"Trust us"

[TexasTiger 13,005]

Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution. 

George W. Bush, April 2004

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20040420-2.html

He lies with such comfort, such ease. How can you not think this guy is a pathological liar?

[Bottomfeeder 244]

Man, I don't know what to think anymore. What I do believe is he will possibly be facing jail time along with his cohort Cheney, and others. It is a sad day in America when the King decides that it is okay to publicly announce that he has broken the law and dares anyone to do anything about it. It's my opinion that this once great democracy, which was once a constitutional republic, has become what the founders fought against.

What seems to be going on is tax cuts for everyone (I'm all for tax cuts or elimination) with the deficit to be paid in the future when taxes must be increased and wages will be lower because of outsourcing or off shoring. While they are in office the defense contractors, oil companies, energy companies (subject of another discussion) are making off with billions of taxpayer dollars with little or no excise responsibilities. It seems okay now, but wait until the Dems take control of both houses and the White House and the financial reckoning day arrives. The economy will mirror that of the Carter days. Taxes will be much, much higher and good jobs will not be as abundant along with interest rates choking our fiat currency to oblivion. This plays right into the hands of the GOP. The two party systems must be destroyed, and real representation must take its place for permanent change. As far as constitution rights go, well, we all know that our rights are under attack by Big Government. And, it seems that big government is not slowing down at all.

Senator Barry Goldwater who said, "Remember that a government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take away everything you have."

This attack on civil rights is meant to quell dissent. Dissent to the affect that the king is ruling our nation. :huh:

It's getting scary, really scary.

http://www.sonyclassics.com/whywefight/

http://www.sonyclassics.com/whywefight/_me...yWeFight_VF.pdf

[LegalEagle 22]

These are the worst of times for this country that I can remember. If the Invasion of Iraq was going as badly as the Vietnam Conflict, we would really be in rough shape.

These corrupt leaders have no shame and thump their chests with pride about what they have done. "Oh, just so you'll know I'm on the up and up . . . here's the dirty money I took by mistake. That guy really fooled me into taking it. Shame on him."

I cannot think of any turn of events which would ever allow someone from the middle class to become president - or even senator. The middle class needs to be in the leadership. They represent the majority of citizens.

[AURaptor 1,126]

TT, BF, LE...on what planet are you guys living ? Or should I ask, what's that in your pipe you're smoking?

Jail time for doing what the President is Constitutionally bound to do and what Congress specifically supported ? Wow, if that doesn't take the cake.

These are the worst of times for this country that I can remember

LE, you must not have been around in the 70's then. Your perspective of the worst of times leaves much to be desired.

This attack on civil rights is meant to quell dissent. Dissent to the affect that the king is ruling our nation.

It's getting scary, really scary.

What attack on civil rights? The rights of who.....terrorist ? You really do confound me in your lack of logic. Bill Clinton was going to throw away the Constitution because of Y2K, remember? State of Emergency was all but a done deal. There were concentration camps ALREADY in place.

But wait! Nothing happened! The cries of doom and gloom were all for naught. Seriously, don't you folks have real lives? Aren't there real people, family or friends who you could be spending time with, or paying a bit more attention to, than to dwell in this fantasy land you've made for yourselves?

Hell, if you're gonna live in a made up world, at least make it something cool!

[TexasTiger 13,005]

TT, BF, LE...on what planet are you guys living ? Or should I ask, what's that in your pipe you're smoking? 

Hell, if you're gonna live in a made up world, at least make it something cool!

213181[/snapback]

On what planet do you live and what are you smoking so that you cannot bring yourself to address my point about what he said-- that it is a baldfaced lie. Why is that so hard for you?

[AURaptor 1,126]

TT, BF, LE...on what planet are you guys living ? Or should I ask, what's that in your pipe you're smoking? 

Hell, if you're gonna live in a made up world, at least make it something cool!

213181[/snapback]

On what planet do you live and what are you smoking so that you cannot bring yourself to address my point about what he said-- that it is a baldfaced lie. Why is that so hard for you?

213189[/snapback]

Wiretapping is not eavesdropping. Thus endeth the confusion. There's no lie, just miscomprehension.

[Bottomfeeder 244]

This attack on civil rights is meant to quell dissent. Dissent to the affect that the king is ruling our nation.

It's getting scary, really scary.

What attack on civil rights? The rights of who.....terrorist ? You really do confound me in your lack of logic. Bill Clinton was going to throw away the Constitution because of Y2K, remember? State of Emergency was all but a done deal. There were concentration camps ALREADY in place.

But wait! Nothing happened! The cries of doom and gloom were all for naught. Seriously, don't you folks have real lives? Aren't there real people, family or friends who you could be spending time with, or paying a bit more attention to, than to dwell in this fantasy land you've made for yourselves?

Hell, if you're gonna live in a made up world, at least make it something cool!

First of all we are not talking about Clinton or terrorists rights foreign or domestic. The threat to civil liberties has to with the spying on peace protestors by the FBI.

Secondly, I don't drink or do drugs, period. I do not codone the consumption of alcoholic beverages or mind altering drugs both legal or illegal.

Thirdly, this is about abuse of power. No matter whether they be rep or dem, it is illegal to wiretap without a FICA permission, period (even the 72 hour rule was bypassed). He broke the law and he must be held accountable. You can give all of the excuses you want, HE BROKE THE LAW; AND, HE WILL BE PROSECUTED!

rtsp://video.c-span.org/project/ter/ter012006_spying.rm?mode=compact

According to this Bush/Cheney have no choice but to iniate another 9-11 attack on American soil thus executing marshal law and declaring themselves King and Queen forever.

Future charges possible, Dems warn White House

Statute of limitations extends past 2008, congressman says

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...MNGNEGQPIR1.DTL

I think they should wait until he is out of office before prosecuting him. If a dem gets elected in 2008, then Bush/Cheney and company can serve their sentences without White House interference (i.e. - presidential pardons). Criminals belong in prison, not in my White House.

We are going find out what happened.

[AURaptor 1,126]

You can give all of the excuses you want, HE BROKE THE LAW; AND, HE WILL BE PROSECUTED!

No need for any excuses. There will be no prosecution for no laws were broken. It's really just that simple. Unlike Clinton, who clearly committed perjury, Bush was well w/ in his bounds. He did nothing that previous Presidents haven't done themselves. Don't believe me? Just ask John Schmidt, a Clinton admistration associate attoney general who has defended the program.

This is clearly nothing more than a ruse by the Dems, faux indignation over the loss of 3 national elections in a row and pay back for Clinton's Impeachment. Nothing more.

[Bottomfeeder 244]

Okay, if you say so AURaptor.

[AURaptor 1,126]

He lies with such comfort, such ease. How can you not think this guy is a pathological liar?

With out any doubt what so ever, you're referring to Bill Clinton. But why? I cannot say.

Least you forget, it was Dem Senator Bob Kerry who said Clinton is, " ... an unusually good liar. Unusually good." Also Barney Frank, one of the president's most vociferous defenders, lamented that he wished the president just "would stop" lying. The New York Times was vexed by the president's "mysterious passion for lying" and penchant for "lying about his lies." About the president's tendency to lie, Robert Reich regretted "not simply the fact of it ... but its passionate intensity."

So,spare us the projecting when speaking of Presidents who lie. That's Bubba's realm, and his alone. Hell, he got Impeached for it !

[TexasTiger 13,005]

TT, BF, LE...on what planet are you guys living ? Or should I ask, what's that in your pipe you're smoking? 

Hell, if you're gonna live in a made up world, at least make it something cool!

213181[/snapback]

On what planet do you live and what are you smoking so that you cannot bring yourself to address my point about what he said-- that it is a baldfaced lie. Why is that so hard for you?

213189[/snapback]

Wiretapping is not eavesdropping. Thus endeth the confusion. There's no lie, just miscomprehension.

213191[/snapback]

You sound like Bill Clinton. Oral sex isn't sexual relations.

[AURaptor 1,126]

You sound like Bill Clinton. Oral sex isn't sexual relations.

Wow, there's a real solid comeback! You and the Left have a problem w/ the President eavesdropping on international lines of communication w/ suspected terrorist. I don't.

Abraham Lincoln arrested and exiled a US Congressman for speaking out against the war and suspended the writ of habeas corpus. - The Nation survived.

FDR in WW2 rounded up American citizens and put them into holding camps , because of their Japanese ancestory. The Nation survived.

G.W. Bush takes legal, proactive measures to root out terrorist, and somehow he's committed a high crime and you think he should be charged ?

Does that seem right to you? :huh:

[TexasTiger 13,005]

You sound like Bill Clinton. Oral sex isn't sexual relations.

Wow, there's a real solid comeback! You and the Left have a problem w/ the President eavesdropping on international lines of communication w/ suspected terrorist. I don't.

Abraham Lincoln arrested and exiled a US Congressman for speaking out against the war and suspended the writ of habeas corpus. - The Nation survived.

FDR in WW2 rounded up American citizens and put them into holding camps , because of their Japanese ancestory. The Nation survived.

G.W. Bush takes legal, proactive measures to root out terrorist, and somehow he's committed a high crime and you think he should be charged ?

Does that seem right to you? :huh:

213361[/snapback]

Very solid comeback to this lunacy:

So,spare us the projecting when speaking of Presidents who lie. That's Bubba's realm, and his alone.

You gave Clinton response and can't even see it. You should replace Reagan's photo with Clinton. You're nothng like Reagan-- in fact, you embarass him daily by associating his image with your drivel.

There are legal ways to do what needs to be done. My point is, that he flat-out lied about it more than once. He felt the need to reassure people that warrants were being issued each time-- even though it wasn't true. If he believed it was legal, he would not have felt that need. What he said was Not true. A lie. You can't see that. You are obviously incapable of admitting the obvious. Totally brainwashed.

[AURaptor 1,126]

He felt the need to reassure people that warrants were being issued each time-- even though it wasn't true. If he believed it was legal, he would not have felt that need. What he said was Not true. A lie. You can't see that. You are obviously incapable of admitting the obvious. Totally brainwashed.

If that's how you see what he said, but I believe you're taking this completely out of context and mixing 2 unrelated issues. Whether by design or by being a useful idiot, I cannot say.

[Bottomfeeder 244]

Speaking of Reagan:

Space Shuttle's Flight Dedicated to Afghans

REUTERS

Published: March 11, 1982

President Reagan today dedicated the next flight of the American space shuttle to anti-Soviet insurgents in Afghanistan and promised to keep a spotlight on Kremlin intervention in that country.

The re-usable shuttle's third flight is scheduled to begin March 22 and Mr. Reagan dedicated it to insurgents fighting Soviet and Afghan Army troops.

[LegalEagle 22]

I thought Reagan was best know for Iran - Contra. How did that come out?

Why is it that anytime anyone in the current administration is called to task, the defense invariably includes the word "Clinton?"

King George has a whole team of lawyers trying to come up with a non-laughable argument as to how his "eavesdropping" was not a violation of the constitution. Show me the law which allowed Bush to order such "eavesdropping."

Where do you live. Someone needs to start picking up your trash when you set it out by the curb. Supreme court says that legal.

[Tigermike 3,052]

I thought Reagan was best know for Iran - Contra.  How did that come out?

Why is it that anytime anyone in the current administration is called to task, the defense invariably includes the word "Clinton?"

King George has a whole team of lawyers trying to come up with a non-laughable argument as to how his "eavesdropping" was not a violation of the constitution.  Show me the law which allowed Bush to order such "eavesdropping."

Where do you live.  Someone needs to start picking up your trash when you set it out by the curb.  Supreme court says that legal.

213415[/snapback]

So you have a problem with the government tracking communications between domestic Islamist groups and al-Qa'ida terrorists?

[TexasTiger 13,005]

So you have a problem with the government tracking communications between domestic Islamist groups and al-Qa'ida terrorists?

213417[/snapback]

I know of no one who has a problem with that. There is a legal way to do just that. The fact is, we don't really know what communication and between who that they are tracking. There is no check on what they are doing. They say "we are just doing xyz, trust us," but as the quote that started this thread clearly demonstrates, he will say whatever he believes people need to hear whether it is true or not, and then do whatever he wants."

[Tigermike 3,052]

So you have a problem with the government tracking communications between domestic Islamist groups and al-Qa'ida terrorists?

213417[/snapback]

I know of no one who has a problem with that. There is a legal way to do just that. The fact is, we don't really know what communication and between who that they are tracking. There is no check on what they are doing. They say "we are just doing xyz, trust us," but as the quote that started this thread clearly demonstrates, he will say whatever he believes people need to hear whether it is true or not, and then do whatever he wants."

213474[/snapback]

How many times can you contradict yourself in a single paragraph Tex? You say you know of no one who has a problem with that. Then say there is a legal way to do just that, which implies they are doing it illegally. Then you say we really don’t know what is being tracked. Are there no checks & balances in place? Are you saying that everyone in these programs is as dishonest, untruthful, deceitful, and mendacious as you and the dems have been saying that President Bush is?

You are right Tex. The NSA, DOD, CIA, FBI, Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines and Coast Guard should all provide the plans of their operations to the New York Times at least 6 months in advance of any and all operations. They should also be required to find and assure any and all democrats of any incoming or outgoing call from or to al-Qa'ida operatives. That would surely speed things up wouldn’t it? Did the dems learn anything from the findings of the 9/11 commission? Just like a democrat to want to stop any and all information gathering on terrorists. Or at least put up another bureaucratic barrier to hamstring the operations.

It is strange to me that our borders are leaking like a sieve and illegal immigrants are applying to vote in many places and the democrats are willing to do nothing. The dems in many instances are pushing for voting rights for illegal’s and oppose ANY type of voter ID card. Why is that Tex?

[TexasTiger 13,005]

So you have a problem with the government tracking communications between domestic Islamist groups and al-Qa'ida terrorists?

213417[/snapback]

I know of no one who has a problem with that. There is a legal way to do just that. The fact is, we don't really know what communication and between who that they are tracking. There is no check on what they are doing. They say "we are just doing xyz, trust us," but as the quote that started this thread clearly demonstrates, he will say whatever he believes people need to hear whether it is true or not, and then do whatever he wants."

213474[/snapback]

How many times can you contradict yourself in a single paragraph Tex? You say you know of no one who has a problem with that. Then say there is a legal way to do just that, which implies they are doing it illegally. Then you say we really don’t know what is being tracked. Are there no checks & balances in place? Are you saying that everyone in these programs is as dishonest, untruthful, deceitful, and mendacious as you and the dems have been saying that President Bush is?

You are right Tex. The NSA, DOD, CIA, FBI, Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines and Coast Guard should all provide the plans of their operations to the New York Times at least 6 months in advance of any and all operations. They should also be required to find and assure any and all democrats of any incoming or outgoing call from or to al-Qa'ida operatives. That would surely speed things up wouldn’t it? Did the dems learn anything from the findings of the 9/11 commission? Just like a democrat to want to stop any and all information gathering on terrorists. Or at least put up another bureaucratic barrier to hamstring the operations.

It is strange to me that our borders are leaking like a sieve and illegal immigrants are applying to vote in many places and the democrats are willing to do nothing. The dems in many instances are pushing for voting rights for illegal’s and oppose ANY type of voter ID card. Why is that Tex?

213483[/snapback]

It is so rare that you actually respond to what I write. BTW, look up "contradiction". You don't seem to know what it means.

So you have a problem with the government tracking communications between domestic Islamist groups and al-Qa'ida terrorists?

There is a legal way to do it and they are currently doing it illegally. That's the issue. Track those communications using the FISA courts that are in place. That is the legal way.

You are right Tex.  The NSA, DOD, CIA, FBI, Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines and Coast Guard should all provide the plans of their operations to the New York Times at least 6 months in advance of any and all operations.  They should also be required to find and assure any and all democrats of any incoming or outgoing call from or to al-Qa'ida operatives.  That would surely speed things up wouldn’t it?

I guess you haven't familiarized yourself with what they law actually is, or else you wouldn't have said something so off base. They don't need to tell the Dems at all. They certainly don't need to tell the press. They merely need to tell the FISA courts within 72 hours of doing it. Not that burdensome.

[Tigermike 3,052]

2 entries found for contradiction.

n.

1.

a. The act of contradicting.

b. The state of being contradicted.

2. A denial.

3. Inconsistency; discrepancy.

4. Something that contains contradictory elements.

Yes I do know what it means and yes you did contradict yourself.

So you have a problem with the government tracking communications between domestic Islamist groups and al-Qa'ida terrorists?

213417[/snapback]

I know of no one who has a problem with that. There is a legal way to do just that. The fact is, we don't really know what communication and between who that they are tracking. There is no check on what they are doing. They say "we are just doing xyz, trust us," but as the quote that started this thread clearly demonstrates, he will say whatever he believes people need to hear whether it is true or not, and then do whatever he wants."

213474[/snapback]

How many times can you contradict yourself in a single paragraph Tex? You say you know of no one who has a problem with that. Then say there is a legal way to do just that, which implies they are doing it illegally. Then you say we really don’t know what is being tracked. Are there no checks & balances in place? Are you saying that everyone in these programs is as dishonest, untruthful, deceitful, and mendacious as you and the dems have been saying that President Bush is?

You are right Tex. The NSA, DOD, CIA, FBI, Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines and Coast Guard should all provide the plans of their operations to the New York Times at least 6 months in advance of any and all operations. They should also be required to find and assure any and all democrats of any incoming or outgoing call from or to al-Qa'ida operatives. That would surely speed things up wouldn’t it? Did the dems learn anything from the findings of the 9/11 commission? Just like a democrat to want to stop any and all information gathering on terrorists. Or at least put up another bureaucratic barrier to hamstring the operations.

It is strange to me that our borders are leaking like a sieve and illegal immigrants are applying to vote in many places and the democrats are willing to do nothing. The dems in many instances are pushing for voting rights for illegal’s and oppose ANY type of voter ID card. Why is that Tex?

213483[/snapback]

It is so rare that you actually respond to what I write. BTW, look up "contradiction". You don't seem to know what it means.

So you have a problem with the government tracking communications between domestic Islamist groups and al-Qa'ida terrorists?

There is a legal way to do it and they are currently doing it illegally. That's the issue. Track those communications using the FISA courts that are in place. That is the legal way. (Who says they are doing it illegally? Ted Kennedy the fat bloviate, murder? What does he know what is and is not legal)

You are right Tex.  The NSA, DOD, CIA, FBI, Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines and Coast Guard should all provide the plans of their operations to the New York Times at least 6 months in advance of any and all operations.  They should also be required to find and assure any and all democrats of any incoming or outgoing call from or to al-Qa'ida operatives.  That would surely speed things up wouldn’t it?

I guess you haven't familiarized yourself with what they law actually is, or else you wouldn't have said something so off base. They don't need to tell the Dems at all. They certainly don't need to tell the press. They merely need to tell the FISA courts within 72 hours of doing it. Not that burdensome.

213493[/snapback]

Have the FISA courts complained about what is going on? No it is the dems trying to make political hay. But guess what? The dems have pretty much shut up since the vast majority of Americans actually want the government to track communications between domestic Islamist groups and al-Qa'ida terrorists? It is only the extreme left wing of the Democrats who want to keep up the rhetoric, even when they know in their hearts they are glad someone is doing their job.

[TexasTiger 13,005]

If I contradicted myself, you sure didn't point it out.

You're funny.

Have the FISA courts complained about what is going on?  No...

As a matter of fact...

Judges on Surveillance Court To Be Briefed on Spy Program

By Carol D. Leonnig and Dafna Linzer

The presiding judge of a secret court that oversees government surveillance in espionage and terrorism cases is arranging a classified briefing for her fellow judges to address their concerns about the legality of President Bush's domestic spying program, according to several intelligence and government sources.

Several members of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court said in interviews that they want to know why the administration believed secretly listening in on telephone calls and reading e-mails of U.S. citizens without court authorization was legal. Some of the judges said they are particularly concerned that information gleaned from the president's eavesdropping program may have been improperly used to gain authorized wiretaps from their court.

"The questions are obvious," said U.S. District Judge Dee Benson of Utah. "What have you been doing, and how might it affect the reliability and credibility of the information we're getting in our court?"

Such comments underscored the continuing questions among judges about the program, which most of them learned about when it was disclosed last week by the New York Times. On Monday, one of 10 FISA judges, federal Judge James Robertson, submitted his resignation -- in protest of the president's action, according to two sources familiar with his decision. He will maintain his position on the U.S. District Court here.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5122102326.html

More uninformed silliness from a dedicated kool aid drinker:

It is only the extreme left wing of the Democrats who want to keep up the rhetoric...

Wrong, again.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter put the Bush administration on notice Friday that his panel would hold hearings into a report that the National Security Agency eavesdropped without warrants on people inside the United States. "There is no doubt that this is inappropriate," said Specter, R-Pa., calling hearings early next year "a very, very high priority." He wasn't alone in reacting harshly to the report. Sen. John McCain R-Ariz., said the story, first reported in Friday's New York Times, was troubling.

This morning on Fox News:

Today on Fox News Sunday, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) said Bush’s warrantless domestic wiretapping program is illegal:

WALLACE: But you do not believe that currently he has the legal authority to engage in these warrant-less wiretaps.

MCCAIN: You know, I don’t think so, but why not come to Congress? We can sort this all out. I don’t think — I know of no member of Congress, frankly, who, if the administration came and said here’s why we need this capability, that they wouldn’t get it. And so let’s have the hearings.

McCain is the latest addition to a growing list of prominent conservatives — including Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) and Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN) — who have expressed serious concerns about the legality of the program.

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/01/22/mccain-wiretaps-illegal/

[Tigermike 3,052]

So you have a problem with the government tracking communications between domestic Islamist groups and al-Qa'ida terrorists?

213417[/snapback]

I know of no one who has a problem with that. There is a legal way to do just that. The fact is, we don't really know what communication and between who that they are tracking. There is no check on what they are doing. They say "we are just doing xyz, trust us," but as the quote that started this thread clearly demonstrates, he will say whatever he believes people need to hear whether it is true or not, and then do whatever he wants."

213474[/snapback]

Let’s get this straight. You say you have no problem with the government tracking communications between domestic Islamist groups and al-Qa'ida terrorists? So it must be you only have a problem with the Bush administration doing it. Let's get one other thing clear also. Just because someone says it is illegal, does not make it illegal.

But when the dems do similar things it is OK.

Hypocrite thy name is Democrats.

Hypocrite thy name is TexasTiger.

Clinton Used NSA for Economic Espionage

During the 1990s, President Bill Clinton ordered the National Security Agency to use its super-secret Echelon surveillance program to monitor the personal telephone calls and private email of employees who worked for foreign companies in a bid to boost U.S. trade, NewsMax.com has learned.

In 2000, former Clinton CIA director James Woolsey set off a firestorm of protest in Europe when he told the French newspaper Le Figaro that he was ordered by Clinton in 1993 to transform Echelon into a tool for gathering economic intelligence.

"We have a triple and limited objective," the former intelligence chief told the French paper. "To look out for companies which are breaking US or UN sanctions; to trace 'dual' technologies, i.e., for civil and military use, and to track corruption in international business."

As NewsMax reported exclusively on Sunday, Echelon had been used by the Clinton administration to monitor millions of personal phone calls, private emails and even ATM transactions inside the U.S. - all without a court order.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/12/19/114807.shtml

NY Times’ James Risen Not As Concerned With NSA Eavesdropping Under Clinton

The New York Times reporter whose National Security Agency eavesdropping article last Friday started a national debate about this issue didn’t appear as concerned with such espionage tactics when Bill Clinton was in the White House

.

http://newsbusters.org/node/3322

A DEMOCRAT SPYING PROGRAM

BY MICHELLE MALKIN  •  JANUARY 10, 2006 04:46 PM

Several readers have e-mailed word that a far Left website, Democrats.com, has called on its readers to attempt to obtain the private phone records of prominent conservatives through shady online information brokers as some sort of retaliation against the Bush administration for monitoring al Qaeda's international communications.

Sweetness & Light has background on the unhinged Democrats.com founder who is promising to reimburse the dirt-diggers.

Where's the ACLU to condemn this? Chuck Schumer? The NYTimes editorial board?

Anyone? Anyone?

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004262.htm

[TexasTiger 13,005]

So you have a problem with the government tracking communications between domestic Islamist groups and al-Qa'ida terrorists?

213417[/snapback]

I know of no one who has a problem with that. There is a legal way to do just that. The fact is, we don't really know what communication and between who that they are tracking. There is no check on what they are doing. They say "we are just doing xyz, trust us," but as the quote that started this thread clearly demonstrates, he will say whatever he believes people need to hear whether it is true or not, and then do whatever he wants."

213474[/snapback]

Let’s get this straight. You say you have no problem with the government tracking communications between domestic Islamist groups and al-Qa'ida terrorists? So it must be you only have a problem with the Bush administration doing it. Let's get one other thing clear also. Just because someone says it is illegal, does not make it illegal.

But when the dems do similar things it is OK.

Hypocrite thy name is Democrats.

Hypocrite thy name is TexasTiger.

Clinton Used NSA for Economic Espionage

During the 1990s, President Bill Clinton ordered the National Security Agency to use its super-secret Echelon surveillance program to monitor the personal telephone calls and private email of employees who worked for foreign companies in a bid to boost U.S. trade, NewsMax.com has learned.

In 2000, former Clinton CIA director James Woolsey set off a firestorm of protest in Europe when he told the French newspaper Le Figaro that he was ordered by Clinton in 1993 to transform Echelon into a tool for gathering economic intelligence.

"We have a triple and limited objective," the former intelligence chief told the French paper. "To look out for companies which are breaking US or UN sanctions; to trace 'dual' technologies, i.e., for civil and military use, and to track corruption in international business."

As NewsMax reported exclusively on Sunday, Echelon had been used by the Clinton administration to monitor millions of personal phone calls, private emails and even ATM transactions inside the U.S. - all without a court order.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/12/19/114807.shtml

NY Times’ James Risen Not As Concerned With NSA Eavesdropping Under Clinton

The New York Times reporter whose National Security Agency eavesdropping article last Friday started a national debate about this issue didn’t appear as concerned with such espionage tactics when Bill Clinton was in the White House

.

http://newsbusters.org/node/3322

A DEMOCRAT SPYING PROGRAM

BY MICHELLE MALKIN   •   JANUARY 10, 2006 04:46 PM

Several readers have e-mailed word that a far Left website, Democrats.com, has called on its readers to attempt to obtain the private phone records of prominent conservatives through shady online information brokers as some sort of retaliation against the Bush administration for monitoring al Qaeda's international communications.

Sweetness & Light has background on the unhinged Democrats.com founder who is promising to reimburse the dirt-diggers.

Where's the ACLU to condemn this? Chuck Schumer? The NYTimes editorial board?

Anyone? Anyone?

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004262.htm

213517[/snapback]

The reason we are getting so far afield is because you are doing backflips to avoid facing the clear fact that Bush went out of his way to lie about what he was doing. It wasn't even in response to a question. It was planned. Why can't you just say "Yeah, it was lie, but I still support him and what he did." That's all. Just recognize the obvious and keep your same position if you wish.

In regard to your posts, you clearly don't understand the issue. If you want to complain now about what Clinton did, fine. But the reason you didn't hear Spector and McCain and especially the more radical Republicans raise a stink at the time was b/c the same legal issues don't apply when surveillance is conducted on communications that occur wholly outside of the USA. The NSA routinely conducts surveillance on such communications. It might piss off Europe, but it ain't illegal.

[Tigermike 3,052]

The reason we are getting so far afield is because you are doing backflips to avoid facing the clear fact that Bush went out of his way to lie about what he was doing.  It wasn't even in response to a question.  It was planned.  Why can't you just say "Yeah, it was lie, but I still support him and what he did."  That's all.  Just recognize the obvious and keep your same position if you wish.

In regard to your posts, you clearly don't understand the issue.  If you want to complain now about what Clinton did, fine.  But the reason you didn't hear Spector and McCain and especially the more radical Republicans raise a stink at the time was b/c the same legal issues don't apply when surveillance is conducted on communications that occur wholly outside of the USA.  The NSA routinely conducts surveillance on such communications.  It might piss off Europe, but it ain't illegal.

213520[/snapback]

That is so much BS, are your eyes brown? Think back and remember the rhetoric, remember all the times you spouted off and said it should be done better. It should be done right. It should be done in an exemplary manner.

In regard to your posts, you clearly don't understand the issue.

The issue is national security, plain and simple.

The issue is dems manufacturing an issue to try and make political points.

The issue is there is a majority of Americans who see your “issue” for what it is

The issue is the majority of Americans don’t have a problem with the government tracking communications between domestic Islamist groups and al-Qa'ida terrorists? The issue is the majority of Americans see the dems as not giving a crap about national security.

The issue is no matter how much you dance around and pontificate, American citizens do understand and do recognize the dems for what they are and what they are doing.

Why can't you just say "Yeah, we have been obstructionist for the past six years and we will continue because that is all we have.” Why can't you just say "Yeah, we hate Bush and to hell with national security.” Why can't you just say "Yeah, we want to get even because the Republicans brought up impeachment charges against Clinton.”

Oh one last thing, even if President Bush did lie, why would that bother Democrats? It’s not like you guys have not had plenty of liars in office is it?