Betraying Our Troops

[Tigermike 3,048]

Intel, Lies & Treason

Put up or shut up...

Ralph Peters 1/10/06

According to the Democratic Party's leaders, we all have been betrayed by the Bush administration's Big Brother intelligence tactics as evil government operatives invaded the privacy of innocent Americans.

Stop lying. Show us the victims.

Name one honest citizen who has been targeted by our intelligence system. Name one innocent man or woman whose life has been destroyed. Come on, Nancy. Give it up, Howard. Name just one.

Can't do it? OK. Let's dispense with the partisan rhetoric and reach for the facts:

    1) Has a single reader of this column suffered personally from our government's efforts to defend us against terrorists? Have any of your relatives or even your remotest acquaintances felt our intel system intrude into their lives?

    That's what I always ask the group-think lefties. Not one has ever been able to answer "Yes."

    2) The same big-lie politicians attacking the president's efforts to uncover plots against America by monitoring terrorist communications will be the first to shriek that the War on Terror has failed when we're attacked again.

    They want it both ways: Drop our defenses, then blame Bush when terrorists strike.

    3) The "eavesdropping" operations revealed so sanctimoniously by The New York Times aimed exclusively at foreign terrorists and their willing contacts on our soil. When such operations are "exposed," the terrorists find ways to work around them. Doesn't it just make sense to keep secrets from enemies who announce they want to kill Americans? Who already have killed Americans?

    4) Would the Pelosi-Dean gang prefer to give the terrorists the run of the house? For all of their whining, the ultra-Dems have never laid out a coherent, detailed strategy of their own for fighting terror. Show us your plan!

    5) Contrary to the nonsense concocted by Hollywood ("King Kong" was far more realistic than "Syriana"), the intelligence community isn't populated by evil sneaks plotting to destroy the constitution and assassinate bothersome citizens from the bridge of the Starship Enterprise.

    I worked in the intel field for 22 years and still give occasional lectures at various agencies, and the truth is that analysts and technicians work in cubicles that would make Dilbert run screaming. Recent recruiting efforts mean that more-senior officials work in cubicles, too.

  Our intelligence professionals could make more money in private industry. But they serve because they believe in our country and their mission. And not one of them goes to work in the morning asking, "How can I do a bad job for my fellow citizens today? How can I subvert the Constitution?"

    6) Our intelligence system has so many built-in safeguards to protect the personal information of our citizens that it seemed like overkill to me. Intelligence reports couldn't include even a passing reference to any American citizen by name (given the variety of American names, we did a lot of scrambling to conform to the very strict rules).

    My fellow Americans, the real threats to your information security are Google, eBay, chat rooms, credit applications, junk mail, etc. And the Democratic National Committee holds vastly more information about individual American citizens in its files than do all of our intelligence agencies combined.

    7) Self-interested renegades posing as whistleblowers aren't patriots, they're traitors. Not one of the recent "anonymous sources" has been able to cite a single example of an innocent American harmed by our intelligence campaign against Islamist terrorists.

    The leaks that so badly compromised our security were made to score political points by those who place their personal and political vendettas above our nation's safety.

    8) We need to get serious about treason and the destructive culture of leaks - on both sides of the aisle. Let's face it: Both political parties have served our country badly with their use of leaks for partisan purposes.

Compromising classified information, for any purpose and at any level, is a serious crime. Those who betray their trust and harm our national defense need to go to jail - for life. If we were truly serious, we'd treat treason as a capital offense again.

THE dishonesty and cynicism on the American left is breathtaking. The only reason the Dems are hand-wringing over the imaginary threat to your personal secrets is that every other approach has failed them.

They couldn't get the traction they expected by betraying our troops and declaring Iraq a failure (note how shamelessly the Dems have deserted Cindy Sheehan as her nuttiness turned radioactive - they'll bail on John Murtha, too, as he gets whackier). Now they're trying to convince you that Big Brother Bush is peeping through the blinds to make sure you and your spouse stick to the missionary position.

The truth is that you are being endangered. By politicians so desperate to gain power that they willingly pave the way for terrorist attacks.

The Dean-Pelosi chapter of the Osama bin Laden Fan Club has provided aid and comfort to our enemies. Reasoned dissent is patriotic, but serving as propaganda agents for mass murderers is something else. Now the Dem extremists are welcoming the compromise of clandestine programs to prevent terrorist attacks.

They, not Bush, are flouting our laws. By encouraging the compromise of classified material. And you will pay.

When the Islamist killers come to our soil again and left-wing politicians attempt to exploit our dead by howling that the War on Terror failed, just remember who it was that gave away our secrets to the terrorists.

Ralph Peters' latest book is New Glory: Expanding America's Global Supremacy

This piece first appeared in the New York Post

Ralph Peters is a retired Army officer and the author of 19 books, as well as of hundreds of essays and articles, written both under his own name and as Owen Parry. He is a frequent columnist for the New York Post and other publications.

link

[Tiger in Spain 0]

Bravo, Amen, and Halleluja! I couldn't have said it better myself! These savages have no chance at all against our troops on the battlefield. The only hope they have of victory lies with the extremists that have control of the democrat party.

[japantiger 4,051]

Amen...I seem to remember a phrase out of the doctrine of warfare back 20+ years ago that stated the purpose of the US military operations was to "destroy the enemy and its will to fight".... it would seem Dean, Kennedy, Kerry, Pelosi have never heard of that. They actually do the opposite.

Rather than destroying the enemies "will to fight", they astand up in defense of the enemies cause and give them hope, block and attempt to discredit both surveillance and military means to destroy the enemy; and engage in an ACTIVE PR campaign against our forces ...........

God help me if I ever become so embittered and have such a lust for power or position that I become like them....how would you like to try to lead a group like this at an office or in a regular job? What a failure of leadership......

[AURaptor 1,126]

How many billions of $$ did the US spend over the almost 50 years fighting the Soviet Union during the cold war ? This war w/ Islmo-fascist is even more real than the Cold War, as nearly 3,000 have died on our shores already.

If 9/11 didn't convince the Left wingers of the reality of our situation, I shudder to think what will.

[Tigermike 3,048]

Amen...I seem to remember a phrase out of the doctrine of warfare back 20+ years ago that stated the purpose of the US military operations was to "destroy the enemy and its will to fight".... it would seem Dean, Kennedy, Kerry, Pelosi have never heard of that.  They actually do the opposite. 

Rather than destroying the enemies "will to fight", they astand up in defense of the enemies cause and give them hope, block and attempt to discredit both surveillance and military means to destroy the enemy; and engage in an ACTIVE PR campaign against our forces ...........

God help me if I ever become so embittered and have such a lust for power or position that I become like them....how would you like to try to lead a group like this at an office or in a regular job?  What a failure of leadership......

217961[/snapback]

Good point but you must look at what they are trying to do and why. You have their motives - a lust for power. But it is not the Islmo-fascist terrorists whose will to fight Dean, Kennedy, Kerry & Pelosi are targeting. It is the resolve and will to fight of the American public. The only way the U.S. military could ever loose the war on terrorism is if American politician and the American public looses their collective will to win.

[japantiger 4,051]

Double Amen....

[LegalEagle 22]

I was truly saddened to read the initial post on this thread. Do you recall a book about "Big Brother" watching you. . . another about "all animals are equal, some animals are more equal than others?"

The Republicans explode with rhetoric about a small government with limited powers. When they get into office, government grows, debt grows and individual liberties shrink.

Well Article II give the president the right to "listen in" in war time. We are at WAR! Although there has been no war declared by congress as the constitution requires, we have other wars going on.

Lets see, the "War on Drugs," "War on Poverty," etc. Have we ever surrendered in these wars or called them off? Clearly we have not won them. If an 80 year old lady calls Canada about getting her cancer drugs cheaper, can Bushy listen in? Should he? Someone calls the Netherlands about the availablity of pot when they come there for vacation, can Bushy listen in? Should he? Can you think of other "wars" we have declared? Cancer? AIDS?

Where are the facts about who has been hurt by Bushy listenin' you ask? Well, duh, only Bushy knows and he is resisting even letting a few select Congressmen know. But you expect a citizen to be able to tell you if his/her calls were listened in on?

FISA was written to set out the limits on the executive branch in regard to intercepting foreign communication to or from the U.S. It was available to Bushy. Why didn't Bushy use it? Be objective, they make no logical argument in support of what they did.

"We needed it quick." Under FISA you can listen now and get your warrant from a secret judge within 72 hours.

"There's too many of them to get them approved by FISA judges." There has been no showing of the massive numbers of intercepts or any information released that additional FISA judges were sought.

Another thing, they intercepted communications by Al-Quaeda operatives and "suspected Al-Quaeda sympathizers." Don't all of you fine conservatives think J. Kerry and all liberals are Al-Quaeda sympathizers? Doesn't Bushy agree? Well when any liberal calls overseas, then Bushy can listen in. Well, instead of calling about bombs, some Democrat presidential hopeful is arranging to meet some gal in a blue dress for oral sex in London. What if a tipster lets a Brittish tabloid know where to be when? Who would ever know?

What if they got the "goods" on a Republican or Democrat senator, and squeezed them to vote a certain way on Bushy's impeachment?

We are supposed to be free people. We are far from it. We are supposed to have freedom of assembly. Turns out, Big Brother is listening in to little peace clubs in rural America.

Folks, with the advent of all this technology, we will no longer have privacy. Placing this power in the hands of egotist and power mongers only hastens the demise of what little privacy we have left.

We face a much larger threat from within. I know many of you don't see that, and disagree. I respect that. I do wish that you understood that anytime you see things as black and white, clear cut, there is usually some facts which are relevant but not factored in. We have good Republicans. We also have good Democrats. All Republicans are not "conservative." All Democrats are not "liberals." Common sense would tell you that the majority of the people in this country are moderates as are our representatives. When you preach that you are either a conservative or a liberal, you are far from the truth. There are other, better options. Don't get behind one flag and follow it blindly. Seems there was this guy in Germany who had a flag and everyone was behind him. He was a "conservative" and identified those who were an enemy of the State. He took care of them. We don't need to resort to that mindset.

Think not about yourself, but your kids and grandkids. What will their lives be like under a Big Brother government? Is that what you want?

Now, let me tell you who is an ENEMY of the U.S.A. It is those who cheat on income taxes. Those who pay what is due are true patriots and supporters of this republic. If you skim on taxes you shouldn't have a say about how government is being run.

I pay my taxes. Would others of you on this board who pay their full share of taxes join me by listing their "fake names" on this thread?

[Tigermike 3,048]

Think not about yourself, but your kids and grandkids. What will their lives be like under a Big Brother government? Is that what you want?

Now, let me tell you who is an ENEMY of the U.S.A.  It is those who cheat on income taxes.  Those who pay what is due are true patriots and supporters of this republic.  If you skim on taxes you shouldn't have a say about how government is being run. 

I pay my taxes.  Would others of you on this board who pay their full share of taxes join me by listing their "fake names" on this thread?

218191[/snapback]

No Legal, no one wants to live under a "Big Brother", but none of us want to live under the fear of or rule of Islamo-Facist terrorists. One day, years from now, as archaeologists sift through the ruins of an ancient civilization for clues to its downfall, they'll marvel at how easy it all was. You don't need to fly jets into skyscrapers and kill thousands of people. As a matter of fact, that's a bad strategy, because even the wimpiest state will feel obliged to respond. But if you frame the issue in terms of multicultural "sensitivity," the wimp state will bend over backward to give you everything you want -- including, eventually, the keys to those skyscrapers. If you frame it in terms of an imagined threat of a loss of liberty then they will not use the technology to fight murdering terrorists.

I for one have never cheated on my taxes. I do remember something about Senator Kerry & the Clinton's return's being a little strange. Now I remember, it was the "charitable giving" amount for one of the dems who was harping about giving doing for the poor, yada, yada, yada.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

No Legal, no one wants to live under a "Big Brother", but none of us want to live under the fear of or rule of Islamo-Facist terrorists.  One day, years from now, as archaeologists sift through the ruins of an ancient civilization for clues to its downfall, they'll marvel at how easy it all was. You don't need to fly jets into skyscrapers and kill thousands of people. As a matter of fact, that's a bad strategy, because even the wimpiest state will feel obliged to respond. But if you frame the issue in terms of multicultural "sensitivity," the wimp state will bend over backward to give you everything you want -- including, eventually, the keys to those skyscrapers.  If you frame it in terms of an imagined threat of a loss of liberty then they will not use the technology to fight murdering terrorists.

I for one have never cheated on my taxes.  I do remember something about Senator Kerry & the Clinton's return's being a little strange.  Now I remember, it was the "charitable giving" amount for one of the dems who was harping about giving doing for the poor, yada, yada, yada.

218241[/snapback]

Right on Mike. You nailed it. I just hope that if our country ever does fall to the Muslims I can at least watch them cut off the heads of some misguided, chickens..t, liberals I can think of.

[Jenny AU-92 0]

The Dems right now remind me of that idiot who did the "Save The Grizzly Bear" documentaries.. about how misguided and misunderstood they were, and how it was his single mission in life to save them from extinction... and then he and his girlfriend wound up as lunch. I wondered if he screamed as he was being eaten and wished for a gun to kill the bear, or if he thought, well, it's just the nature of a grizzly bear, and submitted peacefully...? Bottom line - he gave too much aid and comfort and "understanding" to a dangerous creature and didn't take the proper precautions, and wound up dead. Lessons to be learned here, anyone?

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Lessons to be learned here, anyone?

218276[/snapback]

It's obvious to me Jenny but it most likely falls on deaf ears of those who need to hear it most. It's like the rise of Hitler during the Third Reich, too many people didn't listen. Boy I would love to see Howard Dean and Ted Kennedy running from grizzly bears. I would be hollering "Go Bears."

[Jenny AU-92 0]

Lessons to be learned here, anyone?

218276[/snapback]

It's obvious to me Jenny but it most likely falls on deaf ears of those who need to hear it most. It's like the rise of Hitler during the Third Reich, too many people didn't listen. Boy I would love to see Howard Dean and Ted Kennedy running from grizzly bears. I would be hollering "Go Bears."

218281[/snapback]

One of the huge differences between the Nazis and the Islamofascists is that ultimately, the Germans knew when they were beat, and they surrendered. The Islamic extremists are like pedophiles - there is no rehabilitation, there is no "changing their mind", and as long as they draw a breath, they will have that mindset. No surrender. Fine - let's don't offer one...

[LegalEagle 22]

Think not about yourself, but your kids and grandkids. What will their lives be like under a Big Brother government? Is that what you want?

Now, let me tell you who is an ENEMY of the U.S.A.  It is those who cheat on income taxes.  Those who pay what is due are true patriots and supporters of this republic.  If you skim on taxes you shouldn't have a say about how government is being run. 

I pay my taxes.  Would others of you on this board who pay their full share of taxes join me by listing their "fake names" on this thread?

218191[/snapback]

No Legal, no one wants to live under a "Big Brother", but none of us want to live under the fear of or rule of Islamo-Facist terrorists. One day, years from now, as archaeologists sift through the ruins of an ancient civilization for clues to its downfall, they'll marvel at how easy it all was. You don't need to fly jets into skyscrapers and kill thousands of people. As a matter of fact, that's a bad strategy, because even the wimpiest state will feel obliged to respond. But if you frame the issue in terms of multicultural "sensitivity," the wimp state will bend over backward to give you everything you want -- including, eventually, the keys to those skyscrapers. If you frame it in terms of an imagined threat of a loss of liberty then they will not use the technology to fight murdering terrorists.

I for one have never cheated on my taxes. I do remember something about Senator Kerry & the Clinton's return's being a little strange. Now I remember, it was the "charitable giving" amount for one of the dems who was harping about giving doing for the poor, yada, yada, yada.

218241[/snapback]

Read my post. I never said anything about not punching out the terrorists. I question why our civil liberties need to be curtailed in order to do something that can already be done in accordance with established law. If our leaders have no respect for the rule of law, why should anyone else?

If the government get by on violating these rights, what is there to stop them from taking more and more? Do any of you think we are living under the weak central government contemplated by our founding fathers? The Federal government is too big and too powerful. We have a duty to resist the taking of more citizens' rights. They could have eavesdropped legally (if they had just cause)- why allow them to do so illegally?

[Tigermike 3,048]

Think not about yourself, but your kids and grandkids. What will their lives be like under a Big Brother government? Is that what you want?

Now, let me tell you who is an ENEMY of the U.S.A.  It is those who cheat on income taxes.  Those who pay what is due are true patriots and supporters of this republic.  If you skim on taxes you shouldn't have a say about how government is being run. 

I pay my taxes.  Would others of you on this board who pay their full share of taxes join me by listing their "fake names" on this thread?

218191[/snapback]

No Legal, no one wants to live under a "Big Brother", but none of us want to live under the fear of or rule of Islamo-Facist terrorists. One day, years from now, as archaeologists sift through the ruins of an ancient civilization for clues to its downfall, they'll marvel at how easy it all was. You don't need to fly jets into skyscrapers and kill thousands of people. As a matter of fact, that's a bad strategy, because even the wimpiest state will feel obliged to respond. But if you frame the issue in terms of multicultural "sensitivity," the wimp state will bend over backward to give you everything you want -- including, eventually, the keys to those skyscrapers. If you frame it in terms of an imagined threat of a loss of liberty then they will not use the technology to fight murdering terrorists.

I for one have never cheated on my taxes. I do remember something about Senator Kerry & the Clinton's return's being a little strange. Now I remember, it was the "charitable giving" amount for one of the dems who was harping about giving doing for the poor, yada, yada, yada.

218241[/snapback]

Read my post. I never said anything about not punching out the terrorists. I question why our civil liberties need to be curtailed in order to do something that can already be done in accordance with established law. If our leaders have no respect for the rule of law, why should anyone else?

If the government get by on violating these rights, what is there to stop them from taking more and more? Do any of you think we are living under the weak central government contemplated by our founding fathers? The Federal government is too big and too powerful. We have a duty to resist the taking of more citizens' rights. They could have eavesdropped legally (if they had just cause)- why allow them to do so illegally?

218297[/snapback]

Please name one of your civil liberties that has been curtailed. Please name one person whose civil liberties have been curtailed.

Why not use any and all means available to combat Islamofascists terrorists whose avowed goal is to destroy this country and all people here?

One of our founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson, also sent the Marines to combat (NO they were sent to DESTROY) the Barbary Pirates.

PS - the Barbary Pirates were in the same general area of the world.

[KunzelTiger 0]

I'm not sure if this will mean anything or has any relevance...but I can't even get the government to do a background check on me and I WORK FOR THE GOVERNMENT AND AM IN THE PROCESS OF GETTING A SECRET CLEARANCE....I highly doubt anyone but those most deserving of a background check or even a "listening in" session are getting it. I saw 9/11 (I'm from northern New Jersey). I saw the black smoke pouring out of that tiny island into my home town. I will GLADLY give up a few civil liberties to keep this from happening again. Thank the Lord I didn't lose a family member in that day.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that we are currently in a time period where we have to defend ourselves and having troops hanigng out in a base in Nebraska won't help. We have to take desperate measures and if one of those is monitoring my phonecalls for terrorist activity thats fine with me. The government isn't making everyone wear American flags on their breasts in order to be served at business. The government isn't barring anyone of Middle Eastern decent from staying in the country. This is a simple act of defending ourselves to keep our familes and our friends safe.

This is my opinion about it. I hope this helped someone come to terms with this issue.

[Jenny AU-92 0]

I get your point Legal, I really do. I have a thought about why the Administration used methods other than the one set up by FISA - it may be totally off base, because I have no proof one way or another, and no time right now to reasearch it - if I am wrong about this, please let me know...

But given the recent trend towards the judicial branch being of a left leaning persuasion, perhaps getting a judge to sign off was becomming more difficult because of that judge's PERSONAL opinions - you know that there are certain judges that would not agree with anything a Republican Justice Department wanted, no matter how security critical. If the DOJ felt that these judges were being less than objective in their "permission slips", perhaps the DOJ felt that they needed to go another route, and utilize the President's wartime intellligence gathering authority - which, based on all I have seen and read, is perfectly within his powers as Commander In Chief.

I just cannot buy into the whole "Big Brother Getting Bigger" argument. I am just not concerned with it - and I think most law abiding Americans feel the same, IMO. I don't care what they see or hear from my personal life. I have nothing to hide. I do nothing subversive, and I just don't see this country ever being controlled by a fascist type government that would abuse the information they gathered on me. Not to mention that there is no reason to target me out of the hundreds of millions of people in this country. And anyone that DOES come into the sights of the FBI or NSA is probably there for a reason. This is a civil libery I am willing to run the risk of losing, if it prevents another attack within our borders. Will some rogue idiot abuse information he or she uncovers - perhaps. But there is a difference between Hillary ordering the FBI to run checks on White House travel department staff, and the NSA using wiretaps to make a connection between a sleeper cell in Maryland and Osama Bin Laden.

America is not a totalitarian state and has a culture that, IMO, would preclude one from forming. We have an educated populace that would never allow something like Big Brother to happen. If anything, there is too much freedom in this country - which, in the case of terrorism - both works for us and against us.

[LegalEagle 22]

I'm not sure if this will mean anything or has any relevance...but I can't even get the government to do a background check on me and I WORK FOR THE GOVERNMENT AND AM IN THE PROCESS OF GETTING A SECRET CLEARANCE....I highly doubt anyone but  those most deserving of a background check or even a "listening in" session are getting it. I saw 9/11 (I'm from northern New Jersey). I saw the black smoke pouring out of that tiny island into my home town. I will GLADLY give up a few civil liberties to keep this from happening again. Thank the Lord I didn't lose a family member in that day.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that we are currently in a time period where we have to defend ourselves and having troops hanigng out in a base in Nebraska won't help. We have to take desperate measures and if one of those is monitoring my phonecalls for terrorist activity thats fine with me. The government isn't making everyone wear American flags on their breasts in order to be served at business. The government isn't barring anyone of Middle Eastern decent from staying in the country. This is a simple act of defending ourselves to keep our familes and our friends safe.

This is my opinion about it. I hope this helped someone come to terms with this issue.

218326[/snapback]

Then, lets put video and sound equipment in every home. Is there no limit even for you? Surely, we would have a better result in the war on drugs, corruption and terror if we were in every home, monitoring all activity of potential criminals and terrorists.

I am glad you wish to give up your civil liberties. I do not wish to give up mine. You should be allowed to sign a form giving up your privacy rights. Big Brother should then set up shop in your home. He should have a speed monitor on your automobile as well as a breathalizer apparatus. You should provide Him with a DNA sample and all of your prints. Then you will be doing what you think is right. I would not be subject to such invasion.

[japantiger 4,051]

This thread is ridiculous. I can't believe any of you are engaging in a discussion with Legal on this. His arguments are absurd. No one is putting cameras in anyone's homes; no one is proposing a widespread program to monitor the conversations of average US citizens.

We are listening in on calls from known enemies outside the US to people in the US, period. Anyone that can't see the logic or the distinction is, at best a civil libertarian nut that sees the boogeyman everwhere; at worse a disingenuous Dem leader looking for something to make an issue over.

One view is incredibly naive and frankly diluded; the other just plain dangerous. Come down on the side of the good guys some time Teddy, John Kerry, Dean, Legal.....otherwise, get out of the way and let the administration defend my family.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

This thread is ridiculous.  I can't believe any of you are engaging in a discussion with Legal on this.  His arguments are absurd.  No one is putting cameras in anyone's homes; no one is proposing a widespread program to monitor the conversations of average US citizens. 

We are listening in on calls from known enemies outside the US to people in the US, period.  Anyone that can't see the logic or the distinction is, at best a civil libertarian nut that sees the boogeyman everwhere; at worse a disingenuous Dem leader looking for something to make an issue over. 

One view is incredibly naive and frankly diluded; the other just plain dangerous.  Come down on the side of the good guys some time Teddy, John Kerry, Dean, Legal.....otherwise, get out of the way and let the administration defend my family.

218380[/snapback]

Amen Brother!!!!

[LegalEagle 22]

This thread is ridiculous.  I can't believe any of you are engaging in a discussion with Legal on this.  His arguments are absurd.  No one is putting cameras in anyone's homes; no one is proposing a widespread program to monitor the conversations of average US citizens. 

We are listening in on calls from known enemies outside the US to people in the US, period.  Anyone that can't see the logic or the distinction is, at best a civil libertarian nut that sees the boogeyman everwhere; at worse a disingenuous Dem leader looking for something to make an issue over. 

One view is incredibly naive and frankly diluded; the other just plain dangerous.  Come down on the side of the good guys some time Teddy, John Kerry, Dean, Legal.....otherwise, get out of the way and let the administration defend my family.

218380[/snapback]

Once again you speak from the viewpoint of ignorance. Not even the administration has said that the calls are limited to "known enemies." They clearly extend to "suspected" A-Q sympathizers. The AG refused today in Congressional hearings to state that no domestic to domestic calls have been listened to. The AG said he didn't know the full scope of the program.

You may choose to stick your head in the sand - follow blindly the folks who guaranteed that he has WMD. Follow the guy who said he was a uniter, not a divider. The guy who said that if elected we would be out of the nation building business. Today, it was announced that we have spent 250 billion in Iraq, and have an emergency request for 120B for Iraq and Afganistan. Even at 3B a shot, how many nuclear power plants would that have built? That would take us further from the need for foreign oil. How much research into alternative power for vehicles could that have paid for?

Bush proposed the largest budget in the history of the US today - with the largest projected deficit. Hey, we'll make up for some of it by cutting Medicaid! That's our plan for a better life for U. S. citizens. Why couldn't that money spent in Iraq have been spent here in the U.S. - paid to U. S. citizens to strengthen our defenses at ports, airports, borders, etc.?

Oops, back to putting your head in the sand. Whatever this administration does is by your definition "good." Whoever questions this administration is wrong, commie, gay, leftist, etc. Go ahead, fall asleep. Your kids and grandkids will pay.

[Captain Liger 0]

Read my post.  I never said anything about not punching out the terrorists.  I question why our civil liberties need to be curtailed in order to do something that can already be done in accordance with established law.  If our leaders have no respect for the rule of law, why should anyone else? 

If the government get by on violating these rights, what is there to stop them from taking more and more?  Do any of you think we are living under the weak central government contemplated by our founding fathers?  The Federal government is too big and too powerful.  We have a duty to resist the taking of more citizens' rights.  They could have eavesdropped legally (if they had just cause)- why allow them to do so illegally?

218297[/snapback]

Your civil liberties aren't being curtailed so get over yourself already. If anyone should be getting prosecuted right now it should be the management of the New York Times for letting a story run that exposed how we were tracking terrorists within our borders.

The element of surprise my friend, it's usually necessary to defeat an enemy...and because of organizations like the NYT and Bush hating Americans like yourself, one of our greatest weapons in this war, surprise, has been severly degraded. So please excuse the current administration for not obtaining your oh so precious legal documents to listen in on terrorists who want nothing better to do than kill you and your loved ones. What would you rather the President do, take out full page ads in every major American newspaper announcing who we will be listening in on in a particular week? Yeah, that's smart. I guess we should have asked Al-Qaida to provide us with advanced warning before they flew two big ass planes into the WTC. I mean, the people on those planes and in the buildings had their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness severly curtailed because the terrorists didn't let us know they were coming.

President Lincoln mandated what the press could and couldn't report during the Civil War, an obvious curtailment of the 1st Amendment, but that seemed to work out for everyone now didn't it?

Stop whining.

[Tigermike 3,048]

You may choose to stick your head in the sand - follow blindly the folks who guaranteed that he has WMD.  Follow the guy who said he was a uniter, not a divider.  The guy who said that if elected we would be out of the nation building business.  Today, it was announced that we have spent 250 billion in Iraq, and have an emergency request for 120B for Iraq and Afganistan.  Even at 3B a shot, how many nuclear power plants would that have built?  That would take us further from the need for foreign oil.  How much research into alternative power for vehicles could that have paid for? 

218409[/snapback]

Check this out Legal.

link

How many nuclear power plants would the left have screamed bloody murder about if Bush had brought it up? How long would the lines be of the dems demonstrating against those plants? How much has already been spent on alternative power sources? In the United States alone? In Japan? In Europe? Possibly even in China? Talk about taking us further from the need for foreign oil, what about drilling in ANWAR, which the dems voted down? What about drilling off the coast of California which the libs don't want?

You bring up the $250 billion spent in Iraq, and the emergency request for 120B for Iraq and Afghanistan. What is the limit you are willing to pay for the war on terrorism? I guess in the democrats world we have passed the point of diminishing returns haven't we.

The dems mantra "We have spent $250 billion and it is not finished, so let's cut and run!"

Legal, I really thought you were above that.

Oops, back to putting your head in the sand. Whatever this administration does is by your definition "good." Whoever questions this administration is wrong, commie, gay, leftist, etc. Go ahead, fall asleep. Your kids and grandkids will pay.

218409[/snapback]

It would be easy to say that no matter what this administration does is WRONG from the left and the dems, but I will refrain. I could also say that yes my children and grandchildren will pay, but at least they will be alive to pay and NOT be under the domination of the Islamo's.

[LegalEagle 22]

Read my post.  I never said anything about not punching out the terrorists.  I question why our civil liberties need to be curtailed in order to do something that can already be done in accordance with established law.  If our leaders have no respect for the rule of law, why should anyone else? 

If the government get by on violating these rights, what is there to stop them from taking more and more?  Do any of you think we are living under the weak central government contemplated by our founding fathers?  The Federal government is too big and too powerful.  We have a duty to resist the taking of more citizens' rights.  They could have eavesdropped legally (if they had just cause)- why allow them to do so illegally?

218297[/snapback]

Your civil liberties aren't being curtailed so get over yourself already. If anyone should be getting prosecuted right now it should be the management of the New York Times for letting a story run that exposed how we were tracking terrorists within our borders.

The element of surprise my friend, it's usually necessary to defeat an enemy...and because of organizations like the NYT and Bush hating Americans like yourself, one of our greatest weapons in this war, surprise, has been severly degraded. So please excuse the current administration for not obtaining your oh so precious legal documents to listen in on terrorists who want nothing better to do than kill you and your loved ones. What would you rather the President do, take out full page ads in every major American newspaper announcing who we will be listening in on in a particular week? Yeah, that's smart. I guess we should have asked Al-Qaida to provide us with advanced warning before they flew two big ass planes into the WTC. I mean, the people on those planes and in the buildings had their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness severly curtailed because the terrorists didn't let us know they were coming.

President Lincoln mandated what the press could and couldn't report during the Civil War, an obvious curtailment of the 1st Amendment, but that seemed to work out for everyone now didn't it?

Stop whining.

218411[/snapback]

Ignorance is bliss.

We are NOT AT WAR. According to the Constitution (which you have little or no regard for) Congress declares war. It has not done so. No war - No war powers. Got it?

The Invasion of Iraq was not a war against terrorists. The Conflict in Afganistan was. The Afganistan action was justified by the WTC event, the Invasion of Iraq was not. Much more money has been spent in Iraq than Afganistan. That money would be better spent in the U.S.

Do you know the number of American citizens that were killed in the WTC attack? I know many were foreigns. It's likely that more Americans have lost their lives in the Invasion of Iraq than in the WTC attack.

No evidence has yet be provided by the administration or any legitimate source that the surveillance at issue has provided any information that was used to thwart any enemy attack. The general information circulated at present is that it has borne little fruit.

The NYT guy is a fine American who did what he had to in order to expose corruption and lawlessness in the highest positions of our government. Just like Deep Throat, he has contributed greatly to our Nation.

As I have already stated, if the government had justification to listen in on the telephone calls they listened to, they could have gone to the FISA court and gotten lawful approvals. The enemy knew this. How do they change they're methods now that they know Bush isn't going to a secret court first? Nonsense.

[LegalEagle 22]

Check this out Legal.

link

I read that the other day. So what is your point? Have any of the folks in the article produced any WMD? Shouldn't we attack Iran, Syria and Lebanon? Why not? Where does it end? Why haven't we attacked N. Korea yet? Bush said they were evil, didn't he? Where do we stop? Don't we owe it to your grandkids to bankrupt our country in order to invade every country we see as a possible future threat? What say you? (Bill O'R would be proud!)

How many nuclear power plants would the left have screamed bloody murder about if Bush had brought it up? How long would the lines be of the dems demonstrating against those plants?

Bush has already brought it up with very little reaction being made. Why is it only dems who protest nuclear power? Are you that naive?

How much has already been spent on alternative power sources? In the United States alone? In Japan? In Europe? Possibly even in China?

Don't know, but I do believe that the money spent in Iraq would be of better use to this country (and our "war" on terrorism) if spent on these and similar projects.

Talk about taking us further from the need for foreign oil, what about drilling in ANWAR, which the dems voted down? What about drilling off the coast of California which the libs don't want?

Do you know where the oil from ANWAR would go? It is my understanding that it would go to the Far East, not the U.S. It's not the right quality or something like that. Does anyone have factual information on this point?

Why drill one of our last oil reserves instead of saving it until it is absolutely necessary to use it? What will our position be when we have taken all of our oil reserves out of the ground and used or sold them? How will we be better off by having drilled ANWAR?

You bring up the $250 billion spent in Iraq, and the emergency request for 120B for Iraq and Afghanistan. What is the limit you are willing to pay for the war on terrorism? I guess in the democrats world we have passed the point of diminishing returns haven't we.

We are far past the point of diminishing returns, so much so that the administration is cutting benefits to our elderly citizens in order to feed the military operations.

The dems mantra "We have spent $250 billion and it is not finished, so let's cut and run!"

Is this what dems say? The vast majority of dems understand that Bush and the Republican Congress has gotten us into another "tar baby" of a war based on false assumptions purported to the American people as facts. We have little choice but to stay the course until we can turn this mess over to Iraq. As you may have already noticed, as the elections approach, the administration is talking more and more about reduction of forces as soon as possible. I think most Americans realize that we are in a situation that requires an exit through only one door. We can't cut and run like Regan did in Lebanon.

Legal, I really thought you were above that.

I'm so sorry you though so highly of me. *grin*

Oops, back to putting your head in the sand. Whatever this administration does is by your definition "good." Whoever questions this administration is wrong, commie, gay, leftist, etc. Go ahead, fall asleep. Your kids and grandkids will pay.

218409[/snapback]

It would be easy to say that no matter what this administration does is WRONG from the left and the dems, but I will refrain. I could also say that yes my children and grandchildren will pay, but at least they will be alive to pay and NOT be under the domination of the Islamo's.

218441[/snapback]

[japantiger 4,051]

Legal,

Al Queda sympathyzers are our enemies. Please, come down on the side of the good guys. Quit going out of your way to support the enemy; are you that naive or do you hate Bush that much? Which is it? It is not common sense.

The Presidency is separate; but equal to Congress; not subservient to it; and when Congress runs afowl of the Constitutional duty to protect the people; the President has a constitutional duty and right to exercise that authority; as did Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Jackson, Lincoln, Roosevelt, Clinton and now Bush. Should he do it over trivial matters; certainly not; and neither has he. Should he do it in defense of the nation and it's citizens; absolutely.

Only a weak an innefective president would hold himself hostage to Congress whims in such a case (oops, I guess I just described Carter idn't I, since he was the idiot President who signed into law the whole FISA court mess to begin with).

Thanks,

pb