I was asked how I can condone wiretapping our won citizens without a warrant. I'm not a big fan of it, but we're in a war, in case you didn't notice, and the enemy wants to utterly destroy the American way of life. They've said so over and over. In a time of war the President has to take certain measures to protect his people. Altogether, however, this isn't that big a deal so long as it's restricted to terror investigations. It's certainly less of an abridgement of civil liberties then say the internment of our Japanese citizens in WWII, or the suspension of habeas corpus by Lincoln in the Civil War. Lincoln did a lot of things that even the right wing would bash Bush for, but he was a wartime President and did what needed to be done. History, obviously, has judged his decisions as correct and vital. Heck, even district judge wrote an opinion on a case in the early 70's saying that in certain cases the exingency and immediacy of a situation requires the President to search/seize without a warrant because he's the President and his duty to protect the American people requires it of him. I suspect, in 100 years, that historians will judge Bush based on his accomplishments in a historical sense, and not on individual episodes of mass anti-Bush hysteria. His legacy is not secured yet, but I think Iraq is going to turn out well and in a 100 years people won't understand why everyone seemed to hate Bush so much when he was in office.

This is yet another incident of anti-Bush mass hysteria. Once again, with the exception of Jose Padilla, no one has ever been able to cite an actual examples of an American citizen's civil liberties being denied by the Bush administration.