Wiretap Showdown

[Truth Detector]

The efforts from the left to ensure that terrorists have an easier time communicating with each other are tireless. Knowing that America's appeals courts and Supreme Court side with the President on the NSA monitoring of Overseas communications by known terrorist groups, they decided that another way to stifle the President from carrying out his constitutional duties is to sue the private companies who have complied with the NSA requests.

One must continually wonder why a group of Americans in this country, so profoundly uninformed and paranoid, can have such an impact on the Democrat party that they would make this country less safe for the sake of politics. This is the sad state of affairs for the Democrats and their current Looney leadership.

The loons are taking over the asylum and the terrorists have to be laughing their butts off about it. I'll take Democracy over any other form of Government, but taking it to the extremes the left wants tot take it and make it MORE likely that these thugs, murderers and despots can carry out another heinous attack defies logic; it's downright idiotic.

Wiretap Showdown
February 11, 2008; Page A18

The Senate takes up wiretapping of foreign terrorists this week, and the stakes couldn't be higher. Not only for the ability of our spooks to eavesdrop on al Qaeda, but also regarding Congressional and judicial intrusion into Presidential war powers. Some damage seems certain, but the issue is how much damage President Bush will accept.

The debate concerns an effort to revise the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to bless spying without a court order on terrorist communications that originate overseas but move through U.S. switching networks. We believe -- and appellate courts have stated -- that the President already has such authority under the Constitution. But the political left claims this is "illegal" under FISA, and Mr. Bush has agreed to work with Congress on a compromise.

Not long ago Democrats seemed ready to move a bipartisan bill passed by the Senate Intelligence Committee last autumn. But under pressure from the anti-antiterror left, they are now bending and will try to weaken the bill on the Senate floor. Given that the House is likely to pass something far worse, the Senate debate will determine how much the U.S. ties its own hands in the fight against terrorists.

By far the worst threat is an amendment from Senator Chris Dodd (D., Conn.) to deny legal immunity to telephone companies that cooperated with the government on these wiretaps after 9/11. The companies face multiple lawsuits, so a denial of even retrospective immunity would certainly lead to less such cooperation in the future.

This is precisely the goal of the left, which has failed to get Congress to ban such wiretaps directly but wants to use lawsuits to do so via the backdoor. We're told that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are co-sponsoring the Dodd amendment, no doubt for political reasons as they compete for left-wing votes in their nomination fight. But they had better hope the effort fails, because as President they'd surely want the same telecom cooperation. Care to make this an issue, Senator McCain?

As he so often does, Pennsylvania Republican Arlen Specter is also causing mischief. His amendment would give the companies immunity but only by substituting the feds as defendants. So instead of helping to dismiss these pernicious lawsuits, the man who invoked the precedent of Scottish law during Bill Clinton's impeachment trial suggests that these suits have merit and he wants taxpayers to pay to defend them.

An amendment from Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.) would also complicate the immunity issue by forcing the companies to seek a FISA court determination that they acted in good faith. This is at the very least strange, given that Ms. Feinstein voted for the bipartisan bill in the Intelligence Committee, which declared that the companies had in fact "acted in good faith." She is abetting the left's goal of making all private actors believe they should never cooperate with their government without first getting court approval.

The White House has threatened a veto if these amendments pass, but there's reason to wonder if Mr. Bush would follow through. The President has already agreed to two temporary FISA fixes without telecom immunity, which has only emboldened Senate liberals to think he'll blink.

He's also acceded to a provision in the Senate Intelligence bill that is troublesome enough. That's Oregon Senator Ron Wyden's amendment requiring the FISA court to approve all overseas surveillance of U.S. citizens. This would go beyond current law, which allows eavesdropping of Americans abroad if the Attorney General makes a finding of "probable cause" of some criminal act. The Wyden provision would transfer that "probable cause" judgment to unelected judges -- which means that Americans abroad who are suspected of aiding terrorists would get more wiretap judicial review than do Americans suspected of drug offenses.

It's true that FISA judges will tend to rubber stamp these wiretap requests, but this should hardly reassure civil libertarians. The issue here is accountability. An Attorney General must answer to Congressional oversight, and ultimately to the voters through the President. By contrast, we still don't know which FISA judges were responsible for imposing the infamous "wall" of separation between intelligence and law enforcement that so harmed our ability to fight al Qaeda in the 1990s.

* * *
Which brings us to the larger problem with this entire exercise. Congress's overriding goal here is to further hamstring our intelligence war-fighters with legal rigidity and complexity, but to do so in a way that dodges its own oversight duties by passing the buck to FISA judges. White House lawyers know this is unconstitutional, but intelligence officials say it's more important to have Congress's blessing for these wiretaps. And because the telecom companies won't cooperate without immunity, Mr. Bush is being bullied into trading away some of his own power to get that immunity.

Mr. Bush would do better by future Presidents if he opposed the Wyden amendment, and any further concessions would amount to an abdication as Commander in Chief. He has the political high ground on this issue. If Congress does more harm, he should declare that to protect the country he'll use his Constitutional war powers to wiretap al Qaeda anyway and toss the issue squarely in the middle of the Presidential campaign.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120268886518557607.html

[Elrathin]

Well TD, it sounds like you are for places like China, Russian, and Iran that don't have wiretapping laws there. Sounds like your kind of place, you might want to consider a move to your new found ideal land there, considering how liberals have made this country suck so bad. Send us a postcard ok?

[Truth Detector]

Well TD, it sounds like you are for places like China, Russian, and Iran that don't have wiretapping laws there. Sounds like your kind of place, you might want to consider a move to your new found ideal land there, considering how liberals have made this country suck so bad. Send us a postcard ok?


Really; I am all for places that don't have wire tapping laws? How do you arrive at such nonsense conclusions, please show me where I argued for no wire tapping laws?

[potter]

Well TD, it sounds like you are for places like China, Russian, and Iran that don't have wiretapping laws there. Sounds like your kind of place, you might want to consider a move to your new found ideal land there, considering how liberals have made this country suck so bad. Send us a postcard ok?



That's kind of what I'm thinking. TD needs to live in a communist country or a dictatorship. Democracy is just not his style apparently, because a democracy requires compromise of different ideas. This country is about 50% liberal, but TD demonizes them as if they have no right to their opinions or say in the political process.

Perhjaps TD needs to find a country that is not democratic or representative, as those are qualities he seems to loath.

[exigent]

[font=Tahoma][size=medium][color=#008000]The efforts from the left to ensure that terrorists have an easier time communicating with each other are tireless. Knowing that America's appeals courts and Supreme Court side with the President on the NSA monitoring of Overseas communications by known terrorist groups, they decided that another way to stifle the President from carrying out his constitutional duties is to sue the private companies who have complied with the NSA requests.



Why do we need a constitution when we can just cry 'terrorism' as a loophole? The constitution is more than just an american tradition/icon.

[Truth Detector]

The efforts from the left to ensure that terrorists have an easier time communicating with each other are tireless. Knowing that America's appeals courts and Supreme Court side with the President on the NSA monitoring of Overseas communications by known terrorist groups, they decided that another way to stifle the President from carrying out his constitutional duties is to sue the private companies who have complied with the NSA requests.



Why do we need a constitution when we can just cry 'terrorism' as a loophole? The constitution is more than just an american tradition/icon.


Once more it begs the question, what loophole?

Are you suggesting that it is a loophole to protect Americans from people who OBVIOUSLY plot to murder them in large numbers? What a naive and preposterous opinion.

Please show me which article the current President is in violation of and your legal case for such. Please show me which amendment to the Constitution the current President is in violation of and your legal case for such.

I look forward to your articulate and credible argument where the Constitution has been violated by this Administration or Congress. It won’t be the first time this specious argument has been dispelled by the FACTS.

[Wndrtch]

Well TD, it sounds like you are for places like China, Russian, and Iran that don't have wiretapping laws there. Sounds like your kind of place, you might want to consider a move to your new found ideal land there, considering how liberals have made this country suck so bad. Send us a postcard ok?



That's kind of what I'm thinking. TD needs to live in a communist country or a dictatorship. Democracy is just not his style apparently, because a democracy requires compromise of different ideas. This country is about 50% liberal, but TD demonizes them as if they have no right to their opinions or say in the political process.

Perhjaps TD needs to find a country that is not democratic or representative, as those are qualities he seems to loath.


Without your right to life, the other two don't matter much. The terrorists want to take away your right to life, and did so for 3,000 people on 911. Why don't you ask one of the 3,000 what they think of the Patriot Act.

Like I keep saying, Liberals have adopted "Prey" mentality. So long as it isn't them being killed, who cares about anybody else. Just don't be the last guy in the stampede.

By the way, Hitler was elected to power in a democracy. You need strong morality in a society for democracy to work effectively. Otherwise, it's just mob-rule.

[exigent]

The efforts from the left to ensure that terrorists have an easier time communicating with each other are tireless. Knowing that America's appeals courts and Supreme Court side with the President on the NSA monitoring of Overseas communications by known terrorist groups, they decided that another way to stifle the President from carrying out his constitutional duties is to sue the private companies who have complied with the NSA requests.



Why do we need a constitution when we can just cry 'terrorism' as a loophole? The constitution is more than just an american tradition/icon.


Once more it begs the question, what loophole?

Are you suggesting that it is a loophole to protect Americans from people who OBVIOUSLY plot to murder them in large numbers? What a naive and preposterous opinion.

Please show me which article the current President is in violation of and your legal case for such. Please show me which amendment to the Constitution the current President is in violation of and your legal case for such.

I look forward to your articulate and credible argument where the Constitution has been violated by this Administration or Congress. It won’t be the first time this specious argument has been dispelled by the FACTS.


Where have you been? I dont need to cite common knowledge.

So if you dont mind the government takin it upon themselves to keep you safe by spying on us all, then you certainly wouldnt mind them organizing a socialist health care system to keep you healthy, correct?

[potter]

Without your right to life, the other two don't matter much.

Are Americans the only ones who have a right to life?

Lets ask the tens of thousands who we are responsible for killing in Iraq and see.....victims of our petulant little revenge war.

Funny you should say this: Like I keep saying, Liberals have adopted "Prey" mentality. So long as it isn't them being killed, who cares about anybody else.

I think that applies to the conservatives that support the war better, who don't care who they kill innocent or otherwise, as long as they feel safe.

And "who" is a terrorist depends on what country you live. Many would consider the US to be a terrorist state.

[ViolaLee]

Check this out. LOL!!!

We have heard some people argue that the telephone companies should get immunity because they complied with the Government’s requests to engage in warrantless surveillance out of patriotism. I do not doubt the patriotism of the executives and employees of these companies, but this month we learned that these companies cut off wiretaps, including wiretaps of terrorists, because the FBI failed to pay its telephone bills. How can this administration talk repeatedly, on the one hand, about the importance of FISA surveillance, and on the other hand, fail to pay its phone bills and jeopardize this critical surveillance. But beyond that, the fact that carriers were willing to cut off surveillance when they were not paid – presumably some of the same carriers that agreed to conduct warrantless surveillance – undercuts the argument about their patriotic motives.

http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200802/020608c.html

It wasn't patriotism, it was profit!

LOL!

[Pookie]

Here's the original news story on the cutoff:



The audit by the Justice Department's inspector general faulted the FBI for poor handling of money used in undercover investigations, which it said made the agency vulnerable to theft and mishandled invoices.

It cited the case in which a wiretap under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which governs electronic spying in terrorism and intelligence cases, was disrupted due to an overdue bill.

Read more:

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN1021326220080110

Maybe they have a little trouble putting their money where their mouth is? Or where their ears are? Anyway, that didn't look too good.

Purrs,
Pookie

[Truth Detector]

Where have you been? I dont need to cite common knowledge.

So if you dont mind the government takin it upon themselves to keep you safe by spying on us all, then you certainly wouldnt mind them organizing a socialist health care system to keep you healthy, correct?


That is the problem with your argument; the Government isn't spying on us all. This is a specious statement of political rhetoric by a party that has made it a campaign issue to support protecting terrorists over Americans.

I don't know why it is so hard for semi-literate people to read the patriot act and understand what is meant by "tapping conversations from FORIEGN sources of KNOWN terrorist organizations."

You have to have the naiveté' of a child to not know that the Government could not possibly listen into ALL of our conversations. But I guess when you support a party that places their political agenda ahead of Americans safety, what can one expect?

Just for shits and giggles, I want someone here from the ranting left to give us ONE case where this program had denied ANYONE of their rights or of anyone who was KNOWINGLY spied on.

This has been proved a lie over and over again, but apparently wallowing in a never ending circle of stupidity where no proof is ever provided but false claims about "denied rights" get spewed incessantly is where some prefer to debate.

For the benefit of defining what is meant by the circle of stupidity, it is when someone makes a specious argument which is proved false, then makes a new argument on the same issue as if the facts may have somehow changed by another false assertion.

[Wndrtch]

Are Americans the only ones who have a right to life?

That would depend on the nation you are talking about. They certainly didn't have a right to life in "Old" Iraq.

Lets ask the tens of thousands who we are responsible for killing in Iraq and see.....victims of our petulant little revenge war.

You mean the tens of thousands of terrorist we are killing off, one by one, in that terrorist magnet known as Iraq, or the tens of thousands of Iraqis being killed by terrorist because we are there?

Funny you should say this: Like I keep saying, Liberals have adopted "Prey" mentality. So long as it isn't them being killed, who cares about anybody else.

I think that applies to the conservatives that support the war better, who don't care who they kill innocent or otherwise, as long as they feel safe.

That would be called "Preditor" mentality, not prey.

And "who" is a terrorist depends on what country you live. Many would consider the US to be a terrorist state.


Really? So, it's your contention that America sends suicide bombers to kill children in countries that support Israel?

You must be talking about the pending Obama Administration.

[Pookie]

Just for shits and giggles, I want someone here from the ranting left to give us ONE case where this program had denied ANYONE of their rights or of anyone who was KNOWINGLY spied on.

Hello! I have said many times it did not matter to me if they spied on me. I haven't had any problem. None of us have had a problem.
Rant what?
Purrs,
Pookie

[Truth Detector]

Hello! I have said many times it did not matter to me if they spied on me. I haven't had any problem. None of us have had a problem.
Rant what?
Purrs,
Pookie


Pookie, I am obviously not speaking OF you when I talk about the ranting loonies on this forum that continue to spew their lies and distortions about this program.
:thumbsup:

[Truth Detector]

Sorry Pook, I didnt realize that TD was a text book definition. After reading a few of his posts, in which ALL included 'loonies' it became clear that one can not argue with a mental midget. I've moved on.


Your personal attack and lack of substance has been noted.

One thing is certain, when given enough time; the incivility of the left becomes exposed. This usually occurs when they are continually confronted with their lies, distortions and attempts to impugn people of good character.

Carry on!
:clapper:

[Buck Laser]

Sorry Pook, I didnt realize that TD was a text book definition. After reading a few of his posts, in which ALL included 'loonies' it became clear that one can not argue with a mental midget. I've moved on.


Your personal attack and lack of substance has been noted.

One thing is certain, when given enough time; the incivility of the left becomes exposed. This usually occurs when they are continually confronted with their lies, distortions and attempts to impugn people of good character.

Carry on!
:clapper:

I'm sorry, TD: I have a hard time distinguishing between YOUR incivility and the "incivility of the left." Could you please provide some help on this?
Sincerely yours.

Puzzled in River City

[BoogyMan]

Just for shits and giggles, I want someone here from the ranting left to give us ONE case where this program had denied ANYONE of their rights or of anyone who was KNOWINGLY spied on.

Hello! I have said many times it did not matter to me if they spied on me. I haven't had any problem. None of us have had a problem.
Rant what?
Purrs,
Pookie


The hype surrounding this issue is a huge factor in people's reaction to it. Pookie, you are not calling foreign terrorists and therefore would not be monitored, but the average individual up in arms over this issue speaks about it as if ALL calls are being monitored.

[ViolaLee]

The hype surrounding this issue is a huge factor in people's reaction to it. Pookie, you are not calling foreign terrorists and therefore would not be monitored, but the average individual up in arms over this issue speaks about it as if ALL calls are being monitored.
You're so wrong. ALL calls are being monitored. They are data mining ALL calls. Listening for key words. What do you think the secret room at AT&T in San Francisco is all about. Wake up boogie! Your constitutional rights and civil liberties are being violated.

[Tharagor]

Without your right to life, the other two don't matter much. The terrorists want to take away your right to life, and did so for 3,000 people on 911. Why don't you ask one of the 3,000 what they think of the Patriot Act.

Like I keep saying, Liberals have adopted "Prey" mentality. So long as it isn't them being killed, who cares about anybody else. Just don't be the last guy in the stampede.

By the way, Hitler was elected to power in a democracy. You need strong morality in a society for democracy to work effectively. Otherwise, it's just mob-rule.


So, that's why we're in Iraq fueling terrorist recruitment?

How about we actually address the problem and pull out of the Middle East and stop supporting Israel over it's neighbors?

Liberals haven't adopted a "prey" mentality, we just can't support something we view as illogical.

[Truth Detector]

Sorry Pook, I didnt realize that TD was a text book definition. After reading a few of his posts, in which ALL included 'loonies' it became clear that one can not argue with a mental midget. I've moved on.


Your personal attack and lack of substance has been noted.

One thing is certain, when given enough time; the incivility of the left becomes exposed. This usually occurs when they are continually confronted with their lies, distortions and attempts to impugn people of good character.

Carry on!
:clapper:

I'm sorry, TD: I have a hard time distinguishing between YOUR incivility and the "incivility of the left." Could you please provide some help on this?
Sincerely yours.

Puzzled in River City


It is probably due to the partisan blinders you have on that perhaps made you a hypocrite.

Let me help you understand: calling someone "mental midget" is a personal insult. I would like you to post examples where I have "personally" insulted anyone on this forum.

Main Entry: in·ci·vil·i·ty
Function: noun
Pronunciation: "in(t)-s&-'vi-l&-te
Etymology: Middle French incivilité, from Late Latin incivilitat-, incivilitas, from incivilis, from Latin in- + civilis civil
1 : the quality or state of being uncivil
2 : a rude or discourteous act

I look forward to examples that are more than your personal bias of what you may have "perceived" as uncivil but is merely due to your hypocritical nature.

The above was NOT an example of incivility as it was a description of your behavior which is illustrated when you claim I am uncivil but ignore those who insult me. This is also known as a double standard.

I hope this clears up any confusion you apparently wallow in.

[exigent]

and whats worse is that you pretend that you are better than the rest.

By repeating 'loony left' over and over I see that as a personal attack since I support the left.[hr]BTW what happened to viola?

[sam]

Just for shits and giggles, I want someone here from the ranting left to give us ONE case where this program had denied ANYONE of their rights or of anyone who was KNOWINGLY spied on.

Hello! I have said many times it did not matter to me if they spied on me. I haven't had any problem. None of us have had a problem.
Rant what?
Purrs,
Pookie


I quite possibley have the most boring life in the world but I DO MIND tremendously that the right seems to think, hey, it doesn't bother me even if it did get to the point where they are tapping my phone.

I mind a hell of a lot. What is to stop a disgrunted neighbor, coworker, family member to report you for'suspicious behavior'
to the authorities?

I am constantly amazed at how willing so many people are to
give up their civil liberties to 'feel safe' which in itself is an illusion.

[BoogyMan]

and whats worse is that you pretend that you are better than the rest.

By repeating 'loony left' over and over I see that as a personal attack since I support the left.

Speaking of a group in general certainly is not a personal attack or we would be dropping all of the "rabid righties" comments in FP as well

[Truth Detector]

Without your right to life, the other two don't matter much. The terrorists want to take away your right to life, and did so for 3,000 people on 911. Why don't you ask one of the 3,000 what they think of the Patriot Act.

Like I keep saying, Liberals have adopted "Prey" mentality. So long as it isn't them being killed, who cares about anybody else. Just don't be the last guy in the stampede.

By the way, Hitler was elected to power in a democracy. You need strong morality in a society for democracy to work effectively. Otherwise, it's just mob-rule.


So, that's why we're in Iraq fueling terrorist recruitment?

How about we actually address the problem and pull out of the Middle East and stop supporting Israel over it's neighbors?

Liberals haven't adopted a "prey" mentality, we just can't support something we view as illogical.


Denial is a fascinating thing. How is it that we support Israel over it's neighbors? Do you have any comprehension of how patently false this statement is?

I suggest you look at how our aid is distributed in the ME so that you can debate with slightly more credibility.

The notion that we are fueling terrorism in Iraq is absurd in the extreme. How would that explain the terrorists murdering far more Muslims than they have allied troops? How would this explain the violation of their own religious beliefs when they blow up Mosques?

You might have a tad more credibility if this was really about fueling terrorists. This is more about terrorists realizing that the single greatest threat to them is a US ally in the ME that has oil and a prosperous democracy. Hmmmmm, sounds a lot like the Bush vision doesn't it? But what the heck, he is an idiot and you obviously are a genius.

Your last comment makes me laugh. One has to question the notion that "Liberals" who argue for this country to quit in Iraq, who argue that this administration is moving us towards a police state, who argue for constitutional rights of terrorists in captivity and who argue that they really didn't vote FOR the war and are now against the war have any idea what is "logical"?

It's the same notion that the "Liberal" logic which sounds a lot like Osama's rhetoric is logical is absurd in the extreme. There's a reason Osama expressed his disappointment with the Democrat majority in his last tapes, he was counting on them handing him the victory our troops are denying him. Yes folks, you have to be profound to have such "liberal" logic.

MY lord, I have to stand on my head with one arm in the air to get to this kind of logic.

:madlaugh:[hr]
and whats worse is that you pretend that you are better than the rest.

By repeating 'loony left' over and over I see that as a personal attack since I support the left.[hr]BTW what happened to viola?


It's interesting that you perceive this is directed at you. Why do you feel it is? Do you think there can't be a normal Left?

This isn't about me pretending to be better than the rest. Those are your words. Does this mean you think I am better than the rest? I certainly have not made any claims to that.

I do spend a great deal of time here exposing the abject nonsense, the despicable rhetoric, lies and distortions of those who think that one only has to say it is so without any facts, honesty or decency.

Do you find that it is offensive to expose liars for their lies?

Is it wrong to call one a liar when they are obviously lying to serve a partisan political purpose?

Is it wrong to be patriotic and believe that we can disagree but still support the efforts of our troops without impugning the President and his administration at every turn?

Is it wrong to believe that once a decision is made and troops are in harms way we should support those efforts regardless of how we feel about their Commander and Chief?

There was a time in our history when we were able as a nation to set aside our petty partisan political beliefs while our men and women are in harms way. It appears that decency is no longer a part of the Democrat/Leftist lexicon.

Do you believe that it makes sense to wrench this nation apart with lies and distortions about its President, the Administration and impugn their good character to support a partisan political goal while we are fighting terrorists, particularly after what happened to us on 9-11?

Do I think it is loony to play partisan politics with our troops, to support terrorist’s objectives, to deny this government the ability to find and catch terrorists and suggest that the World Trade Center destruction was a series of planned and planted explosions to serve some dark sinister political agenda; you bet I do. What would you call it?
[hr]I quite possibley have the most boring life in the world but I DO MIND tremendously that the right seems to think, hey, it doesn't bother me even if it did get to the point where they are tapping my phone.

I mind a hell of a lot. What is to stop a disgrunted neighbor, coworker, family member to report you for'suspicious behavior'
to the authorities?

I am constantly amazed at how willing so many people are to
give up their civil liberties to 'feel safe' which in itself is an illusion.


Well Sam, there's a huge difference between the NSA monitoring communications from outside the US from known terrorist sources and your neighbor reporting you for "suspicious behavior" don’t you think.

I find this kind of argumentation specious in that it attempts to prescribe attributes to the Governments NSA program that do not exist.

The Constitution still protects you Sam. Believe it or not, and contrary to the loony rants from the left, no one has shredded it you still have your rights to privacy.

[PostmodernProphet]

The hype surrounding this issue is a huge factor in people's reaction to it. Pookie, you are not calling foreign terrorists and therefore would not be monitored, but the average individual up in arms over this issue speaks about it as if ALL calls are being monitored.
You're so wrong. ALL calls are being monitored. They are data mining ALL calls. Listening for key words. What do you think the secret room at AT&T in San Francisco is all about. Wake up boogie! Your constitutional rights and civil liberties are being violated.


nope, they just monitor yours.....but, since they got a judge to issue a warrant by reading him some of your posts, it's legal......

[Tharagor]

Denial is a fascinating thing. How is it that we support Israel over it's neighbors? Do you have any comprehension of how patently false this statement is?

I suggest you look at how our aid is distributed in the ME so that you can debate with slightly more credibility.


You’re absolutely right, we have never had sanctions against “terrorist” nations:

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/indexafg.htm
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,20462687-1702,00.html
http://www.treas.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/programs/terror/terror.shtml
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CEFDA103CF931A25756C0A9629C8B 63]
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1996_cr/h960618b.htm


Should I go further back?

The United States has supported the existence of Israel since Israel first declared itself a nation in 1948.


The notion that we are fueling terrorism in Iraq is absurd in the extreme. How would that explain the terrorists murdering far more Muslims than they have allied troops? How would this explain the violation of their own religious beliefs when they blow up Mosques?


Our presence there is fueling terrorism because we are meddling and continue to meddle. We’re stoking the fire as it were.

Of course, I agree that most of the acts in Iraq have been between rival factions. It does not conflict with their beliefs because they view each other as following a corrupt version of Islam. The each see each other as infidels.


You might have a tad more credibility if this was really about fueling terrorists. This is more about terrorists realizing that the single greatest threat to them is a US ally in the ME that has oil and a prosperous democracy. Hmmmmm, sounds a lot like the Bush vision doesn't it? But what the heck, he is an idiot and you obviously are a genius.


How could that be a threat to them? We still haven’t been able to setup a stable safe country. The problem is, you can’t spread democracy at gunpoint. Either the population as a whole wants democracy or it doesn’t.


Your last comment makes me laugh. One has to question the notion that "Liberals" who argue for this country to quit in Iraq, who argue that this administration is moving us towards a police state, who argue for constitutional rights of terrorists in captivity and who argue that they really didn't vote FOR the war and are now against the war have any idea what is "logical"?


What’s amusing is how you lump several concepts together as one and assume that all liberals believe that.

It’s also interesting that Alex Jones, a well known conservative, agrees with at least half of that.

Of course, after reading your previous posts here and elsewhere, and the interactions we’ve had in the past, I didn’t expect you to make a point in that statement. You obviously feel that all of those opinions are patently incorrect for some self-evident reason because you provide no argument against them.

BTW, liberals aren’t pushing for protections for proven terrorists, just the accused languishing in previously secret prisons, one even on the land of a nation we ridiculously label an enemy.


It's the same notion that the "Liberal" logic which sounds a lot like Osama's rhetoric is logical is absurd in the extreme. There's a reason Osama expressed his disappointment with the Democrat majority in his last tapes, he was counting on them handing him the victory our troops are denying him. Yes folks, you have to be profound to have such "liberal" logic.


The thing is, we’re not fighting Osama in Iraq. Therefore, the sentiment is clearly nonsensical.

[sam]

Without your right to life, the other two don't matter much. The terrorists want to take away your right to life, and did so for 3,000 people on 911. Why don't you ask one of the 3,000 what they think of the Patriot Act.

Like I keep saying, Liberals have adopted "Prey" mentality. So long as it isn't them being killed, who cares about anybody else. Just don't be the last guy in the stampede.

By the way, Hitler was elected to power in a democracy. You need strong morality in a society for democracy to work effectively. Otherwise, it's just mob-rule.


So, that's why we're in Iraq fueling terrorist recruitment?

How about we actually address the problem and pull out of the Middle East and stop supporting Israel over it's neighbors?

Liberals haven't adopted a "prey" mentality, we just can't support something we view as illogical.


Denial is a fascinating thing. How is it that we support Israel over it's neighbors? Do you have any comprehension of how patently false this statement is?

I suggest you look at how our aid is distributed in the ME so that you can debate with slightly more credibility.

The notion that we are fueling terrorism in Iraq is absurd in the extreme. How would that explain the terrorists murdering far more Muslims than they have allied troops? How would this explain the violation of their own religious beliefs when they blow up Mosques?

You might have a tad more credibility if this was really about fueling terrorists. This is more about terrorists realizing that the single greatest threat to them is a US ally in the ME that has oil and a prosperous democracy. Hmmmmm, sounds a lot like the Bush vision doesn't it? But what the heck, he is an idiot and you obviously are a genius.

Your last comment makes me laugh. One has to question the notion that "Liberals" who argue for this country to quit in Iraq, who argue that this administration is moving us towards a police state, who argue for constitutional rights of terrorists in captivity and who argue that they really didn't vote FOR the war and are now against the war have any idea what is "logical"?

It's the same notion that the "Liberal" logic which sounds a lot like Osama's rhetoric is logical is absurd in the extreme. There's a reason Osama expressed his disappointment with the Democrat majority in his last tapes, he was counting on them handing him the victory our troops are denying him. Yes folks, you have to be profound to have such "liberal" logic.

MY lord, I have to stand on my head with one arm in the air to get to this kind of logic.

:madlaugh:[hr]
and whats worse is that you pretend that you are better than the rest.

By repeating 'loony left' over and over I see that as a personal attack since I support the left.[hr]BTW what happened to viola?


It's interesting that you perceive this is directed at you. Why do you feel it is? Do you think there can't be a normal Left?

This isn't about me pretending to be better than the rest. Those are your words. Does this mean you think I am better than the rest? I certainly have not made any claims to that.

I do spend a great deal of time here exposing the abject nonsense, the despicable rhetoric, lies and distortions of those who think that one only has to say it is so without any facts, honesty or decency.

Do you find that it is offensive to expose liars for their lies?

Is it wrong to call one a liar when they are obviously lying to serve a partisan political purpose?

Is it wrong to be patriotic and believe that we can disagree but still support the efforts of our troops without impugning the President and his administration at every turn?

Is it wrong to believe that once a decision is made and troops are in harms way we should support those efforts regardless of how we feel about their Commander and Chief?

There was a time in our history when we were able as a nation to set aside our petty partisan political beliefs while our men and women are in harms way. It appears that decency is no longer a part of the Democrat/Leftist lexicon.

Do you believe that it makes sense to wrench this nation apart with lies and distortions about its President, the Administration and impugn their good character to support a partisan political goal while we are fighting terrorists, particularly after what happened to us on 9-11?

Do I think it is loony to play partisan politics with our troops, to support terrorist’s objectives, to deny this government the ability to find and catch terrorists and suggest that the World Trade Center destruction was a series of planned and planted explosions to serve some dark sinister political agenda; you bet I do. What would you call it?
[hr]I quite possibley have the most boring life in the world but I DO MIND tremendously that the right seems to think, hey, it doesn't bother me even if it did get to the point where they are tapping my phone.

I mind a hell of a lot. What is to stop a disgrunted neighbor, coworker, family member to report you for'suspicious behavior'
to the authorities?

I am constantly amazed at how willing so many people are to
give up their civil liberties to 'feel safe' which in itself is an illusion.


Well Sam, there's a huge difference between the NSA monitoring communications from outside the US from known terrorist sources and your neighbor reporting you for "suspicious behavior" don’t you think.

I find this kind of argumentation specious in that it attempts to prescribe attributes to the Governments NSA program that do not exist.

The Constitution still protects you Sam. Believe it or not, and contrary to the loony rants from the left, no one has shredded it you still have your rights to privacy.


I'm not saying that it doesn't now; but I do think that is precisely where we are heading. Chip a little bit in the name of safety, chip a little bit there, and it doesn't take much imagination to see where this COULD lead.


I hope for the best but always prepare for the worst. I have faith in the Constitution; and will never forsake my civil liberties with the defense that I will feel more secure in the illusion of safety their demise creates.

Why do we need a constitution when we can just cry 'terrorism' as a loophole? The constitution is more than just an american tradition/icon. (Exigent).


That is exactly what I mean by the chipping away a little bit here and a little bit there until you have ultimately little more than the shell of the constitution at all. I

[lily]

Denial is a fascinating thing. How is it that we support Israel over it's neighbors? Do you have any comprehension of how patently false this statement is?

I suggest you look at how our aid is distributed in the ME so that you can debate with slightly more credibility.


Yep Truth Detector.......if there is one thing I like it's crediblity. (http://www.peacenowar.net/Palestine/News/US%20aids.htm)

A) The nature of US foreign aid to Israel
A1. Constitutes 30% of the total US foreign aid budget, which renders Israel
to be the largest recipient of US aid in the world

Since 1987, the US congress has annually been approving a foreign aid bill
totaling an average of $3 billion to Israel, $1.2 billion in economical aid,
and $1.8 billion in military aid.

After the gulf war in 1991, the US has additionally been offering Israel $2
billion annually in federal loan guarantees, which brings the total US
foreign aid to Israel to about $5 billion, or $13.7 million per day. This
amount excludes the approximate $1.5 billion in total tax-deductible private
donations from numerous Jewish charities and individual donors.

All in all, this is the largest amount of foreign aid given to a country,
and constitutes 30% of the total amount of US foreign aid budget.


It's the same notion that the "Liberal" logic which sounds a lot like Osama's rhetoric is logical is absurd in the extreme. There's a reason Osama expressed his disappointment with the Democrat majority in his last tapes, he was counting on them handing him the victory our troops are denying him. Yes folks, you have to be profound to have such "liberal" logic.


Yep there is a reason Osama is sending out propaganda that you seem to be lapping up........he's been riding free and easy for over 7 years under Republican rule......I'd be worried too if I were him, when Democrats take over.

[Truth Detector]

Yep there is a reason Osama is sending out propaganda that you seem to be lapping up........he's been riding free and easy for over 7 years under Republican rule......I'd be worried too if I were him, when Democrats take over.


Lily, Lily, Lily, don't you know it is the Democrats who Obama is cheering on and hoping takes over.

Does it ever occur to you why?

The LAST thing the terrorists want is continued Republican majorities. Think about it; with Democrats in charge Guantanamo gets shut down and they wont have to worry about Military Tribunals, they will get Habeas Corpus rights and legal representation in our civilian courts of law, the Democrats are arguing over who will send the troops home first and arguing for a withdrawal from the ME, shutting down the NSA phone monitoring programs, making it harder for the CIA and the FBI to spy on terrorists at home and abroad, the Democrats are more inclined to not support the State of Israel and they will further gut the military as what occurred in Clinton's cost cutting during his admin which left us unprepared.

The terrorists would be MUCH better off if the Democrats push forward their agenda.

The notion that the likes of Obama would not see a Republican loss as a win is absurd and one where you would have to be in denial or unaware of current events to think otherwise. Osama hates Bush almost as much as the Democrats.
:dizzy:

[Tharagor]

... the Democrats are more inclined to not support the State of Israel and they will further gut the military as what occurred in Clinton's cost cutting during his admin ...


Which is exactly what we should do. Ceasing to support Israel and pushing for Democracy in the Middle East will earn us enough good will such that the Middle East nations will stop supporting terrorist attacks on the United States.

They'll concentrate on Israel and each other.

What's so bad about that?