Terrorist Sympathetic, Carter Appointed Judge Strikes Down NSA Terrorist Surveillance Program/Stay Issued
Detroit Judge Strikes Down NSA Terrorist Surveillance Program:
"Those who herald this decision simply do not understand the nature of the world in which we live," Bush told reporters at his presidential retreat in Camp David, Md.
Bush ordered the Justice Department to appeal the Thursday ruling by U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit. Taylor ruled that the National Security Agency's program that monitors some electronic communication inside the United States without a warrant should be halted.
The program allows the NSA to intercept telephone calls and e-mails without court approval in cases in which the government suspects a party of having links to terrorism. At least one of the people involved in the communication has to be outside of the United States.
"If Al Qaeda is calling into the United States, we want to know why they are calling," Bush said.
The president authorized the program after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and has argued that it is effective and has helped stop anymore terror attacks.
"We must give those whose responsibility it is to protect the United States the tools necessary to protect this country in a time of war," Bush said.
The government is appealing to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati.
"We're going to do everything we can do in the courts to allow this program to continue," Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said at a news conference in Washington. The Justice Department appealed within hours of Taylor's ruling.
Taylor was the first judge to rule on the legality of the program, saying it violates the rights to free speech and privacy, and the separation of powers.
"Plaintiffs have prevailed, and the public interest is clear, in this matter. It is the upholding of our Constitution," Taylor wrote in her 43-page opinion.
White House press secretary Tony Snow said the Bush administration "couldn't disagree more with this ruling." He said the program carefully targets communications of suspected terrorists and "has helped stop terrorist attacks and saved American lives."
The goverment said it would ask for a stay of Taylor's order to halt the program.
Republicans joined the adminstration's call to reverse the judge's ruling.
"We need to strengthen, not weaken, our ability to foil terrorist plots before they can do us harm," said Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist in a statement. "I encourage swift appeal by the government and quick reversal of this unfortunate decision."
Democrats were quick to issue statements against the program and praised Taylor's ruling.
..........................Judge Taylor a/k/a Moron
"Today's federal court decision on the NSA warrantless wiretapping program confirms the doubts I have had about the program's constitutionality ever since I first learned about it," said Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., in a statement.
Sen. Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts backed up Biden's position, adding that the Bush administration used its own rules for surveillance of Americans.
"By acting so cavalierly, the White House created a surveillance program that flunks the requirements of our laws and Constitution and leaves us at risk," the Democrat said.
The American Civil Liberties Union, which brought the suit, said it would oppose a stay but agreed to delay enforcement of the injunction until Taylor hears arguments Sept. 7.
The ACLU filed the lawsuit in January on behalf of journalists, scholars and lawyers who say the program has made it difficult for them to do their jobs. They believe many of their overseas contacts are likely targets of the program, which monitors international phone calls and e-mails to or from the U.S. involving people the government suspects have terrorist links.
The ACLU says the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which set up a secret court to grant warrants for such surveillance, gave the government enough tools to monitor suspected terrorists.
The government argued the NSA program is well within the president's authority but said proving that would require revealing state secrets.
The ACLU said the state-secrets argument was irrelevant because the Bush administration already had publicly revealed enough information about the program for Taylor to rule. The administration has decried leaks that led to a New York Times report about the existence of the program last year.
Taylor, a Carter appointee, said the government appeared to argue that the program is beyond judicial scrutiny.
"It was never the intent of the framers to give the president such unfettered control, particularly where his actions blatantly disregard the parameters clearly enumerated in the Bill of Rights," she wrote. "The three separate branches of government were developed as a check and balance for one another."
ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero called Taylor's opinion "another nail in the coffin in the Bush administration's legal strategy in the War on Terror."
While siding with the ACLU on the surveillance issue, Taylor dismissed a separate claim by the group over NSA data-mining of phone records. She said not enough had been publicly revealed about that program to support the claim and further litigation would jeopardize state secrets.
Read Full Story Here
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well here we go. Another HUGE example of how WEAK on Defense the Liberals are. If left up to the Liberals we will be attacked repeatedly. So without a stay the terrorists can plot and plan to attack us again and we cant hear about it and it may just happen. Congratulation's Liberals we know who to blame if we do get attacked again, that is if any of us are still alive! But lucky for us there IS a stay! It's ok when President Clinton used it, and Carter, but we get attacked here on our own soil and we need this tool badly to keep us from getting attacked again and President Bush cant use it? P'Shaw!! Piss on the ACLU and piss on the Liberals!! Liberals have convinced me they are nothing but TERRORIST SYMPATHIZERS!!
"Those who herald this decision simply do not understand the nature of the world in which we live," Bush told reporters at his presidential retreat in Camp David, Md.
Bush ordered the Justice Department to appeal the Thursday ruling by U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit. Taylor ruled that the National Security Agency's program that monitors some electronic communication inside the United States without a warrant should be halted.
The program allows the NSA to intercept telephone calls and e-mails without court approval in cases in which the government suspects a party of having links to terrorism. At least one of the people involved in the communication has to be outside of the United States.
"If Al Qaeda is calling into the United States, we want to know why they are calling," Bush said.
The president authorized the program after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and has argued that it is effective and has helped stop anymore terror attacks.
"We must give those whose responsibility it is to protect the United States the tools necessary to protect this country in a time of war," Bush said.
The government is appealing to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati.
"We're going to do everything we can do in the courts to allow this program to continue," Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said at a news conference in Washington. The Justice Department appealed within hours of Taylor's ruling.
Taylor was the first judge to rule on the legality of the program, saying it violates the rights to free speech and privacy, and the separation of powers.
"Plaintiffs have prevailed, and the public interest is clear, in this matter. It is the upholding of our Constitution," Taylor wrote in her 43-page opinion.
White House press secretary Tony Snow said the Bush administration "couldn't disagree more with this ruling." He said the program carefully targets communications of suspected terrorists and "has helped stop terrorist attacks and saved American lives."
The goverment said it would ask for a stay of Taylor's order to halt the program.
Republicans joined the adminstration's call to reverse the judge's ruling.
"We need to strengthen, not weaken, our ability to foil terrorist plots before they can do us harm," said Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist in a statement. "I encourage swift appeal by the government and quick reversal of this unfortunate decision."
Democrats were quick to issue statements against the program and praised Taylor's ruling.
..........................Judge Taylor a/k/a Moron
"Today's federal court decision on the NSA warrantless wiretapping program confirms the doubts I have had about the program's constitutionality ever since I first learned about it," said Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., in a statement.
Sen. Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts backed up Biden's position, adding that the Bush administration used its own rules for surveillance of Americans.
"By acting so cavalierly, the White House created a surveillance program that flunks the requirements of our laws and Constitution and leaves us at risk," the Democrat said.
The American Civil Liberties Union, which brought the suit, said it would oppose a stay but agreed to delay enforcement of the injunction until Taylor hears arguments Sept. 7.
The ACLU filed the lawsuit in January on behalf of journalists, scholars and lawyers who say the program has made it difficult for them to do their jobs. They believe many of their overseas contacts are likely targets of the program, which monitors international phone calls and e-mails to or from the U.S. involving people the government suspects have terrorist links.
The ACLU says the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which set up a secret court to grant warrants for such surveillance, gave the government enough tools to monitor suspected terrorists.
The government argued the NSA program is well within the president's authority but said proving that would require revealing state secrets.
The ACLU said the state-secrets argument was irrelevant because the Bush administration already had publicly revealed enough information about the program for Taylor to rule. The administration has decried leaks that led to a New York Times report about the existence of the program last year.
Taylor, a Carter appointee, said the government appeared to argue that the program is beyond judicial scrutiny.
"It was never the intent of the framers to give the president such unfettered control, particularly where his actions blatantly disregard the parameters clearly enumerated in the Bill of Rights," she wrote. "The three separate branches of government were developed as a check and balance for one another."
ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero called Taylor's opinion "another nail in the coffin in the Bush administration's legal strategy in the War on Terror."
While siding with the ACLU on the surveillance issue, Taylor dismissed a separate claim by the group over NSA data-mining of phone records. She said not enough had been publicly revealed about that program to support the claim and further litigation would jeopardize state secrets.
Read Full Story Here
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well here we go. Another HUGE example of how WEAK on Defense the Liberals are. If left up to the Liberals we will be attacked repeatedly. So without a stay the terrorists can plot and plan to attack us again and we cant hear about it and it may just happen. Congratulation's Liberals we know who to blame if we do get attacked again, that is if any of us are still alive! But lucky for us there IS a stay! It's ok when President Clinton used it, and Carter, but we get attacked here on our own soil and we need this tool badly to keep us from getting attacked again and President Bush cant use it? P'Shaw!! Piss on the ACLU and piss on the Liberals!! Liberals have convinced me they are nothing but TERRORIST SYMPATHIZERS!!
posted by Marie's Two Cents | 9:26 AM
21 Comments:
Purple,
Bush has no more broken the law than Clinton or Carter did.
The judge who ruled in this case was a Carter appointed Judge! BIG SURPRISE!!!
Can you ever post a reply without swearing and making yourself look more like a damn Lunatic than you already look?
The Constitution didnt mention a damn thing about wiretapping!
Have you been the least bit affected by the Terrorist Surveillance Program? Or are you afraid you might be?
When are you left wing Loones going to realize the program isnt set up or designed to catch you freaks with a bag of weed?
WE ARE AT WAR, and we need these tools to catch TERRORISTS, and if you are not one, you dont have any cause to worry.
You on the left are so weak when it comes to defending this Country, why dont you guys just shut the hell up and leave defending this Country to those that KNOW how to do it REPUBLICANS!!!
Friggen Morons
Marie, This person calling themself "purple jesus" is a typical example of the "I hate anything Bush does" crowd. Saying you would rather be killed by terrorists than agree with Bush on anything is probably the most irrational thing I've read all day but I haven't been to any lib sites yet today either.
The judge in this case has inserted an enormous amount of her own political partisanship into her ruling and has shown little regard for the actual Constitutional principle that the plaintiffs were seeking.
This ruling will obviously be overturned on appeal and the judge is quite aware of that so she inserted herself politically thereby violating her oath of office to uphold the Contstitution by usurping control from the Legislative and the Excutive branches which is a clear violation of the separation of powers.
The thing that is clearly misunderstood is the seriousness of the situation. The people we call terrorists are taught from childhood they will grow up to kill Jews, Americans and every other non-Muslim. How do you make that understood to the libs that are blinded by their hate for George Bush? They have to be educated or shoved to the side while the rest of us prepare to defend ourselves from these savage jihadists.
JG,
I know purple Jesus is in his own world that's for sure.
I dont know if "Irrational" quite covers it, insane has a better fir but that will do.
The judge in this case has inserted an enormous amount of her own political partisanship into her ruling and has shown little regard for the actual Constitutional principle that the plaintiffs were seeking.
~~~~~~
I know, 43 pages of a tirade trying to belittle President Bush.
This ruling will obviously be overturned on appeal and the judge is quite aware of that so she inserted herself politically thereby violating her oath of office to uphold the Contstitution by usurping control from the Legislative and the Excutive branches which is a clear violation of the separation of powers.
~~~~~~~~
Yes Mam, and at least a Stay has been issued, I can see this going all the way to the Supreme Court, and I hope it does so the Liberals will shut up about this once and for all.
The thing that is clearly misunderstood is the seriousness of the situation. The people we call terrorists are taught from childhood they will grow up to kill Jews, Americans and every other non-Muslim. How do you make that understood to the libs that are blinded by their hate for George Bush? They have to be educated or shoved to the side while the rest of us prepare to defend ourselves from these savage jihadists.
~~~~~~~~
I'm not sure we can get it through the Liberals head's. They just dont get it. They dont understand that no matter what, we cant go back to the days before 9-11.
Shoved to the side might be appropriate in this case, because no matter what Bush does at this point the FAR LEFT LUNATIC'S dont want to hear it.
They are still so mad they lost in 2004 they are seething with hatred. And I sure dont want those people in control of My National Security!
Great post by the way :-)
Marie,
Can you and your friends manage to disagree with a judge's ruling without calling him or her a terrorist lover?
People who disagree with how Bush is conducting "the war on terror" are not traitors? Okay?
That kind of rhetoric is what the Communists used to quash dissent in their totalitarian regimes.
And Mr. Castro would love you to work for him. See, he and his thugs called people traitors to their cause and then killed them.
PEOPLE WHO DISAGREE WITH BUSH (he is not a king) ARE NOT TERRORISTS.
Actually, Marie, people like you who wish to eliminate all dissent and disagreement, even in war time, have no understanding of the principles that this country was founded on. Americans have always dissented in times of war, starting with the Revolution.
Understand? Read history. It is very enlightening.
FOX news will not inform you. It's job is to keep people ignorant.
And when you say there's nothing in the Constitution about wire-tapping, that exposes your ignorance of the Bill of Rights. I't not a shame to be ignorant, just to willfully stay that way. I've been ignorant of many things in my life, but I try to learn and educate myself.
Here is the fourth amendment to the Bill of Rights that covers illegal wire tapping, and this is what the judge, an American citizen and someone who actually knows the law, referred to in her ruling:
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The British managed to thwart the terrorist plot in England by abiding by their laws.
Why can't Bush? Is he too weak?
Or do you love totalitarian rule?
You and your friends here sure sound like you do.
1) Bush has the right to do any and everything he and he alone deems necessary to protect this country.
2) All dissenters and people who disagree are labeled traitors and are to be demonized and run out of the country.
3) There should be one party rule in all three branches of government. Except, of course, for those Democrats, like Joe Lieberman, who act like Republicans.
THIS IS EXACTLY HOW ISLAMOFACISTS BEHAVE AND HOW COMMIES BEHAVE.
Think about it.
it violates the rights to free speech and privacy, and the separation of powers.
I strongly disagree with Judge Taylor's conclusions, on all counts.
Can you and your friends manage to disagree with a judge's ruling without calling him or her a terrorist lover?
I can.
I don't think Judge Taylor is evil incarnate or a "bad judge". I just think that she is wrong, and made a very sloppy ruling. Which does cause me to question her "nonpartisanship" in making the ruling.
Legal scholars on both sides of the aisle are talking about how chock full of holes her 43 page ruling is.
, Marie, people like you who wish to eliminate all dissent and disagreement, even in war time, have no understanding of the principles that this country was founded on.
That's hilariously odd. I often find that it is overwhelmingly from the Left that dissent is not tolerated. How often are conservative voices shouted down at speaking engagements and on university campuses? Diversity seems to apply, only so long as you do not represent conservative ideology.
Americans have always dissented in times of war, starting with the Revolution.
Understand? Read history. It is very enlightening.
FOX news will not inform you. It's job is to keep people ignorant.
Maybe I don't come here often enough...but why the condescending tone?
And I suppose CNN, the BBC, the CBC, CBS, and all the countless other news broadcasters are better at information dissemination?
Here is the fourth amendment to the Bill of Rights that covers illegal wire tapping, and this is what the judge, an American citizen and someone who actually knows the law, referred to in her ruling:
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Against unreasonable searches.
Furthermore, the 4th Amendment doesn't apply in the case of the NSA telephone data-mining. The phone lines and air-waves are not your private property. One commenter at Wizbang made this observation:
the fourth amendment doesn’t protect the fact that you use them or who you use them with. It’s the same as if the police parked on the street and watched your coming and going. The police can even follow you on public streets and into any public location to see where you go, what you do, and who you meet, all without a warrant. The fourth amendment not only doesn’t protect individuals from such observation, but requires it in most cases to prove probable cause before a warrant can be issued.
The British managed to thwart the terrorist plot in England by abiding by their laws.
Note that the plot involved calls made into the U.S. (still want to rail and wail about NSA Surveillance?).
And Britain learned over a year ago, the price for not having NSA-type monitoring programs in place, where you listen in on the bad guys:
The suicide bombers who killed 52 passengers on London’s transit system had a string of contacts with someone in Pakistan just before striking, Britain’s top law enforcement official said Thursday.
However, authorities admitted they didn’t know what was discussed in those contacts and stuck with their contention that the blasts were a home-grown plot and that the degree of involvement by al-Qaida, if any, was unknown.
Thursday’s report by the Intelligence and Security Committee concluded that intelligence agents had been alerted to two of the suicide bombers before the attacks but limited resources prevented them from uncovering the plot.
Why can't Bush? Is he too weak?
Weakness is caving into Democrats who don't perceive that we are in a real war; either that, or they are simply engaged in partisan politics, as President Bush is not only within his Constitutional rights as President, but he has also not "seized" any more powers than previous presidents have done under other and similar circumstances.
From The LA Times:
read Geoffrey R. Stone's 2004 book "Perilous Times: Free Speech in Wartime from the Sedition Act of 1798 to the War on Terrorism." It tells how John Adams jailed a congressman for criticizing his "continual grasp for power." How Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and had the army arrest up to 38,000 civilians suspected of undermining the Union cause. How Woodrow Wilson imprisoned Socialist Party leader Eugene Debs for opposing U.S. entry into World War I. And how Franklin D. Roosevelt consigned 120,000 Japanese Americans to detention camps.
You can also read about how presidents from FDR to Richard Nixon used the FBI to spy on, and occasionally blackmail and harass, their political opponents. The Senate's Church Committee in 1976 blew the whistle on decades of misconduct, including FBI investigations of such nefarious characters as Eleanor Roosevelt, William O. Douglas, Barry Goldwater and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.
Also: FDR's Surveillance.
There is no "over-reach" of power. There is no threat to your civil liberties. We are talking about listening in to conversations between known and suspected Al Qaeda operatives communicating with those in the United States. Wouldn't you want our government to know about that? The U.S. government can give a rat's ass about listening in to purple jesus calling in to his favorite 1-800 phone sex hotline.
Here's what a panel of former Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court judges said back in late March to members of the Senate Judiciary Committee:
a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act does not override the president's constitutional authority to spy on suspected international agents under executive order.
Think about that, mrs. green.
Mrs. Green,
Marie,
Can you and your friends manage to disagree with a judge's ruling without calling him or her a terrorist lover?
~~~~~~~~~~~~
NOPE!!! As I let you and Purple Jesus and other stray Liberal Lunatic's get away with MURDER on this blog, I will NOT speak for my friends and they are allowed to express thier opinions, and say any damn thing they want on this blog even if you dont like it!
As for terrorist Lover, I said Terrorist Sympathizer and that's exactly what the Carter appointed Judge who ruled in this matter is.
Any Judge who rules against one of our most vital tools in the prevention of another terrorist attack on this Country, and then goes into a 43 page diatribe against our President who is Commander-In-Chief during a time of War, IS a Terrorist Sympathizer!
People who disagree with how Bush is conducting "the war on terror" are not traitors? Okay?
That kind of rhetoric is what the Communists used to quash dissent in their totalitarian regimes.
And Mr. Castro would love you to work for him. See, he and his thugs called people traitors to their cause and then killed them.
PEOPLE WHO DISAGREE WITH BUSH (he is not a king) ARE NOT TERRORISTS.
~~~~~~~~~~~
I strongly disagree. Those of you on the Lunatic Left that disagree with the President's handling of the war on terror, especially since IT HAS BEEN WORKING JUST DANDY FOR THE LAST 5 YEARS, are either traitors or just as bad as the terrorists themselves because you people want nothing better than to take away the tools necessary to do this job, and it alsmost seems as if you would wrather see us get attacked again, and if that isnt Traitorous I dont know what else to call it!
Mr. Castro? What? Were you along with Cindy Sheehan on her last trip to South America or something?
Mr. Castro, P'Shaw!
Actually, Marie, people like you who wish to eliminate all dissent and disagreement, even in war time, have no understanding of the principles that this country was founded on. Americans have always dissented in times of war, starting with the Revolution.
Understand? Read history. It is very enlightening.
FOX news will not inform you. It's job is to keep people ignorant.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oh Please you already made yourself look like an idiot on a response you made to JG about the Viet Nam War, why dont you try reading history for once or maybe you like to be scewered when you are proven to be wrong.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
~~~~~~~~~~~
I see nothing about calls made from Al-Quaida to the United States, or vise versa or telephones for that matter in the Constitution.
But if we must, we can get into the "Probable Cause" content. Which any calls made by Al-Quaida to any individual in the United States or Vise Versa would constitute "Probable Cause".
The British managed to thwart the terrorist plot in England by abiding by their laws.
~~~~~~~~~~
Do you know why the British managed to thwart the terror attacks? BECAUSE THEY DONT HAVE A CONSTITUTION! They listen in on calls from Terrorists to someone in thier country or vise versa constantly without having to go to any court to get a warrant, they are allowed to hold "Suspected Terrorists" for up to 30 days WITHOUT A WARRANT, and they are allowed to go into peoples homes that are suspected of being terrorists without probable cause nor a warrant simply on "SUSPICION"!
THAT'S THIER LAWS!!!
And this being a time of war I wish to God we could adopt some of thier laws.
1) Bush has the right to do any and everything he and he alone deems necessary to protect this country.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
President Bush has the power to do whatever is necessary to prevent us from getting attacked again, unlike the previous administration.
You bet your ass he does!
The fact is Mrs. Green, we arent going to let you or your ilk jeoprodise our National Security again.
No one trusts you on the left with the Security of this Country, no matter how much you try and paint over it!
Word,
Can you and your friends manage to disagree with a judge's ruling without calling him or her a terrorist lover?
I can.
~~~~~~~~~
You are a much kinder person than I lol.
Word,
I hadnt read your entire post until now.
That was very informative. And a brilliant post I might add.
But when I got to:
The U.S. government can give a rat's ass about listening in to purple jesus calling in to his favorite 1-800 phone sex hotline.
I damn near spit out my Ice water lol.
I will have to remember not to have Ice water in my mouth next time I read your posts!!
HaHa that was to good.
"No I don't believe everyone that dessents from current adminstration policy is a traitor. I believe that people that actively make it imppossible to fight a war against people that would desatroy us are traitors. I think the ACLU qualifies in that particular line of endeavor." --jg
jg,
Can you supply us with hard evidence on how dissenting liberals, conservatives or libertarians are actively making it impossible for Donald Rumsfeld to conduct the war in Iraq? The Joint Chiefs of Staff? General Pace?
Have they changed their war strategies?
And if they have as a direct result of people who dissent from Bush's war policies, could you please provide the evidence?
Thank you.
Bush has the ability under the FISA laws to listen in on anyone's conversations. Anyone's. Anytime. He and his AG choose to ignore the FISA law.
t.w.f.Nantucket,
Listing all the past presidents and how they disgraced our Constitution during war time shows us again and again how easily we could fall under the boot of a dictator.
Usually, when the fever and fear of wartime is over, we step back and see how insane the actions of those in power were. And how those actions imperiled the very foundations of our liberties and disgraced us as a people who are supposed to believe in liberty and justice.
You find nothing wrong with a little bit of totalitarianism in times of war. I reject it all.
WE are supposed to be the beacon of light for human dignity, courage and justice. We're not supposed to fall into the same muddy swamp that other countries slosh around in when fear overwhelms them and turns them against their own citizens.
If we’re in such a titanic struggle with radical Islam, and if getting Iraq right is at the center of that struggle, why did Bush fight the Iraq war with the Rumsfeld Doctrine — just enough troops to lose — and not the Powell Doctrine of overwhelming force to create the necessary foundation of any democracy-building project, which is security? How could Bush send so few troops to fight such an important war when it was obvious that without security Iraqis would fall back on their tribal militias?
IF we’re in a titanic struggle with Islamic fascists, why has Bush resisted any serious effort to get Americans to conserve energy?
Why does Bush administration refuse to push higher mileage standards for U.S. automakers or a gasoline tax that would curb our imports of oil?
According to you conservatives, we are in the biggest struggle of our lives BUT we are funding both sides — the U.S. military with our tax dollars and the radical Islamists and the governments and charities that support them with our gasoline purchases — and Bush won’t lift a finger to change that. Why?
Because it might impose pain on the oil companies and auto lobbies that fund the G.O.P., or require some sacrifice by Americans?
IF we’re in a titanic struggle with Islamic fascists, why does Bush constantly use the “war on terrorism” as a wedge issue in domestic politics to frighten voters away from Democrats. How are we going to sustain such a large, long-term struggle if we are a divided country?
Spare me, twf nantucket, jg, marie, your flag-waving rhetoric about the war on terror we are in and how Democrats just don’t understand it. It is just so phony — such a patent ploy to divert Americans from the fact that Bush and his party have never risen to the challenge of this war. You will the ends, but you won’t will the means. What frauds!
Y'know, Marie, when people find they can disagree with President Bush without calling him an un-elected Nazi, then I'll start disagreeing with unelected throwbacks to the Carter Administration without calling them terrorist enablers.
Until then, I remain convinced that a vote for a Democrat is a vote for anti-Semitism and Americans being blown up.
Mrs Green, One would only have to go visit the daily kos or pickup any major newspaper or commune with any other so-called mainstream media outlet to find out that people like yourself and your ilk make the country waste precious resources instead of focusing on the enemy...hmmmm... read on
The administration is forced to expend time and resources in front of politcally biased federal judges in certain districts that have been specifically chosen by the ACLU to file the lawsuits in. In these lawsuits the administration has to explain why they are defending the country from attacks by viscious Islamic tyrants and having to expose critical information that will certainly help the terrorists make more effective plans for their next attack.
It is truly a travesty that the democrat party has put all it's eggs in the one basket with the goal of the defeat of their own country in order to gain a politcal advantage. I would say this is setting a new low but then I remember back to Vietnam again.
Stop wasting everyone's time and go find out what you can do for your country not what your country can do for you.
As you wish Mrs Green, I will spare you. I'm done responding to your non-sense.
Stop wasting everyone's time and go find out what you can do for your country not what your country can do for you.
As you wish Mrs Green, I will spare you. I'm done responding to your non-sense.--jg
jg,
You know nothing about me or what I've done for my country. That's a non-sequitur, anyway.
that people like yourself and your ilk make the country waste precious resources instead of focusing on the enemy--jg
When it comes to wasting precious resources instead of focusing on the enemy, Bush will go down in history as the waster, not the decider. America's military is babysitting a civil war in Iraq instead of securing our country from Al Qaeda. Consider all the Al Qaeda attacks in Britain, Spain, and other countries that have been perpetrated while Bush is blundering in Iraq. Resources indeed.
And, believe me, I will manage to go on living even though you're "done responding" to me.
Reality is a bitch isn't it? When confronted by it, you guys cut and run.
Mrs. Green,
When it comes to wasting precious resources instead of focusing on the enemy, Bush will go down in history as the waster, not the decider. America's military is babysitting a civil war in Iraq instead of securing our country from Al Qaeda. Consider all the Al Qaeda attacks in Britain, Spain, and other countries that have been perpetrated while Bush is blundering in Iraq. Resources indeed.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I seriously doubt that ideology, President Bush will go down in History as the Peacemaker-In-Cheif, eccept of course to you Lunatic's on the left.
We are not the world police however since 9-11 sometimes we have to police the world. What goes on in Britain, Spain and elsewhere are the responsibilities of those governments not ours.
This is a "GLOBAL" war on terror, or have you forgotten?
There is NO civil war in Iraq, even though Zarqowi sure tried to make one happen. And his followers still try till this day.
And Al-Quaida is all over the place and has been since 1998 when Bin Laden declared his "Jihad" on America.
Usama being contained to a cave and a donkey looks pretty good to me.
Maybe if the previous administration would have taken Bin Laden when handed to them, we wouldnt be in the situation we are in now.
On the cold morning of January 20th 1961 the newly elected 35th President of the United States of America made his inaugural speech that included the ideas below. If these words where uttered by a president today his enemies would be from his own party and they would call him a far right extremist because of his ideas for people improving their own lives instead of demanding government to do it for them. For those of you that do not know whom I speak then find out and become educated. This man was a role model of American strength and will when I was child. I know where I was.
"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.
This much we pledge—and more.
To those old allies whose cultural and spiritual origins we share, we pledge the loyalty of faithful friends. United, there is little we cannot do in a host of cooperative ventures. Divided, there is little we can do—for we dare not meet a powerful challenge at odds and split asunder.
And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country.
My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man."
Inaugural Speech
JG,
I am not a big fan of any of the Kennedy's.
It was a good speech though made by John.
I dont like the Kennedy's for alot of reason's, not just because Teddy is a murderer and holds up total progress, and leads a fillibuster every time President Bush tries to get anything accomplished, but looking back at the entire Kennedy Clan they have alot of Ghost's in thier closet's.
What irritates me is a story I did a while back, I would have to dig through my archives to find it but, Joe Kennedy and his wife (The Mom and Dad) had one of thier daughter's LABOTOMIZED for absolutely NO REASON! I forget what her name was but I could find it if you are interested in that kind of stuff. She didnt look retarded to me. But they thought she was, and back in that day I guess your parent's could have anything done to a child, especially if you had money.
I dont like any of our President's to be assasinated, I doubt the Lunatic Left would shed a tear if that happened to President Bush however.
I think the only Kennedy that was ever honest and truthful was Joe Jr., the one who got shot down during WW2. He would have probably been a better President or Senator than any of his brothers!
I'm quite familiar with the story of the Kennedys Marie. Joe Jr was being groomed for the presidency but he was blown to pieces in B-17 bomber that was an experiment of the first remote controlled bomb filled plane to be used against difficult targets.
The daughter Rose Marie was slightly retarded and the labotamy procedure was experimental at that time but the parents really did want her to be made well. The operation actually made things much worse and she was in an infatile state until her death.
I grew up with the story of JFK and the PT 109. Jfk was a personal hero of mine for many years. My parents had a record with his famous speeches on it and I listened to them over and over again. As we all found out later JFK was a philanderer and couldn't keep his manhood under control. I look back and see that his political ideals were still those that my parents believed in and I still do to this very day. JFK's personal behavior was abhorrent and some try to justify Cliton's behavior to that of JFK. I strongly disagree. JFK had some very conservative policies that we can be proud of and Clinton...
William Jefferson Clinton was another philanderer but he had no other ideals other than having a big party paid for by the American people and he left the office with the mess we had to deal with on 9/11 2001.
Edward Moore Kennedy (Teddy), is a total waste of humanity and still gets elected because of his last name.
Robert was a flaming big government liberal
You're right Marie about most of the Kenndys but JFK had the special qualities of a great statesman and an American hero but greatly tarnished his legacy by being so unfaithful to his wife with many affairs. I still don't understand how that can be but I still see it that way. Go figure.
JG,
What they Kennedy's did to Rose Marie was imcomprehensible!!!
She was a little slow, and they decided she needed to have a Lobotomy! They thought she was retarded. She wasnt!
Joe Kennedy Sr. also bought John F Kennedy the Presidency.
I cant stand the Kennedy's I am NO fan of any of them!
Especially Teddy (Hiccup) Kennedy
Here is a good look at the Kennedy's
Read This
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
They forgot to add that Joe Kennedy was called home as the Ambassador to England by FDR because he was a Nazi sympathizer and did not want the US to go to war with Germany. Joe Kennedy was outright anti-semitic and the rest of the Kennedy clan are lower than whale poop to me as they are to you Marie.
More dead people voted for JFK in Chicago than live people did in the rest of the State of Illinois. JFK had the ability to rise above his obnoxious family and was on his way to do just that but philandering and then getting assasinated put a stop on that.
I'm the exact same age as Caroline and I hope she will be able to raise children as her mother wanted her to be, not a Kennedy.
I was in Miss Llewellen's 1st grade class when Caroline's father and the President of the United States was shot. As much as a partisan as I am, sometimes you just have to rise above it. That's the difference between me and most liberals.
JG,
More dead people voted for JFK in Chicago than live people did in the rest of the State of Illinois. JFK had the ability to rise above his obnoxious family and was on his way to do just that but philandering and then getting assasinated put a stop on that.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Imagine that! Democrats registering Dead people to vote? Why I Never! Why does this have a familiar ring to it?
I was in Miss Llewellen's 1st grade class when Caroline's father and the President of the United States was shot. As much as a partisan as I am, sometimes you just have to rise above it. That's the difference between me and most liberals.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
JG, the difference between you and other Liberals is you have a brain attached to the head on your shoulders. :-)
This year's Democratic plan for the future is another inane sound bite designed to trick American voters into trusting them with national security.
To wit, they're claiming there is no connection between the war on terror and the war in Iraq, and while they're all for the war against terror — absolutely in favor of that war — they are adamantly opposed to the Iraq war. You know, the war where the U.S. military is killing thousands upon thousands of terrorists (described in the media as "Iraqi civilians," even if they are from Jordan, like the now-dead leader of al-Qaida in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi). That war.
As Howard Dean put it this week, "The occupation in Iraq is costing American lives and hampering our ability to fight the real global war on terror."
This would be like complaining that Roosevelt's war in Germany was hampering our ability to fight the real global war on fascism. Or anti-discrimination laws were hampering our ability to fight the real war on racism. Or dusting is hampering our ability to fight the real war on dust.
Maybe Dean is referring to a different globe, like Mars or Saturn, or one of those new planets they haven't named yet.
Assuming against all logic and reason that the Democrats have some serious objection to the war in Iraq, perhaps they could tell us which part of the war on terrorism they do support. That would be easier than rattling off the long list of counterterrorism measures they vehemently oppose.
They oppose the National Security Agency listening to people who are calling specific phone numbers found on al-Qaida cell phones and computers. Spying on al-Qaida terrorists is hampering our ability to fight the global war on terror!
Enraged that the Bush administration deferred to the safety of the American people rather than the obstructionist Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court, one Clinton-appointed judge, James Robertson, resigned from the FISA court in protest over the NSA spying program.
Democratic Sen. Russell Feingold called for a formal Senate censure of President Bush when he found out the president was rude enough to be listening in on al-Qaida phone calls. (Wait until Feingold finds out the White House has been visiting Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's "MySpace" page!)
Last week a federal judge appointed by Jimmy Carter ruled the NSA program to surveil phone calls to al-Qaida members in other counties unconstitutional.
Democrats oppose the detainment of Taliban and al-Qaida soldiers at our military base in Guantanamo, Cuba. Democrats such as Rep. Jane Harman, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, have called for Guantanamo to be shut down.
The Guantanamo detainees are not innocent insurance salesmen imprisoned in some horrible mix-up like something out of a Perry Mason movie. The detainees were captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan. You remember — the war liberals pretended to support right up until approximately one nanosecond after John Kerry conceded the 2004 election to President Bush.
But apparently, imprisoning al-Qaida warriors we catch on the battlefield is hampering our ability to fight the global war on terror.
Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin has compared Guantanamo to Nazi concentration camps and Soviet gulags, based on a report that some detainees were held in temperatures so cold that they shivered and others were forced to listen to loud rap music — more or less approximating the conditions in the green room at "The Tyra Banks Show." Also, one of the detainees was given a badminton racket that was warped.
New York Times columnist Bob Herbert complained this week that detainees in Guantanamo have "no hope of being allowed to prove their innocence." (I guess that's excluding the hundreds who have been given administrative hearings or released already.)
Of course all the usual "human rights" groups are carping about how brutally our servicemen in Guantanamo are treating the little darlings who are throwing feces at them.
Democrats oppose the Patriot Act, the most important piece of legislation passed since 9/11, designed to make the United States less of a theme park for would-be terrorists.
The vast majority of Senate Democrats (43-2) voted against renewing the Patriot Act last December, whereupon their minority leader, Sen. Harry Reid, boasted: "We killed the Patriot Act" — a rather unusual sentiment for a party so testy about killing terrorists.
In 2004, Sen. John Kerry — the man they wanted to be president — called the Patriot Act "an assault on our basic rights." At least all "basic rights" other than the one about not dying a horrible death at the hand of Islamic fascists. Yes, it was as if Congress had deliberately flown two commercial airliners into the twin towers of our Constitution.
They oppose profiling Muslims at airports.
They oppose every bust of a terrorist cell, sneering that the cells in Lackawanna, New York City, Miami, Chicago and London weren't a real threat like, say, a nondenominational prayer before a high school football game. Now that's a threat.
Post a Comment
<< Home