...from Mark Levin, for all those Democrats and journalists (and both) who are hypocritically hyperventilating about presidential power and eavesdropping.

I'm not terribly familiar with Mark Levin, but his assertions in that blogpost are bizarre and lacking in even basic common sense. I consider invoking the hated name of Bill Clinton to be an immateur form of defense. It's like a little kid defending himself by saying "But HE started it!"

What Clinton did was obstruction of justice. It was _not_ expansion of executive power. It was also done for selfish reasons (to protect his own ass).

Bush's recent actions are consistent with his other actions during his five years in office--expansion of executive power. He has not done this for selfish reasons (although certainly they do benefit him by increasing his power). He has done it out of a principled belief (pushed by Dick Cheney) that the power of the presidency has eroded over the years and needs to be expanded.

I would note that this fact is separate from the question of legality. Bush's actions can still be unselfish and principled and ALSO be illegal and wrong. I think they are. And I would note one other difference between Clinton's actions and Bush's actions--Clinton's actions did not violate the rights of other American citizens. He wasn't using the power of the presidency to pry into other peoples' lives. Bush has engaged in warrantless eavesdropping against American citizens. That is something that the FISA act clearly outlawed for a reason--to protect the rights of Americans. FISA says that you _can_ eavesdrop on American persons for national security reasons, but you have to get a warrant. It is a classic reaffirmation of the Constitutional requirement for checks and balances.

So Levin's comparison is idiotic. What Clinton and Bush did involves entirely different things.

I'm not terribly familiar with Mark Levin

Apparently, you're not terribly, or even slightly familiar with Bill Clinton, either, or the history that Levin describes.

Clinton's actions did not violate the rights of other American citizens. He wasn't using the power of the presidency to pry into other peoples' lives.

You means "other people who are involved in communicating with the enemy?

No, Bill Clinton didn't "pry into other peoples' lives, other than grab their FBI files, sic the IRS on them, etc.

As I said, you are completely ignoring the numerous abuses of power of the Clinton administration.

Bush has engaged in warrantless eavesdropping against American citizens.

American citizens in communication with the enemy. The notion that one needs a warrant to intercept enemy communications in wartime is laughable.

"American citizens in communication with the enemy. The notion that one needs a warrant to intercept enemy communications in wartime is laughable."

Would FDR have needed court authority to intercept Morse Code transmissions between Nazi Germany and a German-American 5th columnist operating from inside the CONUS back in 1943?

I think the answer is patently obivious to all but the most reallity-challenged. This case is absolutely no different, only the names have changed.