Can I ask a native?

Trying to understand this here...I read the far-left party helped bring about this election...why would they help the conservatives?

I thought the world was coming to an end with Clinton took office here in the US. You and I are like oil and water when it comes to politics. But I've learned you can't stake your whole emotional outlook on one election. (Although in my case, Clinton got elected twice. *eyerolls*) Hang in there, kiddo. You'll get another crack at electing the people you want. In the meantime, keep yourself informed, and don't let anyone spoonfeed you only one version of a story. "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance."

What illegal wiretapping? Are you familiar with FISA? Are you familiar with USSID, signed into law by Bill Clinton? I yanked the following from
http://www.michnews.com/artman/publish/article_11106.shtml. (N.B.: Though I'm quoting a conservative blog, it's the only one I've found that cited the relevant statute.)

USSID, enacted in July of 1993, creates the following, as described by The American Spectator’s Jed Babbin:

Under Section 4 of USSID 18, communications which are known to be to or from U.S. persons can't be intentionally intercepted without: (a) the approval of the FISA court…; OR (b) the approval of the Attorney General of the United States with respect to "communications to or from U.S. PERSONS outside the United States...international communications" and other categories of communications including for the purpose of collecting "significant foreign intelligence information."

USSID 18 goes on to allow NSA to gather intelligence about a U.S. person outside the United States even without Attorney General sanction in emergencies "when securing the approval of the Attorney General is not practical because...the time required to obtain such approval would result in the loss of significant foreign intelligence and would cause substantial harm to national security.”

Babbin further reports that FISA, misrepresented by liberals far and wide, allows the Attorney General to bypass the FISA court. This obviously makes sense, since it would be virtually impossible for the government to go before the FISA court every time a terrorist made a telephone call in which someone in the United States was a participant.

These facts are terribly simple. As Babbin summarizes, “[e]veryone who is ranting and raving about illegality has neither the facts (most of which we don't know) or the law and regulations (which weigh heavily in favor of legality) on their side.”

So I repeat, the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. We won't have our precious liberty very long if we don't have our ears open for the people that would like to turn America into a smoking crater.

And it's my understanding neither side has stated whether or not Bush has been going to the FISA court as required, which that blog article mentions, but proceeds to point out that the liberals are jumping all over Bush in absence of that key fact.

One judge resigning from the FISA court, and saying there's wrongdoing (without providing the reasons he believed this to be so, I might add), does not indicate wrongdoing.

The accusations are serious enough that there should be an investigation of the president, because what Clinton did, doesn't hold a candle to the seriousness of these accusations.

See... here's the key difference. Serious accusations about Bush vs. what Bill Clinton did. Clinton lost his license to practice law due to some of the wrongdoing he committed. Bush has merely been accused of wrong-doing. There's a double-standard here. As far as some of the nutty liberals in the press and government are concerned, the facts don't matter; it's only the seriousness of the charges that matter, and prove in their minds that Bush is the evilest thing to hit D.C. This goes back to what we were talking about earlier: people are prejudging the situation all around. Conservatives are assuming that Bush is doing the honorable thing, and liberals are assuming he's laughing, pulling the wings off of flies while listening in on people's intimate conversations with their fiancee back in Elbonia. The blog entry I pointed to decided to dig up the relevant laws, and use that to back up their positions, rather than get into a pissing match.

Anybody can make an accusation. Some are true. Some are merely made to smear someone permanently. The accusation could easily be baseless. Judge Robertson might have a dog in the fight, and an axe to grind against Bush and Co. Absent any other facts, I don't think it's right to jump to conclusions. I have no problem with an investigation. I'm just sick of the press and hardcore wacky left (not you, and definitely left-wingers in general) screaming, "See! Bush is teh EEEEEVIIIL!!11 like the fruits of the Deeevil," without proof he's done anything inappropriate.

And I say to you:

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
Benjamin Franklin

I also thought I'd point out that you (thru no fault of your own since it's a common mistake), have misquoted Mr. Franklin. The original quote reads with emphasis my own:

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."