During the Presidency of Bill Clinton, our intelligence agencies were make impotent.
One way Clinton made them impotent was by forbidding our govt to work with any questionable people...
Well, once again, we see why we are safer with conservatives in charge. We got some questionable persons to find out some information that prevented a military base on US soil from being bombed.
Investigators said they infiltrated the group with two informants well over a year ago and bided their time while they secretly recorded the defendants, four of whom lived in Cherry Hill, a Philadelphia suburb about 20 miles from Fort Dix.
So when you don't like that 13 years ago Fred Thompson filled out a questionnaire that you didn't like, or that Rudi once said something positive about gays...remember which mentality is going to keep us safe and save the world. The side that cares about protecting you and could care less about the rights and feelings of terrorists (conservative)...or the side that doesn't want us taking away the rights of terrorist, making sure they can pray 10 times a day in jail, making sure we don't listen to them on the phone, making sure we cut funding and fill the FBI and CIA with lawyers so they can't do anything. (you know who).
Tuesday, May 08, 2007
Catching terrorists by doing everything liberals hate
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
10 comments:
Um, if you're trying to say that FBI employees are "questionable people," that's pretty rude.
Look, this plot was busted without warrantless wiretaps, without torturing suspects, without forgoing habeus corpus, without new powers granted by the U.S.A.P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act. This plot could have been busted in exactly the same way in 1999.
(I also think you've not done your research on Clinton's policies, which did not say what you think they said.)
Perfect, Jay.
Jay, I pray you suffer terrorism up cluse and personal because your model of after the fact domestic police and process serving intelligence DOES NOT work for International terrorists.
Jay, like most liberals, you are too busy trying to hide something like the Clintons. If a known terrorist calls the US, I don't belie4ve a warrant was needed to listen to the call.
With idiots like you, we would have never intercepted and decoded the messgaes planning the Midway operation by the Japanese.
Sometimes I think you Democrats intend to help those who intend to harm the US.
Sometimes I think you Democrats intend to help those who intend to harm the US.
I think so too. What troubles me more is their lack of fortitude-- they'll say they oppose the Patriot Act and then vote for it, they say they're against sending troops to Iraq and then fund them. Why support a policy, and give our enemies inspiration to step up their attacks and give them hope the United States can be defeated?
Because liberals hate this country, which is something that isn't pleasant to face up to. Liberals are also terrified that they will have to make the big decisions with big consequences. Liberals want Bush to do something they have no courage to do: bring it to an end.
Of course, just because we drop our arms in Iraq doesn't mean Islamic supremacists will drop theirs. They will simply move to another theater of operations -- Afghanistan, Europe, North America, et cetera.
So when you don't like that 13 years ago Fred Thompson filled out a questionnaire that you didn't like, or that Rudi once said something positive about gays
Given how the Democrats have gone completely over the edge, I will vote for *any* GOP nominee, including the ones I don't agree with on many issues, like Huckabee or Hunter. Maintaining our very existence is a greater priority to me than, let us say, trade policy or what is taught in science classes. Romney looks like the guy with the skills right now, but there is a lot of time left on the clock.
Because liberals hate this country . . .
Another staggering achievement in the annals of conservative commentary.
I offer facts, and I get insults back in return. Sheesh.
jay--
Focus.
Why do Democrats support a policy, and then work to undermine those implementing it?
Exhibit A: The Patriot Act. Renewed last year in the Senate by a 89-10 vote.
Exhibit B: The surge. The Democrats, who control the Senate and the House, can cut off funding immediately if they believe we need to surrender, er, "change course." Instead, they send our troops into battle, and talk appeasement with Syrian dictators.
Back in the 1990s, the Democrats used to bomb people like Saddam Hussein and Sloboban Milosevic. What happened?
The moonbats took over the party, that's what happened.
Exhibit A: The Patriot Act. Renewed last year in the Senate by a 89-10 vote.
And as Democrats said at the time: The problem is not with the entire U.S.A.P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act, but rather with specific provisions. Dems wanted those provisions fixed, Republicans refused and, rather than throw out baby and bathwater, Dems renewed the law. I know, I know, the "news" coverage of the debate a year ago rarely included the, um, whaddyacallem, facts about the Dems' position, and instead consisted mostly of "Dems Love Terrists An' Hate Uhmerka" rhetoric. But anyone who actually listened to what, for example, Russ Feingold actually said would not make such an ill-informed comment as you just did.
Exhibit B: The surge. The Democrats, who control the Senate and the House, can cut off funding immediately if they believe we need to surrender, er, "change course." Instead, they send our troops into battle, and talk appeasement with Syrian dictators.
I thought that was Condi who met with the Syrians. Wait! I'm getting my talking points confused!
Seriously, I'm confused. In one ear I got people telling me Congress can't control who goes into battle since the president is the "Commander Guy," and you're in the other ear saying it's the Dems' fault the troops are going into battle. Both can't be true--who do you trust more, you or the president?
You can't have it both ways, Jason. You can't make the Democrats the Bad Guys when Dems have long opposed this war--at least as it has been prosecuted for four years. Bush will kick the soccer ball down the field until his term is up, and then the Republicans will gleefully watch a Democrat try to pick up the million little pieces that will never go back together again and then blame Democrats for the war's failure. That's why Republicans held an intervention for Bush & Friends at the White House today, because they know whose hands have blood on them--and it's not the Democrats'.
Back in the 1990s, the Democrats used to bomb people like Saddam Hussein and Sloboban Milosevic. What happened?
Who are we supposed to be bombing, Jason? Who in Iraq is an enemy that we can mount a weeks-long intensive bombing campaign against to drive them away? Our troops are caught in a centuries-old Islamic civil war. We can't bomb our way out of it. (Even Petraeus says there's no military solution.)
Look, this thread started with the Game saying that this bust of the "Bomb Ft. Dix Amateur Hour" couldn't have happened under Clinton, and I called bullshit. How was I wrong? And how does the bursting of whatever feel-good talking points you've been rolling around in qualify me for the "Hates America" club? Cries of treason are, indeed, the last refuge of a scoundrel.
jay--
It *is* anti-American to send our troops into battle, and give our enemies the rhetorical nourishment they need to keep up the fight. I don't know how you people sleep at night.
No one is saying to bomb our way out of Iraq. The way out of Iraq is to train Iraqi units and rotate them in while rotating our forces out. That way, the Iraqi government can deal with the problem with a far smaller American presence in the region. While this will take longer than anticipated, I can't imagine a George Washington, U.S. Grant, or Harry Truman retreating prematurely under such circumstances.
Dealing with Jihad, whether it be Sunni or Shi'ite, always requires a military solution. You don't deal with fascists with talk and appeasement. You'll see a Khmer Rouge situation in Iraq if you rely on talks alone to stabilize the country.
Liberals proclaim to care about their fellow man, so it shocks me that they would be so callous at the prospect of a bloodbath.
The Dems are frantically trying to coerce Bush to leave Iraq before 2008, so they can blame whatever results on him, and not the irresponsibility they currently advocate.
If provisions of the Patriot Act are evil, remove them! If Democrats think they can win a military battle with words, then cut the funding and send the troops home! You have the Senate and the House. If you believe helping brown people stay free is hopeless, what are you waiting for?
Jay, I can't help it if an accurate observation feels like an insult to you. It is one you Democrats EARNED!
Now, quit playing the vicitm. Only Rodney Dangerfield could pull that off effectively. You only look like a party hack who is out classed.
Can you think beyond the talking points of your Democrat party conference calls you brag about on your site?
I guess Democrats objecting to the same type of data mining their operatives do to opposition candidates, to locate and neurtalize terrorists. IE. MD Lt. Gov. Steele whom the Democrats actually stole his identity to steal private financial information.
Also, Democrats shifting intelligence money to Global Warming study, is another piece of evidence that Democrats would rather blind and disarm this country than taking on Terrorists.
Oh, Jay, since you can't really come back with anything except whining and the victim card, here's something else to feel victimized over:
http://www.registeredmedia.com/gallery/files/4/caveman_original.jpg
Post a Comment