Our intelligence agency listened to terrorists talk about a plan to blow up bridges.....what is wrong with that again?
The courts say it is okay FISA Court Approved Bush Spy Program
and COURT SAYS U.S. SPY AGENCY CAN TAP OVERSEAS MESSAGES
The Clinton Administration did the same thing Clinton NSA Eavesdropped on U.S. Calls
So the golden child of the Left did it, the courts say it is okay, and it stops bad people from blowing stuff up.....again, what is the problem?
Tuesday, December 20, 2005
Will someone explain the problem?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
7 comments:
Well Game, all that I can come up with is Democrats and the liberal media are dirty sacks of spit.
Sorry this is long. I thought you might like it.
Bush Critics Ignore Clinton's Illegal Pro-Muslim War in Kosovo
December 19, 2005
WASHINGTON -- In connection with recent reports that President Bush authorized domestic spying in alleged violation of the law, Accuracy in Media (AIM) editor Cliff Kincaid said today that the media are ignoring the fact that President Clinton exercised presidential authority under far more controversial circumstances on behalf of Muslim terrorists.
Kincaid declared, "If the issue is presidential power, it must be pointed out that President Clinton in 1999 waged a war without Congressional approval against Serbia, a part of the country of Yugoslavia, which was ruled by a communist, Slobodan Milosevic, but which posed absolutely no military threat to the U.S. Clinton's military intervention put the U.S. (and NATO) effectively on the side of Muslim terrorists in the Kosovo Liberation Army. Many Christian Serbs in Kosovo have since fled this province of Serbia, which is now under U.N. administration, and have seen their churches and homes destroyed."
To those in the media pointing to Bush's use of presidential power as alarming or even scandalous, Kincaid said that the historical record shows that Clinton used executive orders and presidential directives in the war on Serbia to designate a "war zone," call up troops, proclaim a "national emergency," and impose economic sanctions. Under this self-designated authority, Clinton even delegated command-and-control of U.S. forces to NATO and its then-Secretary-General Javier Solana."
"By contrast," Kincaid added, "President Bush received approval from Congress after 9/11 for waging a war on global Islamic terrorism and the war in Iraq. Bush is using the same kind of presidential power against the Islamist terrorists that Clinton used on their behalf. But the media in general supported Clinton's actions."
Accuracy In Media (AIM) is a non-profit, grassroots citizens watchdog of the news media that critiques botched and bungled news stories and sets the record straight on important issues that have received slanted coverage.
To schedule an interview with AIM Editor Cliff Kincaid, contact Anne Tyrrell at (703)739-5920 or
Sorry this is long. It is
Well done Steph..
That not only shows that liberals choose when they care about issues (when they are not doing them) and that anything the short sided, feel good liberals actual do ends up being a disaster in the end...
I guess that is why they usually stick to complaining and doing nothing
Here's another. It's long, but worth the read for those who DARE. Will Jim DARE?
It proves through sound logical reasoning analysis that Democrats BELIEVE BUSH HAS MADE US SAFER.
War on Terror
Dems Must Believe Bush Made U.S. Safer
by Mac Johnson
Posted Dec 19, 2005
Text Size: S M L
printer-friendly
email to a friend
respond to this article
American Politicians Set Wrong Example for Iraqis
Have We Returned to Pre-9/11 Complacency?
Israel Increasingly Likely to Attack Iran
Democrats Take a Pass on Iraq
Bush's 16 Words Keep Haunting Him
In October of 2001, the Patriot Act, giving the federal government increased power to monitor and prosecute suspected terrorists, was passed in the U.S. Senate with only one dissenting vote. Forty-Seven Democrats voted for the bill. They justified their support of the measure, rightfully, by explaining that terrorism posed a grave threat to America and more potent policing would be needed until we could get the long-term problem under control.
Last week the Senate blocked renewal of much of the Patriot Act. Only two Democrats supported renewal of the law, while 41 Democrats voted against renewal -- including 35 who had voted for the same law in 2001.
Obviously then, we can assume that most Democrats believe that the threat from terrorism is now well under control. This would be quite a testament to George W. Bush, who has evidently taken America from the September 11 era of vulnerability to such comparative safety in just four years. It is also a little confusing to those of us who have had to listen to the Democrats claim for some time now that Bush’s policies have made America less safe.
For example, Sen. Ted Kennedy, who voted for the Patriot Act in 2001, has made many statements such as this one: “Are we safer today because of the policies of President George W. Bush? Any honest assessment can lead to only one answer, and that answer is an emphatic no.” Yet Kennedy voted against renewal of the Patriot Act last week.
Now, if we are not safer, and the Patriot Act was intended to obstruct terrorists until we could be made safer, then one would have to believe that allowing the act to expire would make us vulnerable again to the terrorism from which Ted Kennedy says George Bush has not made us safer. So why then did Kennedy vote to allow the act to expire?
One possibility is that Kennedy and the other Democrats are playing partisan political games with our safety, by opposing pretty much anything Bush supports as part of a cynical campaign to inspire Democratic donors and denigrate the President in preparation for the 2006 elections. Obviously, that cannot be true.
So then we must conclude that Kennedy -- despite what he says -- really believes that Bush has made America safer. So safe, in fact, that we can now begin to re-hobble our law enforcement agencies with the sort of restrictions they suffered before September 11.
And it’s not just the Patriot Act that makes me draw this conclusion. Democrats are aghast at all sorts of anti-terror activity lately.
Consider the “shocking” revelation by the New York Times last week that, shortly after September 11, President Bush authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to monitor the international phone calls and emails of terror suspects within the United States. The whole point of the NSA is to monitor international phone calls and emails and such, but because one half of the international phone calls and emails in question originated within the United States, the NSA had previously been restricted from monitoring them under a strict interpretation of a ban on domestic spying by the NSA.
After a failure of intelligence allowed 3000 people to die on September 11th, President Bush decided that such a strict interpretation was ridiculous and immoral. Why should the NSA have the power to tap a foreign communication from Afghanistan to Iran, but be prohibited from tapping a foreign communication from Afghanistan to New York? Which is more likely to be related to terrorism against the United States?
So, with special approval and oversight, the NSA was given permission to monitor only the international communications of terror suspects within the United States. Your calls to Grandma in Michigan are still perfectly safe and under the jurisdiction of the FBI and the courts. But any calls by one of a few hundred suspicious persons to remote shack #452 in the tribal territories of Pakistan can now be monitored. This seems reasonable to me. But the New York Times and their groupies in the mainstream media see it as a major theoretical civil rights conundrum worthy of congressional investigations.
The story was enough to make Ted Kennedy spout out, “This is Big Brother run amok” -- a phrase he also used at several late night White House parties in the early 1960s. In this case, however, he was using it to imply that monitoring the overseas communications of a small watch-list of people with ties to terrorist organizations was worse than the all-powerful all-controlling marxo-fascist police state envisioned by George Orwell in his masterwork 1984.
Strange, how the fear of an all-powerful state never seemed to occur to Kennedy when he has previously proposed socialized medicine, expanded welfare state taxation and income redistribution, business regulation, hate crimes legislation, race-based hiring in government, and the most extreme gun control measures in our nation’s history. But maybe he just read “1984” recently.
Clearly, though, when we can worry about fine details -- such as how many international participants must be involved before a communication becomes international enough to fall under the jurisdiction of the NSA -- we must be in a much safer position than we were. Or else the Democrats are behaving irresponsibly in a world that remains dangerous -- which they would never do. Never.
Likewise, would Democrats (both in and out of the media) worry so much about a single soggy Koran and the thermostat settings at Guantanamo if we were under a real threat from terrorists? Would they seek to expose secret CIA interrogation facilities overseas if America were in any true d
A long but worthwhile read:
DEMS BELIEVE BUSH HAD MADE US SAFE!
Dems Must Believe Bush Made U.S. Safer
by Mac Johnson
Posted Dec 19, 2005
In October of 2001, the Patriot Act, giving the federal government increased power to monitor and prosecute suspected terrorists, was passed in the U.S. Senate with only one dissenting vote. Forty-Seven Democrats voted for the bill. They justified their support of the measure, rightfully, by explaining that terrorism posed a grave threat to America and more potent policing would be needed until we could get the long-term problem under control.
Last week the Senate blocked renewal of much of the Patriot Act. Only two Democrats supported renewal of the law, while 41 Democrats voted against renewal -- including 35 who had voted for the same law in 2001.
Obviously then, we can assume that most Democrats believe that the threat from terrorism is now well under control. This would be quite a testament to George W. Bush, who has evidently taken America from the September 11 era of vulnerability to such comparative safety in just four years. It is also a little confusing to those of us who have had to listen to the Democrats claim for some time now that Bush’s policies have made America less safe.
For example, Sen. Ted Kennedy, who voted for the Patriot Act in 2001, has made many statements such as this one: “Are we safer today because of the policies of President George W. Bush? Any honest assessment can lead to only one answer, and that answer is an emphatic no.” Yet Kennedy voted against renewal of the Patriot Act last week.
Now, if we are not safer, and the Patriot Act was intended to obstruct terrorists until we could be made safer, then one would have to believe that allowing the act to expire would make us vulnerable again to the terrorism from which Ted Kennedy says George Bush has not made us safer. So why then did Kennedy vote to allow the act to expire?
One possibility is that Kennedy and the other Democrats are playing partisan political games with our safety, by opposing pretty much anything Bush supports as part of a cynical campaign to inspire Democratic donors and denigrate the President in preparation for the 2006 elections. Obviously, that cannot be true.
So then we must conclude that Kennedy -- despite what he says -- really believes that Bush has made America safer. So safe, in fact, that we can now begin to re-hobble our law enforcement agencies with the sort of restrictions they suffered before September 11.
And it’s not just the Patriot Act that makes me draw this conclusion. Democrats are aghast at all sorts of anti-terror activity lately.
Consider the “shocking” revelation by the New York Times last week that, shortly after September 11, President Bush authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to monitor the international phone calls and emails of terror suspects within the United States. The whole point of the NSA is to monitor international phone calls and emails and such, but because one half of the international phone calls and emails in question originated within the United States, the NSA had previously been restricted from monitoring them under a strict interpretation of a ban on domestic spying by the NSA.
After a failure of intelligence allowed 3000 people to die on September 11th, President Bush decided that such a strict interpretation was ridiculous and immoral. Why should the NSA have the power to tap a foreign communication from Afghanistan to Iran, but be prohibited from tapping a foreign communication from Afghanistan to New York? Which is more likely to be related to terrorism against the United States?
So, with special approval and oversight, the NSA was given permission to monitor only the international communications of terror suspects within the United States. Your calls to Grandma in Michigan are still perfectly safe and under the jurisdiction of the FBI and the courts. But any calls by one of a few hundred suspicious persons to remote shack #452 in the tribal territories of Pakistan can now be monitored. This seems reasonable to me. But the New York Times and their groupies in the mainstream media see it as a major theoretical civil rights conundrum worthy of congressional investigations.
The story was enough to make Ted Kennedy spout out, “This is Big Brother run amok” -- a phrase he also used at several late night White House parties in the early 1960s. In this case, however, he was using it to imply that monitoring the overseas communications of a small watch-list of people with ties to terrorist organizations was worse than the all-powerful all-controlling marxo-fascist police state envisioned by George Orwell in his masterwork 1984.
Strange, how the fear of an all-powerful state never seemed to occur to Kennedy when he has previously proposed socialized medicine, expanded welfare state taxation and income redistribution, business regulation, hate crimes legislation, race-based hiring in government, and the most extreme gun control measures in our nation’s history. But maybe he just read “1984” recently.
Clearly, though, when we can worry about fine details -- such as how many international participants must be involved before a communication becomes international enough to fall under the jurisdiction of the NSA -- we must be in a much safer position than we were. Or else the Democrats are behaving irresponsibly in a world that remains dangerous -- which they would never do. Never.
Likewise, would Democrats (both in and out of the media) worry so much about a single soggy Koran and the thermostat settings at Guantanamo if we were under a real threat from terrorists? Would they seek to expose secret CIA interrogation facilities overseas if America were in any true danger? Would they obsess about how private your library receipts should be if our enemies were still at large? Of course not. They’re not so partisan or blinded by hatred of President Bush that they would endanger our nation’s safety just to score a few points in the polls. Right?
After September 11, America watched and waited for the next attack. We marked each anniversary and holiday with dread and a sense of resignation. It was not a matter of “if,” it was a matter of “when” they hit again. But they did not hit in the weeks after 9/11, or that Christmas, or on the first anniversary of the massacre. They did not strike in all of 2002 or 2003 or 2004 or 2005.
For over four years, through two wars, and dozens of events, they have not struck. During that time they have attacked Madrid and London, Bali and Baghdad --but not here. We know they want to attack here, yet no attack has come.
The same people that carried out 9/11 haven’t been able to overturn an apple cart in the United States since then.
This is our greatest success in the War on Terror
Either the terrorists just got really, really lucky on 9/11, or else something we did after that attack actually made us safer. We may soon find out which it was, by rolling back all the measures we took after the 9/11 attack and restoring the pre-September 11 mentality to our politics and our intelligence agencies.
Game...sorry, but I had trouble with my Internet connection when trying to paste this. Since I have to type my name in it didn't appear in the first...along with other errors. But I do like my challenge to Jim in the first attempt. He should try to explain this away with more of his spins. Erase one or both...if you like. I do believe this needed to be seen by Jimbo though.
Bosnia = NATO
Iraq = Bushie
That article is worth exactly zero. While an argument can be made that Clinton prodded NATO into making the press, I will use the common argument blather from this list against you.
Thats what made it legal.
Bush has exactly 60 days to use US forces. Also, by the same act of Congress he must, BY LAW, submit a reason why he committed troops, what authority he has to submit them, and An estimation of the length and scope of the occupation.
Now, I agree that special situations can require the, "Til its done" answer, but he has way over-used that ability. Also, he is required by law to submit ANY documentation requested by the Congress that he used to come to his decision. He has failed to do that several times.
This is why people cry that the war is illegal, and Bush is a warmonger.
Also, to answer the question you posed, game. Because its illegal. There is a special court which grants warrants to conduct these intrusions, but Bush wants to by-pass them completely. In thousands of requests to get these warrants, they have been denied only 4 times. the man is just a power-hungry freak.
Post a Comment