Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Avatar4321 said:I dont really care. I agree if someone tapped my phone they would be pretty disappointed. I mean they would get a phone call like ones a week maybe and lots of me hanging up on telemarketers.
I wouldnt know about it. so its not like it would be terribly intrusive. Its not taking up any of my time. The Constitution does not say anything about the government not having authority to listen to my telephone.
You know its amazing how just obeying the law leaves you free from any consequences of the law. I guess i understand why so many liberals are worried.
December 19, 2005
Have The Democrats Walked Into a Trap......Again?
By John McIntyre
The political pendulum is swinging back towards President Bush. The Presidents approval rating has a pattern of dipping when he takes his Crawford vacation every August then bouncing back in September upon his return to Washington. This year, however, beginning with Cindy Sheehan, followed by Katrina, Harriet Miers, the Fitzgerald investigation, and the negative drip-drip-drip of reporting out of Iraq, Bushs job approval continued to drop into the beginning of November.
The last days in October laid the ground work for the Presidents turn around. The Miers withdrawal and subsequent nomination of Samuel Alito staunched the bleeding from a large part of Bushs base, and the sole indictment from Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald removed a major distraction for the White House. (At least that is the way the Fitzgerald inquiry looks today, barring any future, unexpected indictment(s).) With the foundation laid, the White House launched a political counter-attack on Veterans Day with a speech by President Bush directly criticizing his opponents for rewriting the history of how the war in Iraq began.
Not recognizing the political ground had shifted beneath their feet, Democrats continued to press forward with their offensive against the President. Theyve now foolishly climbed out on a limb that Rove and Bush have the real potential to chop off. One would think that after the political miscalculations the Democrats made during the 2002 and 2004 campaigns they would not make the same mistake a third time, but it is beginning to look a lot like Charlie Brown and the football again.
First, the Democrats still do not grasp that foreign affairs and national security issues are their vulnerabilities, not their strengths. All of the drumbeat about Iraq, spying, and torture that the left thinks is so damaging to the White House are actually positives for the President and Republicans. Apparently, Democrats still have not fully grasped that the public has profound and long-standing concerns about their ability to defend the nation. As long as national security related issues are front page news, the Democrats are operating at a structural political disadvantage. Perhaps the intensity of their left wing base and the overwhelmingly liberal press corps produces a disorientation among Democratic politicians and prevents a more realistic analysis of where the countrys true pulse lies on these issues.
With their publicly defeatist language, John Murtha, Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean reinforce these soft on security steroretypes, a weakness that more sober-minded Democrats have been trying to mitigate since the late 60s and 70s. Unfortunately, this mentality dominates the Democrats political base and more accurately represents where the heart and soul of the modern Democratic party lies than the very tiny sliver of Joe Lieberman Democrats. The Party of FDR, Truman and John Kennedy -- at least on foreign policy -- is clearly no more.
In 2002, Republicans very skillfully were able to paint the Democrats as obstructionists on the Homeland Security bill and used the issue to bash Democrats as soft on the War on Terror. In 2004, perceptions that when it came to defending the nation, the leadership and resolve of President Bush was superior to the Democrat Kerry was always the tailwind at Bushs back that led him to victory.
And while 9/11 has certainly faded in the consciousness for most in Washington these days (and for many in the country as a whole), for average Joe American security is still a critically important issue. And the bottom line is that average Americans sympathies are not with terrorists trying to kill innocents, but rather with our troops and security agents who are trying to combat these jihadists.
The public resents the overkill from Abu Ghraib and the hand-wringing over whether captured terrorists down in Gitmo may have been mistreated. They want Kahlid Mohamed, one of the master minds of 9/11 and a top bin Laden lieutanent, to be water-boarded if our agents on the ground think that is what necessary to get the intel we need. They want the CIA to be aggressively rounding up potential terrorists worldwide and keeping them in black sites in Romania or Poland or wherever, because the public would rather have suspected terrorists locked away in secret prisons in Bulgaria than plotting to kill Americans in Florida or California or New York.
The public also has the wisdom to understand that when you are at war mistakes will be made. You cant expect 100% perfection. So while individuals like Kahled Masri may have been mistakenly imprisoned, that is the cost of choosing to aggressively fight this enemy. Everyone understands that innocents were killed and imprisoned mistakenly in World War II. Had we prosecuted WWII with the same concern for the enemys rights the outcome very well might have been different.
One of the major problems working against Democrats is many on their side appear to be rooting for failure in Iraq and publicly ridicule the idea that we actually might win. When this impression is put in context of the debate over eavesdropping or the Patriot Act, Democrats run the significant risk of being perceived to be more concerned with the enemys rights than protecting ordinary Americans. This is a loser for Democrats.
If Democrats want to make this spying outrage a page one story they are fools walking right into a trap. Now that this story is out and the security damage is already done, lets have a full investigation into exactly who the President spied on and why. Lets also find out who leaked this highly classified information and prosecute them to the full extent of the law. If the president is found to have broken the law and spied on political opponents or average Americans who had nothing to do with terrorism, then Bush should be impeached and convicted.
But unlike Senator Levin, who claimed on Meet The Press yesterday not to know what the Presidents motives were when he authorized these eavesdropping measures, I have no doubt that the Presidents use of this extraordinary authority was solely an attempt to deter terrorist attacks on Americans and our allies. Let the facts and the truth come out, but the White Houses initial response is a pretty powerful signal that they arent afraid of where this is heading.
More grounded Democrats may be thinking twice about the change in the political dialogue these past three weeks. Harry Reid had to reiterate twice on FOX News Sunday that the he is opposed to evil terrorists. That is about as loud of a warning bell as you can get. The public may not like all or even the majority of what President Bush is doing, but they have no doubt about his stance toward the evil-doers.
With the resounding success of last weeks election, it will become harder for the press and the Democrats to frame Iraq as an unmitigated disaster. You could see the mainstream media walking back the negativity in their coverage of Iraq this past week and, while I have no doubt the negative reporting will return, at some point the facts start to win out just as has happened with the economy. Ironically, one benefit to the Bush administration from the consistently negative reporting on Iraq is that expectations have now been set so low the odds are better than 50-50 that 2006 will be viewed by the public as having seen significant progress in Iraq.
The media may be writing stories about Bush in a bubble but they are two months late to that theme. Just like the spring and summer of 2004 when the conventional beltway wisdom said that Bushs sub-50% job approval made him a political goner, there is a distinct sense this president is being misunderestimated again.
Kathianne said:
Ah, so you really are worried. :shocked:Bullypulpit said:"The political pendulum is swing back towards President Bush...". You should remember what happens when the pendulum swings too sharply. Recall, if you will, Poe's "<i>The Pit and the Pendulum</i>"
Kathianne said:Ah, so you really are worried. :shocked:
It swung too sharply against the policies, but then again, I was constantly harping on the failure of the administration to address the onslaught, now they have.
Bullypulpit said:This imperial presidency cannot come to an end soon enough. I only hope he has the grace to resign before he disgraces himself by being impeached and removed from office.
Oh yea there was one more reason for the timing. Simon & Schuster were releasing the reporter's book:Adam's Apple said:...
This latest campaign by the NYT is politically motivated--nothing more, nothing less. They are anti Patriot Act. They chose to release this story when they did to defeat its continuance, not for any other reason.
Adam's Apple said:Ah, Bully, such wishful thinking! But go ahead, dream on, if you want. It's just ain't going to happen. If you libs can stand up and defend Clinton's breaking and bending of the laws with "it was only sex", then we can stand up and defend President Bush's actions with "he was only trying to protect America and its people". Neither you nor your esteemed NYT can give one incident where President Bush used this power to eavesdrop on ordinary American citizens. As you both know, the eavesdropping audience was a targeted one--those who had a known connection to Al Quada. And it worked. We have not had another attack on our homeland since 9/11, and the FBI has been able to thwart many planned attacks.
Maybe the NYT would like to demonstrate for us that President Bush asked the FBI to deliver top ranking Democrats' personnel files to the White House, like the Clintons did. Now that, Bully, was misuse of power, and something to be really concerned about, but where were the concerned Democrat voices on that one? There's a big difference between what one President did to defend the country and what one President did for political purposes.
This latest campaign by the NYT is politically motivated--nothing more, nothing less. They are anti Patriot Act. They chose to release this story when they did to defeat its continuance, not for any other reason.
Hardly, not with the polls showing that the reason Kerry was trailing was public concern over security and the war effort.Bullypulpit said:Were it truly political, they would have released the story when it came into their hands, just before the election in '04. But they didn't, at the request of the administration.
Again, there is not one scintilla of evidence of this being the case. There is however evidence that there have been lots of activities carried out beyond the eyes of the public, regarding the breaking up of cells and arrests and deportations. Sorry but the evidence that this was done for the protection of the US citizens has the better argument.Dubbyuh's, and his administration's, outrage over this matter is not because it compromised national security, but because his actions were illegal. The outrage, the press conferences, the addresses are little more than a desperate attempt to cover the President's ass.
Wow, how you got here from there is a wonder! Got some links?Given the lack of oversight of this eavesdropping program, one can only surmise it is being used to surveil Administration opponents at home. Broad, easily accessible powers to conduct domestic surveillance operations are already provided for by FISA. God forbid a Quaker group in Florida should get uppity.
For the intercountry observations, warrants were obtained. The questions, which will now be looked into, are on calls between a foreign country and the US located phone participant-not necessarily a US citizen, but like the Saudis on 9/11 perhaps a green card or other visa holder. I can live with this, though it may now change. I doubt if it does we will be safer.But more to the point, that so many here believe the President is justified in his actions and can, in essence, do whatever he wishes to "defend the homeland" tells me that the terrorists have won. When our civil liberties can be suspended on a whim...When the Constitution can be tossed aside like so much waste paper...When we are so fearful as a people that we will unquestioningly accept such abuses of power...The terrorists have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams.
Hardly is that all, remember the abuse of the FBI files? How about the same behavior on taps that the dems are now refusing to acknowledge? If Bush is going to be condemned by this, Clinton will be right there with him. Not too mention JFK, Johnson, and others.Just an afterthought...Your analogy to Goatboy's behavior doesn't hold water. He lied to a Grand Jury about consensual sex between two adults and was impeached for it, and he should have resigned. Dubbyuh's lies and actions, however, undermine the Constitution and the rule of law in America.
Not even close.Dismissed.
Bullypulpit said:.When the Constitution can be tossed aside like so much waste paper...When we are so fearful as a people that we will unquestioningly accept such abuses of power...The terrorists have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. [QUOTE/]
Where is the proof of those statements? I think the NYT is helping the terrorist succeed far more than any action President Bush has taken.
Dubbyuh's lies and actions, however, undermine the Constitution and the rule of law in America.
Just your opinion. W. neither undermined the Constitution nor the rule of law in America. And there are plenty of posts right here to support that. Dismissed.
no1tovote4 said:Harry Reid admitted he was briefed on this, do you think the Minority Leader of the Senate was lying?
Adam's Apple said:Bullypulpit said:.When the Constitution can be tossed aside like so much waste paper...When we are so fearful as a people that we will unquestioningly accept such abuses of power...The terrorists have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. [QUOTE/]
Where is the proof of those statements? I think the NYT is helping the terrorist succeed far more than any action President Bush has taken.
Just your opinion. W. neither undermined the Constitution nor the rule of law in America. And there are plenty of posts right here to support that. Dismissed.
As you said...Just your opinion. Lemming.
Be that as it may, if he or Rockefeller or anyone else, ie Spector had so many reservations, you think that they, mostly if not all lawyers, really wouldn't know the procedures for oversight? C'mon Bully, this is BS.Bullypulpit said:New information...
<blockquote>Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, said he was briefed just once on the program, earlier this year, and was never given an opportunity to endorse or oppose it. The account was apparently incomplete and lacking "key details," based on recent public reports about the NSA spying, Reid said. - <a href=http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/bal-te.nsa20dec20,1,4080651.story?coll=bal-attack-headlines>The Baltimore Sun</a></blockquote>
Important details like...the illegal parts.
Big Brother W.?
The Moose doesn't think it's 1984.
The latest imbroglio over the revelation that the government eavesdropped into the international phone calls of U.S. citizens does not set the Moose's antlers on fire. The Administration is going to have to offer a better explanation for why they failed to go to court to get authorization. And we should also have an inquiry into a leak that might have endangered national security.
In the aftermath of 9/11, America learned that it was ill-prepared for this new threat. Old laws dealing with new technologies were an anachronism. The "FISA" process, if not the authorization, was often burdensome and slow with a relatively high standard of proof. The Administration perhaps should have moved to alter those laws if they were obstacles to national security.
However, as of yet, there is no clear evidence that they broke the law. Lawyers will endlessly debate the legitimacy of the Administration's citing of the Al Quaeda force resolution for authorization. Moreover, there was a legitimate concern that an open debate about modifications in the FISA law could have alerted our enemies that their calls were detected. And does anyone seriously believe that the targets of these calls were anyone else than potential security threats? There is absolutely no evidence that this was a "Nixonian" enemies list witch hunt.
Now that the controversy is out in the open, Democrats and Republicans should work together to improve and clarify the law rather than seeking retribution for past misunderstandings. The bottom line should be strengthening our national security while maintaining our liberties to the fullest extent possible.
What we do know is that we have not suffered another attack on the Homeland since 9/11. That is a miraculous fact. And President Bush should be applauded for protecting the country rather than excoriated, to say nothing of impeachment which is on the lips of some Democrats.
We also know that, while there have been excesses here and there, our fundamental freedoms have not been infringed since the first massive assault on the homeland by foreign enemies since the War of 1812. Certainly, we have not suffered an abrogation of our liberties anything near the scale of Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus or FDR's relocation camps.
We are at war with a Jihadist enemy who wants us and our families dead. It is not clear that some of our elites recognize that fact or care any more. And some on the left fear that President Bush is a greater threat to our nation's security and liberties than the Jihadists.
If the ACLU is upset about the Patriot Act, fine, It is their job to push the outside of the envelope. But it is another thing when a Party almost unanimously obstructs its reauthorization over minor objections after significant compromises have been achieved. And it does not provide any solace that Larry Craig and John Sununu were on the Democrats' side.
When it comes to the War Against Terror, there is no room for right wing or left wing libertarianism. Of course, we should guard our freedoms and be vigilant for excesses. But, our robust democracy is not endanger. If international phone calls by terrorist suspects were monitored, good and fine. What is in question is whether some of our elites continue to believe that we are actually at war with a devious foe. Memories of 9/11 are fading and many act as if the threat has gone away.
On the political front, in the past month, there has been a systematic effort at self-branding by the Democratic Party, and it is not good. From the defeatist Iraq talk to the obstruction on the Patriot Act, the donkey is effectively "rebranding' and "framing" itself as weak on national security. George Lakoff should be proud! Rather than the 2006 election being about the GOP' s weak ethics, it may be about the Democrat's anemic defense credentials.
We live in a period that is similar to the Cold War in that there is an over-riding national security threat. The fundamental political and policy question is which party will the American people trust to defend the country and their families?
-- Posted at 8:15 AM
Bullypulpit said:Adam's Apple said:Bullypulpit said:..
As you said...Just your opinion. Lemming.
Hardly, Bully. but, of course, you don't like to read or accept anything contrary to the standard liberal line, so I'd say you are as much a "lemming" for the left as you think I am for the right. Dismissed.
....
Bullypulpit said:New information...
<blockquote>Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, said he was briefed just once on the program, earlier this year, and was never given an opportunity to endorse or oppose it. The account was apparently incomplete and lacking "key details," based on recent public reports about the NSA spying, Reid said. - <a href=http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/bal-te.nsa20dec20,1,4080651.story?coll=bal-attack-headlines>The Baltimore Sun</a></blockquote>
Important details like...the illegal parts.
There ya go, no GOOD NEWS from Iraq is allowed in the Democratic WAR on BUSH romper room.Questions about the domestic NSA eavesdropping derailed what Bush had hoped would be an opportunity to highlight progress in Iraq, after last week's democratic elections that drew broad participation.
And here we have it again with a new twist, BUSH LIED! And Halliburton is in there too.Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia, the senior Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, said he attended a classified briefing on the program in July 2003 and accused Bush of misrepresenting those sessions. Rockefeller also said Vice President Dick Cheney never responded to concerns he expressed about the activities.
GotZoom said:If you aren't guilty of anything, what is the problem? I have nothing to hide - watch me all you want.
