Jonathan Turley: "Barack Obama Is The President That Nixon Always Wanted To Be."...

[paulitician]

Pretty interesting Op-Ed from Jonathan Turley of USA Today.

Nixon Has Won Watergate

This month, I spoke at an event commemorating the 40th anniversary of the Watergate scandal with some of its survivors at the National Press Club. While much of the discussion looked back at the historic clash with President Nixon, I was struck by a different question: Who actually won? From unilateral military actions to warrantless surveillance that were key parts of the basis for Nixon's impending impeachment, the painful fact is that Barack Obama is the president that Nixon always wanted to be.

Four decades ago, Nixon was halted in his determined effort to create an "imperial presidency" with unilateral powers and privileges. In 2013, Obama wields those very same powers openly and without serious opposition. The success of Obama in acquiring the long-denied powers of Nixon is one of his most remarkable, if ignoble, accomplishments. Consider a few examples:

Warrantless surveillance:

Nixon's use of warrantless surveillance led to the creation of a special court called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA). But the reform turned out to be more form than substance. The secret court turned "probable cause" into a meaningless standard, virtually guaranteeing any surveillance the government wanted. After hundreds of thousands of applications over decades, only a couple have ever been denied.

Last month, the Supreme Court crushed any remaining illusions regarding FISA when it sided with the Obama administration in ruling that potential targets of such spying had to have proof they were spied upon before filing lawsuits, even if the government has declared such evidence to be secret. That's only the latest among dozens of lawsuits the administration has blocked while surveillance expands exponentially.

Unilateral military action:

Nixon's impeachment included the charge that he evaded Congress' sole authority to declare war by invading Cambodia. In the Libyan "mission," Obama announced that only he had the inherent authority to decide what is a "war" and that so long as he called it something different, no congressional approval or even consultation was necessary. He proceeded to bomb a nation's capital, destroy military units and spend more than a billion dollars in support of one side in a civil war.

Kill lists:

Nixon ordered a burglary to find evidence to use against Daniel Ellsberg, who gave the famed Pentagon Papers to the press, and later tried to imprison him. Ellsberg was later told of a secret plot by the White House "plumbers" to "incapacitate" him in a physical attack. It was a shocking revelation...

Read More:
Nixon has won Watergate: Column

 

[buckeye45_73]

Ironic, liberals hated Nixon, but love his ideas now

 

[Mustang]

Pretty interesting Op-Ed from Jonathan Turley of USA Today.

Nixon Has Won Watergate:

This month, I spoke at an event commemorating the 40th anniversary of the Watergate scandal with some of its survivors at the National Press Club. While much of the discussion looked back at the historic clash with President Nixon, I was struck by a different question: Who actually won? From unilateral military actions to warrantless surveillance that were key parts of the basis for Nixon's impending impeachment, the painful fact is that Barack Obama is the president that Nixon always wanted to be.

Four decades ago, Nixon was halted in his determined effort to create an "imperial presidency" with unilateral powers and privileges. In 2013, Obama wields those very same powers openly and without serious opposition. The success of Obama in acquiring the long-denied powers of Nixon is one of his most remarkable, if ignoble, accomplishments. Consider a few examples:

Warrantless surveillance

Nixon's use of warrantless surveillance led to the creation of a special court called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA). But the reform turned out to be more form than substance. The secret court turned "probable cause" into a meaningless standard, virtually guaranteeing any surveillance the government wanted. After hundreds of thousands of applications over decades, only a couple have ever been denied.

Last month, the Supreme Court crushed any remaining illusions regarding FISA when it sided with the Obama administration in ruling that potential targets of such spying had to have proof they were spied upon before filing lawsuits, even if the government has declared such evidence to be secret. That's only the latest among dozens of lawsuits the administration has blocked while surveillance expands exponentially.

Unilateral military action

Nixon's impeachment included the charge that he evaded Congress' sole authority to declare war by invading Cambodia. In the Libyan "mission," Obama announced that only he had the inherent authority to decide what is a "war" and that so long as he called it something different, no congressional approval or even consultation was necessary. He proceeded to bomb a nation's capital, destroy military units and spend more than a billion dollars in support of one side in a civil war.

Kill lists...

Read More:
Nixon has won Watergate: Column

There's a few problems with people who constantly engage in hyperbole.

One is the boy-who-cried-wolf problem. People stop taking you seriously. Conservatives have been building that reputation (of a lack of seriousness and credibility) for years.

The second problem is you become a joke. Nobody pays much attention to your repeated cries.

I recently heard some elected GOP legislator say that Benghazi is equivalent to Watergate and Iran/Contra combined x 10. That's patently absurd.

Comparing Obama to Nixon is ALSO absurd.

There's another problem with hyperbole which these examples reveal. People can't seem to stop pushing the envelop. They seem intent on topping the previous accusation, charge, or analogy. So, when I hear someone say that Obama administration officials intentionally left the Benghazi diplomatic compound defenseless and then abandoned the staff there, I ask myself who could possibly believe such nonsense. Apparently there are enough low information conservatives out there who will believe any charge that's made. That's sad. It's a sad state of our educational system if our schools can't turn out people with better critical thinking skills than that. But I suppose if you're someone with an organizatioal mailing list of conservatives who are more than willing to pony up some cash if and when you spin a story of fear and outrage, then you're probably forced to ratchet up the rhetoric to keep up with all the other organizations like yours that are competing for that same money. That's why our politics is filled with nonsense like talk about Obama death panels and Obama taking away the rights of citizens to defend themselves and their loved ones by owning guns.

Now all of a sudden conservatives don't like the Patriot Act and expanding Executive Branch power after years of supporting it when Bush was in power? You guys make a mockery of your claim that you have core principles.

 

[TruthSeeker56]

Pretty interesting Op-Ed from Jonathan Turley of USA Today.

Nixon Has Won Watergate:

This month, I spoke at an event commemorating the 40th anniversary of the Watergate scandal with some of its survivors at the National Press Club. While much of the discussion looked back at the historic clash with President Nixon, I was struck by a different question: Who actually won? From unilateral military actions to warrantless surveillance that were key parts of the basis for Nixon's impending impeachment, the painful fact is that Barack Obama is the president that Nixon always wanted to be.

Four decades ago, Nixon was halted in his determined effort to create an "imperial presidency" with unilateral powers and privileges. In 2013, Obama wields those very same powers openly and without serious opposition. The success of Obama in acquiring the long-denied powers of Nixon is one of his most remarkable, if ignoble, accomplishments. Consider a few examples:

Warrantless surveillance

Nixon's use of warrantless surveillance led to the creation of a special court called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA). But the reform turned out to be more form than substance. The secret court turned "probable cause" into a meaningless standard, virtually guaranteeing any surveillance the government wanted. After hundreds of thousands of applications over decades, only a couple have ever been denied.

Last month, the Supreme Court crushed any remaining illusions regarding FISA when it sided with the Obama administration in ruling that potential targets of such spying had to have proof they were spied upon before filing lawsuits, even if the government has declared such evidence to be secret. That's only the latest among dozens of lawsuits the administration has blocked while surveillance expands exponentially.

Unilateral military action

Nixon's impeachment included the charge that he evaded Congress' sole authority to declare war by invading Cambodia. In the Libyan "mission," Obama announced that only he had the inherent authority to decide what is a "war" and that so long as he called it something different, no congressional approval or even consultation was necessary. He proceeded to bomb a nation's capital, destroy military units and spend more than a billion dollars in support of one side in a civil war.

Kill lists...

Read More:
Nixon has won Watergate: Column

There's a few problems with people who constantly engage in hyperbole.

One is the boy-who-cried-wolf problem. People stop taking you seriously. Conservatives have been building that reputation (of a lack of seriousness and credibility) for years.

The second problem is you become a joke. Nobody pays much attention to your repeated cries.

I recently heard some elected GOP legislator say that Benghazi is equivalent to Watergate and Iran/Contra combined x 10. That's patently absurd.

Comparing Obama to Nixon is ALSO absurd.

There's another problem with hyperbole which these examples reveal. People can't seem to stop pushing the envelop. They seem intent on topping the previous accusation, charge, or analogy. So, when I hear someone say that Obama administration officials intentionally left the Benghazi diplomatic compound defenseless and then abandoned the staff there, I ask myself who could possibly believe such nonsense. Apparently there are enough low information conservatives out there who will believe any charge that's made. That's sad. It's a sad state of our educational system if our schools can't turn out people with better critical thinking skills than that. But I suppose if you're someone with an organizatioal mailing list of conservatives who are more than willing to pony up some cash if and when you spin a story of fear and outrage, then you're probably forced to ratchet up the rhetoric to keep up with all the other organizations like yours that are competing for that same money. That's why our politics is filled with nonsense like talk about Obama death panels and Obama taking away the rights of citizens to defend themselves and their loved ones by owning guns.

Now all of a sudden conservatives don't like the Patriot Act and expanding Executive Branch power after years of supporting it when Bush was in power? You guys make a mockery of your claim that you have core principles.

You ARE aware that this was an op-ed by Jonathan Turley of USA Today, right?

One thing I know that you are NOT aware of is your ridiculous HYPOCRISY. You Obama-zombies have only one mode of operation....ATTACK mode.

Now that the tables are turned, and your mixed race Messiah is being held accountable for his actions, inactions, coverups, and lies, you Obama-zombies are rolling out every cheezy deflection and false accusation in your arsenal.

The S.S. Barack Obama is taking on water, and the lifeboats are filling up fast. Reminds me of turds being flushed down the toilet.

 

[francoHFW]

Sure. He hasn't totally ended Bushcrappe, because Pubs won't LET him. This whole week is total BS hype, for dupes only. Overeager IRS on BS Pubgroups, hundreds of em!, bad classified leaks SHOULD be investigated and DITTO, Bengazi- no there there zzzzzzzzzzz. Nice try Pubs, but have cried wolf way too much, now for chumps only.

 

[paulitician]

Sure. He hasn't totally ended Bushcrappe, because Pubs won't LET him. This whole week is total BS hype, for dupes only. Overeager IRS on BS Pubgroups, hundreds of em!, bad classified leaks SHOULD be investigated and DITTO, Bengazi- no there there zzzzzzzzzzz. Nice try Pubs, but have cried wolf way too much, now for chumps only.

You're deranged. Ya know that, right?

 

[bodecea]

Pretty interesting Op-Ed from Jonathan Turley of USA Today.

Nixon Has Won Watergate:

This month, I spoke at an event commemorating the 40th anniversary of the Watergate scandal with some of its survivors at the National Press Club. While much of the discussion looked back at the historic clash with President Nixon, I was struck by a different question: Who actually won? From unilateral military actions to warrantless surveillance that were key parts of the basis for Nixon's impending impeachment, the painful fact is that Barack Obama is the president that Nixon always wanted to be.

Four decades ago, Nixon was halted in his determined effort to create an "imperial presidency" with unilateral powers and privileges. In 2013, Obama wields those very same powers openly and without serious opposition. The success of Obama in acquiring the long-denied powers of Nixon is one of his most remarkable, if ignoble, accomplishments. Consider a few examples:

Warrantless surveillance

Nixon's use of warrantless surveillance led to the creation of a special court called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA). But the reform turned out to be more form than substance. The secret court turned "probable cause" into a meaningless standard, virtually guaranteeing any surveillance the government wanted. After hundreds of thousands of applications over decades, only a couple have ever been denied.

Last month, the Supreme Court crushed any remaining illusions regarding FISA when it sided with the Obama administration in ruling that potential targets of such spying had to have proof they were spied upon before filing lawsuits, even if the government has declared such evidence to be secret. That's only the latest among dozens of lawsuits the administration has blocked while surveillance expands exponentially.

Unilateral military action

Nixon's impeachment included the charge that he evaded Congress' sole authority to declare war by invading Cambodia. In the Libyan "mission," Obama announced that only he had the inherent authority to decide what is a "war" and that so long as he called it something different, no congressional approval or even consultation was necessary. He proceeded to bomb a nation's capital, destroy military units and spend more than a billion dollars in support of one side in a civil war.

Kill lists...

Read More:
Nixon has won Watergate: Column

There's a few problems with people who constantly engage in hyperbole.

One is the boy-who-cried-wolf problem. People stop taking you seriously. Conservatives have been building that reputation (of a lack of seriousness and credibility) for years.

The second problem is you become a joke. Nobody pays much attention to your repeated cries.

I recently heard some elected GOP legislator say that Benghazi is equivalent to Watergate and Iran/Contra combined x 10. That's patently absurd.

Comparing Obama to Nixon is ALSO absurd.

There's another problem with hyperbole which these examples reveal. People can't seem to stop pushing the envelop. They seem intent on topping the previous accusation, charge, or analogy. So, when I hear someone say that Obama administration officials intentionally left the Benghazi diplomatic compound defenseless and then abandoned the staff there, I ask myself who could possibly believe such nonsense. Apparently there are enough low information conservatives out there who will believe any charge that's made. That's sad. It's a sad state of our educational system if our schools can't turn out people with better critical thinking skills than that. But I suppose if you're someone with an organizatioal mailing list of conservatives who are more than willing to pony up some cash if and when you spin a story of fear and outrage, then you're probably forced to ratchet up the rhetoric to keep up with all the other organizations like yours that are competing for that same money. That's why our politics is filled with nonsense like talk about Obama death panels and Obama taking away the rights of citizens to defend themselves and their loved ones by owning guns.

Now all of a sudden conservatives don't like the Patriot Act and expanding Executive Branch power after years of supporting it when Bush was in power? You guys make a mockery of your claim that you have core principles.

You realize these are the same people that IMMEDIATELY believed that Obama was not an American citizen...and IMMEDIATELY believed he spent $200 million a day in India and IMMEDIATELY believed that Obamacare set up death panels and IMMEDIATELY believed that Obama would get trounced in 2012.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Sure. He hasn't totally ended Bushcrappe, because Pubs won't LET him. This whole week is total BS hype, for dupes only. Overeager IRS on BS Pubgroups, hundreds of em!, bad classified leaks SHOULD be investigated and DITTO, Bengazi- no there there zzzzzzzzzzz. Nice try Pubs, but have cried wolf way too much, now for chumps only.

pubcrap

 

[buckeye45_73]

Pretty interesting Op-Ed from Jonathan Turley of USA Today.

Nixon Has Won Watergate:

This month, I spoke at an event commemorating the 40th anniversary of the Watergate scandal with some of its survivors at the National Press Club. While much of the discussion looked back at the historic clash with President Nixon, I was struck by a different question: Who actually won? From unilateral military actions to warrantless surveillance that were key parts of the basis for Nixon's impending impeachment, the painful fact is that Barack Obama is the president that Nixon always wanted to be.

Four decades ago, Nixon was halted in his determined effort to create an "imperial presidency" with unilateral powers and privileges. In 2013, Obama wields those very same powers openly and without serious opposition. The success of Obama in acquiring the long-denied powers of Nixon is one of his most remarkable, if ignoble, accomplishments. Consider a few examples:

Warrantless surveillance

Nixon's use of warrantless surveillance led to the creation of a special court called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA). But the reform turned out to be more form than substance. The secret court turned "probable cause" into a meaningless standard, virtually guaranteeing any surveillance the government wanted. After hundreds of thousands of applications over decades, only a couple have ever been denied.

Last month, the Supreme Court crushed any remaining illusions regarding FISA when it sided with the Obama administration in ruling that potential targets of such spying had to have proof they were spied upon before filing lawsuits, even if the government has declared such evidence to be secret. That's only the latest among dozens of lawsuits the administration has blocked while surveillance expands exponentially.

Unilateral military action

Nixon's impeachment included the charge that he evaded Congress' sole authority to declare war by invading Cambodia. In the Libyan "mission," Obama announced that only he had the inherent authority to decide what is a "war" and that so long as he called it something different, no congressional approval or even consultation was necessary. He proceeded to bomb a nation's capital, destroy military units and spend more than a billion dollars in support of one side in a civil war.

Kill lists...

Read More:
Nixon has won Watergate: Column

There's a few problems with people who constantly engage in hyperbole.

One is the boy-who-cried-wolf problem. People stop taking you seriously. Conservatives have been building that reputation (of a lack of seriousness and credibility) for years.

The second problem is you become a joke. Nobody pays much attention to your repeated cries.

I recently heard some elected GOP legislator say that Benghazi is equivalent to Watergate and Iran/Contra combined x 10. That's patently absurd.

Comparing Obama to Nixon is ALSO absurd.

There's another problem with hyperbole which these examples reveal. People can't seem to stop pushing the envelop. They seem intent on topping the previous accusation, charge, or analogy. So, when I hear someone say that Obama administration officials intentionally left the Benghazi diplomatic compound defenseless and then abandoned the staff there, I ask myself who could possibly believe such nonsense. Apparently there are enough low information conservatives out there who will believe any charge that's made. That's sad. It's a sad state of our educational system if our schools can't turn out people with better critical thinking skills than that. But I suppose if you're someone with an organizatioal mailing list of conservatives who are more than willing to pony up some cash if and when you spin a story of fear and outrage, then you're probably forced to ratchet up the rhetoric to keep up with all the other organizations like yours that are competing for that same money. That's why our politics is filled with nonsense like talk about Obama death panels and Obama taking away the rights of citizens to defend themselves and their loved ones by owning guns.

Now all of a sudden conservatives don't like the Patriot Act and expanding Executive Branch power after years of supporting it when Bush was in power? You guys make a mockery of your claim that you have core principles.

It's not crying wolf if it's true dipshit. We were complaining about this shit in the first term, yet it was the "objective" media and leftwingers denying....now we know you're all full of shit!

 

[paulitician]

This kind of awful corruption only causes more Americans to be hostile & wary of Government. It's not just silly paranoia. Government can be evil. These latest abuses are just more proof of that.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Now they want us to believe it was two people.....LOLOLOLOLOL

Liberals must be really stupid if they buy this kind of response.

 

[Mustang]

Pretty interesting Op-Ed from Jonathan Turley of USA Today.

Nixon Has Won Watergate:

This month, I spoke at an event commemorating the 40th anniversary of the Watergate scandal with some of its survivors at the National Press Club. While much of the discussion looked back at the historic clash with President Nixon, I was struck by a different question: Who actually won? From unilateral military actions to warrantless surveillance that were key parts of the basis for Nixon's impending impeachment, the painful fact is that Barack Obama is the president that Nixon always wanted to be.

Four decades ago, Nixon was halted in his determined effort to create an "imperial presidency" with unilateral powers and privileges. In 2013, Obama wields those very same powers openly and without serious opposition. The success of Obama in acquiring the long-denied powers of Nixon is one of his most remarkable, if ignoble, accomplishments. Consider a few examples:

Warrantless surveillance

Nixon's use of warrantless surveillance led to the creation of a special court called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA). But the reform turned out to be more form than substance. The secret court turned "probable cause" into a meaningless standard, virtually guaranteeing any surveillance the government wanted. After hundreds of thousands of applications over decades, only a couple have ever been denied.

Last month, the Supreme Court crushed any remaining illusions regarding FISA when it sided with the Obama administration in ruling that potential targets of such spying had to have proof they were spied upon before filing lawsuits, even if the government has declared such evidence to be secret. That's only the latest among dozens of lawsuits the administration has blocked while surveillance expands exponentially.

Unilateral military action

Nixon's impeachment included the charge that he evaded Congress' sole authority to declare war by invading Cambodia. In the Libyan "mission," Obama announced that only he had the inherent authority to decide what is a "war" and that so long as he called it something different, no congressional approval or even consultation was necessary. He proceeded to bomb a nation's capital, destroy military units and spend more than a billion dollars in support of one side in a civil war.

Kill lists...

Read More:
Nixon has won Watergate: Column

There's a few problems with people who constantly engage in hyperbole.

One is the boy-who-cried-wolf problem. People stop taking you seriously. Conservatives have been building that reputation (of a lack of seriousness and credibility) for years.

The second problem is you become a joke. Nobody pays much attention to your repeated cries.

I recently heard some elected GOP legislator say that Benghazi is equivalent to Watergate and Iran/Contra combined x 10. That's patently absurd.

Comparing Obama to Nixon is ALSO absurd.

There's another problem with hyperbole which these examples reveal. People can't seem to stop pushing the envelop. They seem intent on topping the previous accusation, charge, or analogy. So, when I hear someone say that Obama administration officials intentionally left the Benghazi diplomatic compound defenseless and then abandoned the staff there, I ask myself who could possibly believe such nonsense. Apparently there are enough low information conservatives out there who will believe any charge that's made. That's sad. It's a sad state of our educational system if our schools can't turn out people with better critical thinking skills than that. But I suppose if you're someone with an organizatioal mailing list of conservatives who are more than willing to pony up some cash if and when you spin a story of fear and outrage, then you're probably forced to ratchet up the rhetoric to keep up with all the other organizations like yours that are competing for that same money. That's why our politics is filled with nonsense like talk about Obama death panels and Obama taking away the rights of citizens to defend themselves and their loved ones by owning guns.

Now all of a sudden conservatives don't like the Patriot Act and expanding Executive Branch power after years of supporting it when Bush was in power? You guys make a mockery of your claim that you have core principles.

It's not crying wolf if it's true dipshit. We were complaining about this shit in the first term, yet it was the "objective" media and leftwingers denying....now we know you're all full of shit!

Leave it to conservatives to miss the point from A to Z.

ALL organizations which request tax-exempt status should be checked out thoroughly to assure that they are truly overwhelmingly and primarily engaged in nonpolitical activities which have a social benefit. MY personal problem would not be that conservative organizations received too MUCH scrutiny. It would be that other organizations (whether liberal, or conservative non tea party organizations) did not receive ENOUGH scrutiny and may have received a tax exempt classification that it did not and does not deserve, regardless of their political affiliation.

 

[buckeye45_73]

There's a few problems with people who constantly engage in hyperbole.

One is the boy-who-cried-wolf problem. People stop taking you seriously. Conservatives have been building that reputation (of a lack of seriousness and credibility) for years.

The second problem is you become a joke. Nobody pays much attention to your repeated cries.

I recently heard some elected GOP legislator say that Benghazi is equivalent to Watergate and Iran/Contra combined x 10. That's patently absurd.

Comparing Obama to Nixon is ALSO absurd.

There's another problem with hyperbole which these examples reveal. People can't seem to stop pushing the envelop. They seem intent on topping the previous accusation, charge, or analogy. So, when I hear someone say that Obama administration officials intentionally left the Benghazi diplomatic compound defenseless and then abandoned the staff there, I ask myself who could possibly believe such nonsense. Apparently there are enough low information conservatives out there who will believe any charge that's made. That's sad. It's a sad state of our educational system if our schools can't turn out people with better critical thinking skills than that. But I suppose if you're someone with an organizatioal mailing list of conservatives who are more than willing to pony up some cash if and when you spin a story of fear and outrage, then you're probably forced to ratchet up the rhetoric to keep up with all the other organizations like yours that are competing for that same money. That's why our politics is filled with nonsense like talk about Obama death panels and Obama taking away the rights of citizens to defend themselves and their loved ones by owning guns.

Now all of a sudden conservatives don't like the Patriot Act and expanding Executive Branch power after years of supporting it when Bush was in power? You guys make a mockery of your claim that you have core principles.

It's not crying wolf if it's true dipshit. We were complaining about this shit in the first term, yet it was the "objective" media and leftwingers denying....now we know you're all full of shit!

Leave it to conservatives to miss the point from A to Z.

ALL organizations which request tax-exempt status should be checked out thoroughly to assure that they are truly overwhelmingly and primarily engaged in nonpolitical activities which have a social benefit. MY personal problem would not be that conservative organizations received too MUCH scrutiny. It would be that other organizations (whether liberal, or conservative non tea party organizations) did not receive ENOUGH scrutiny and may have received a tax exempt classification that it did not and does not deserve, regardless of their political affiliation.

IT's essentially the same thing......it was political..you know it and I know it...so no I didnt miss the point... that IS the point. And yes the conservatives uneccessary details, like this:
Document: IRS ordered conservative educational group to turn over a list of high school and college students it trained | Mail Online

 

[BlindBoo]

Pretty interesting Op-Ed from Jonathan Turley of USA Today.

Nixon Has Won Watergate

This month, I spoke at an event commemorating the 40th anniversary of the Watergate scandal with some of its survivors at the National Press Club. While much of the discussion looked back at the historic clash with President Nixon, I was struck by a different question: Who actually won? From unilateral military actions to warrantless surveillance that were key parts of the basis for Nixon's impending impeachment, the painful fact is that Barack Obama is the president that Nixon always wanted to be.

Four decades ago, Nixon was halted in his determined effort to create an "imperial presidency" with unilateral powers and privileges. In 2013, Obama wields those very same powers openly and without serious opposition. The success of Obama in acquiring the long-denied powers of Nixon is one of his most remarkable, if ignoble, accomplishments. Consider a few examples:

Warrantless surveillance:

Nixon's use of warrantless surveillance led to the creation of a special court called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA). But the reform turned out to be more form than substance. The secret court turned "probable cause" into a meaningless standard, virtually guaranteeing any surveillance the government wanted. After hundreds of thousands of applications over decades, only a couple have ever been denied.

Last month, the Supreme Court crushed any remaining illusions regarding FISA when it sided with the Obama administration in ruling that potential targets of such spying had to have proof they were spied upon before filing lawsuits, even if the government has declared such evidence to be secret. That's only the latest among dozens of lawsuits the administration has blocked while surveillance expands exponentially.

Unilateral military action:

Nixon's impeachment included the charge that he evaded Congress' sole authority to declare war by invading Cambodia. In the Libyan "mission," Obama announced that only he had the inherent authority to decide what is a "war" and that so long as he called it something different, no congressional approval or even consultation was necessary. He proceeded to bomb a nation's capital, destroy military units and spend more than a billion dollars in support of one side in a civil war.

Kill lists:

Nixon ordered a burglary to find evidence to use against Daniel Ellsberg, who gave the famed Pentagon Papers to the press, and later tried to imprison him. Ellsberg was later told of a secret plot by the White House "plumbers" to "incapacitate" him in a physical attack. It was a shocking revelation...

Read More:
Nixon has won Watergate: Column

Watergate Articles Of Impeachment

Nixon ordered the invasion of Cambodia in 1970. I don't think that charge was in the Articles of Impeachment against him passed by the House Judiciary Committee. Furthermore how many combat troops did President Nixon send into Cambodia? How many were KIA or MIA? Comparing that to our role in the NATO action against Libya is disengenous at best.

 

[Sallow]

Pretty interesting Op-Ed from Jonathan Turley of USA Today.

Nixon Has Won Watergate:

This month, I spoke at an event commemorating the 40th anniversary of the Watergate scandal with some of its survivors at the National Press Club. While much of the discussion looked back at the historic clash with President Nixon, I was struck by a different question: Who actually won? From unilateral military actions to warrantless surveillance that were key parts of the basis for Nixon's impending impeachment, the painful fact is that Barack Obama is the president that Nixon always wanted to be.

Four decades ago, Nixon was halted in his determined effort to create an "imperial presidency" with unilateral powers and privileges. In 2013, Obama wields those very same powers openly and without serious opposition. The success of Obama in acquiring the long-denied powers of Nixon is one of his most remarkable, if ignoble, accomplishments. Consider a few examples:

Warrantless surveillance

Nixon's use of warrantless surveillance led to the creation of a special court called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA). But the reform turned out to be more form than substance. The secret court turned "probable cause" into a meaningless standard, virtually guaranteeing any surveillance the government wanted. After hundreds of thousands of applications over decades, only a couple have ever been denied.

Last month, the Supreme Court crushed any remaining illusions regarding FISA when it sided with the Obama administration in ruling that potential targets of such spying had to have proof they were spied upon before filing lawsuits, even if the government has declared such evidence to be secret. That's only the latest among dozens of lawsuits the administration has blocked while surveillance expands exponentially.

Unilateral military action

Nixon's impeachment included the charge that he evaded Congress' sole authority to declare war by invading Cambodia. In the Libyan "mission," Obama announced that only he had the inherent authority to decide what is a "war" and that so long as he called it something different, no congressional approval or even consultation was necessary. He proceeded to bomb a nation's capital, destroy military units and spend more than a billion dollars in support of one side in a civil war.

Kill lists...

Read More:
Nixon has won Watergate: Column

There's a few problems with people who constantly engage in hyperbole.

One is the boy-who-cried-wolf problem. People stop taking you seriously. Conservatives have been building that reputation (of a lack of seriousness and credibility) for years.

The second problem is you become a joke. Nobody pays much attention to your repeated cries.

I recently heard some elected GOP legislator say that Benghazi is equivalent to Watergate and Iran/Contra combined x 10. That's patently absurd.

Comparing Obama to Nixon is ALSO absurd.

There's another problem with hyperbole which these examples reveal. People can't seem to stop pushing the envelop. They seem intent on topping the previous accusation, charge, or analogy. So, when I hear someone say that Obama administration officials intentionally left the Benghazi diplomatic compound defenseless and then abandoned the staff there, I ask myself who could possibly believe such nonsense. Apparently there are enough low information conservatives out there who will believe any charge that's made. That's sad. It's a sad state of our educational system if our schools can't turn out people with better critical thinking skills than that. But I suppose if you're someone with an organizatioal mailing list of conservatives who are more than willing to pony up some cash if and when you spin a story of fear and outrage, then you're probably forced to ratchet up the rhetoric to keep up with all the other organizations like yours that are competing for that same money. That's why our politics is filled with nonsense like talk about Obama death panels and Obama taking away the rights of citizens to defend themselves and their loved ones by owning guns.

Now all of a sudden conservatives don't like the Patriot Act and expanding Executive Branch power after years of supporting it when Bush was in power? You guys make a mockery of your claim that you have core principles.

Add in the AUMF.

That was and is scary stuff.


AND IT WAS CONSERVATIVES THAT MADE ALL THIS POSSIBLE!!!

 

[Sallow]

It's not crying wolf if it's true dipshit. We were complaining about this shit in the first term, yet it was the "objective" media and leftwingers denying....now we know you're all full of shit!

Leave it to conservatives to miss the point from A to Z.

ALL organizations which request tax-exempt status should be checked out thoroughly to assure that they are truly overwhelmingly and primarily engaged in nonpolitical activities which have a social benefit. MY personal problem would not be that conservative organizations received too MUCH scrutiny. It would be that other organizations (whether liberal, or conservative non tea party organizations) did not receive ENOUGH scrutiny and may have received a tax exempt classification that it did not and does not deserve, regardless of their political affiliation.

IT's essentially the same thing......it was political..you know it and I know it...so no I didnt miss the point... that IS the point. And yes the conservatives uneccessary details, like this:
Document: IRS ordered conservative educational group to turn over a list of high school and college students it trained | Mail Online

No.

You did miss the point.

 

[Mustang]

Leave it to conservatives to miss the point from A to Z.

ALL organizations which request tax-exempt status should be checked out thoroughly to assure that they are truly overwhelmingly and primarily engaged in nonpolitical activities which have a social benefit. MY personal problem would not be that conservative organizations received too MUCH scrutiny. It would be that other organizations (whether liberal, or conservative non tea party organizations) did not receive ENOUGH scrutiny and may have received a tax exempt classification that it did not and does not deserve, regardless of their political affiliation.

IT's essentially the same thing......it was political..you know it and I know it...so no I didnt miss the point... that IS the point. And yes the conservatives uneccessary details, like this:
Document: IRS ordered conservative educational group to turn over a list of high school and college students it trained | Mail Online

No.

You did miss the point.

Told him so. Didn't make a dent.

 

[whitehall]

The similarities are startling but the big difference is the attitude of the media. Imagine a team of "investigative" reporters with an alleged informant deep in the Obama administration. How long would it take before democrats demanded that the informant's identity be revealed? The identity of Nixon's "deep throat" wasn't revealed until 30 years later after he was dead and couldn't answer any questions.

 

[Pete7469]

You ARE aware that this was an op-ed by Jonathan Turley of USA Today, right?

One thing I know that you are NOT aware of is your ridiculous HYPOCRISY. You Obama-zombies have only one mode of operation....ATTACK mode.

Now that the tables are turned, and your mixed race Messiah is being held accountable for his actions, inactions, coverups, and lies, you Obama-zombies are rolling out every cheezy deflection and false accusation in your arsenal.

The S.S. Barack Obama is taking on water, and the lifeboats are filling up fast. Reminds me of turds being flushed down the toilet.

They have more than one mode of operation, besides ATTACK, they have LIE, CHEAT and SABOTAGE.

You don't seriously think they'll allow their messiah to actually be "held accountable for his actions, inactions, coverups, and lies" do you? After all, no matter how aggregious the act "Bush always did the same thing, only worse", and any time there's any real risk of loosing face over an issue the only people who will tell you about it are on AM radio.

In the future please refrain from denegrating turds. Turds can be used for fertilizer, liberals could never have that positive an impact on the earth.

 

[francoHFW]

No lie, no coverup, no conspiracy, just a huge pile of Pubcrappe released at the same time, and none of it new...You believe classified leaks shouldn't be investigated, and these groups are non- political- and you NEED a computer program to keep up with all the TP/RW groups- many more than Dem ones? We'll figure it out after the hype/bs dies down... LOL or any any Bengazi BS....