally optimistic about the next three years under Mr. Bush, do not expect him to accomplish very much in that time.

When Mr. Bush leaves office, respondents said, the deficit will be larger than it is today, the elderly will be being paying more for prescription drugs, and the economy and the health care system will be the same as today, or worse.

Mr. Bush is viewed favorably by 42 percent of the respondents, statistically the same as in the last Times/CBS News poll, in early December, a lackluster rating that could hamper his ability to rally public opinion behind his agenda and push legislation through a divided Congress. Beyond that, nearly two-thirds of the country thinks the nation is on the wrong track, a level that has historically proved to be a matter of concern for a party in power.

A majority said they were dissatisfied with the way Mr. Bush was managing the economy and the war in Iraq. Public approval for his handling of the campaign against terrorism, once one of his greatest political strengths, has rebounded somewhat from last fall, but remains well below where it was for the first two years after the Sept. 11 attacks.

Most strikingly, the poll found abundant evidence of public unhappiness with Congress. While it is risky to draw conclusions about Congressional elections from national measurements of discontent — for example, more than half of all Americans said they were satisfied with the job their member of Congress was doing — the findings underscored the tough electoral environment that has led some analysts to predict significant Republican losses this fall.

The corruption investigations appear to account for a lot of the dissatisfaction. Nearly 80 percent of respondents said that the kind of influence-peddling revelations that have emerged in the investigation of the lobbyist Jack Abramoff reflected the "way things work in Congress" and were not isolated incidents. More than 50 percent said most members of Congress "accept bribes or gifts that affect their votes."

"It seems like the integrity of Congress members in the last few years has just gone to pot," said Donald Pertuis, 54, an independent voter from Hot Springs, Ark. Mr. Pertuis added: "In the last 20 years, greed has accelerated. People expect more, I suppose, and want to work less."

Marjorie Connelly, Marina Stefan and Megan Thee contributed reporting for this article.



Copyright 2006The New York Times Company Home Privacy Policy Search Corrections XML Help Contact Us Work for Us Site Map Back to Top

[Rych]

Well according to the latest polls, the majority of Americans, seem to be giving Bush a pass on this National Security "scandal" because they feel he is using the technology to spy on suspected terrorists not on your neighbors down the street.

yeah? Which poll is this? If I saw a poll that said, "Do you approve of Bush spying on terrorists," I'd answer 'yes', too. How about the poll that asks, "Do you approve of Bush illegally spying on Americans."?

Meanwhile Jimmy Carter is all a gushing over the latest elections results in the Middle east. Doesn't it make you guys squirm a little seeing how excited Jimmy is acting over Hamas? Talk about the worst president in our lifetime. I nominate the old peanut farmer himself.


Is Carter the president right now? What did he say exactly?


Are suspected terrorists and American citzens a mutually exclusive group? Johnny Walker would suggest no.

[Slider]

Meanwhile Jimmy Carter is all a gushing over the latest elections results in the Middle east. Doesn't it make you guys squirm a little seeing how excited Jimmy is acting over Hamas? Talk about the worst president in our lifetime. I nominate the old peanut farmer himself.


Kernel - You're pro Israel? With no qualifications on that support? Are you for promoting democracy or our own agenda?

Any chance you'd agree that Israel has been a little bit, um, aggressive on their "defense" of the national boundries?

But you might want to post whatever Carter said, since we really need that to get a picture of what we're debating here.

But I agree generally that Carter was not much of a foreign policy genius himself. In fact, I blame him for the Reagan Revolution that laid the foundation for the mess we're in now. If he'd handled the Iranian hostage thing, then the Christian Coalition, Moral Majority and all those other right wing whackos would still be on the sidelines where they belong.

Slider

[TrailBate]

Are suspected terrorists and American citzens a mutually exclusive group? Johnny Walker would suggest no.


ah, so now all Americans are suspects. greeat

[Rych]

Are suspected terrorists and American citzens a mutually exclusive group? Johnny Walker would suggest no.


ah, so now all Americans are suspects. greeat


They could be if they are calling (9324)-tora-bora

[kernel crash]

"Kernel - You're pro Israel? With no qualifications on that support? Are you for promoting democracy or our own agenda?"

Israel is pretty much the only democracy over there. Ya I do support them. As far as being agressive, you've got to be kidding me. They are basically completely surrounded by countries that have at one time or another tried to aniliate them or would like to wipe them off the face of the map. Yet they continue to survive. I kind of admire that determination to survive at all cost. Israel has soften it stance over the last few years to attempt some kind of co-existance but Hamas will not let it go. So as far as Jimmy Carter, what I saw briefly on the TV was a clip of Carter all smiling and gushing saying how they (Hamas) pulled it off (refering to the elections). I thought it was ironic that the same election results he was excited about was going to result in a lot more pain for the Palestianian people.

[TrailBate]

Are suspected terrorists and American citzens a mutually exclusive group? Johnny Walker would suggest no.


ah, so now all Americans are suspects. greeat


They could be if they are calling (9324)-tora-bora


Then get a warrant. Go about it legally. Bush did not. Why?

[Slider]

"Kernel - You're pro Israel? With no qualifications on that support? Are you for promoting democracy or our own agenda?"

Israel is pretty much the only democracy over there.


Hamas was voted in, by a large majority.



Israel has soften it stance over the last few years to attempt some kind of co-existance but Hamas will not let it go.

So as far as Jimmy Carter, what I saw briefly on the TV was a clip of Carter all smiling and gushing saying how they (Hamas) pulled it off (refering to the elections). I thought it was ironic that the same election results he was excited about was going to result in a lot more pain for the Palestianian people.


Specifically, Sharon softened his own stance. But, don't forget, he was also the fellow who purposely and with deliberate provocation pushed them not so long ago. Why the change? Simply because he saw the aggessive approach was not working.

It seems possible to me, even likely, that Hamas, now that they're faced with the realities of political power, will have to make similar decisions.

This is democracy at work, exactly as the US claims to want it, which might explain Carter's reaction .

Slider