This 'Wiretap' Thing Is Going To Blowback On Dems

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/006024.php

December 28, 2005
Centrist Dems See 2006 Slipping Away, Too

Today's Washington Times reports on the qualms felt by centrist Democrats over recent efforts by their party to block national-security efforts by the Bush administration. Donald Lambro spoke with two influential DLC advisors, who express concern that the positions taken over the past month by Harry Reid and others in opposition to the Patriot Act and the NSA's efforts to surveil suspected terrorists on international calls will once again demonstrate that the Democrats cannot be trusted with national security decisions in the upcoming election:

Some centrist Democrats say attacks by their party leaders on the Bush administration's eavesdropping on suspected terrorist conversations will further weaken the party's credibility on national security. That concern arises from recent moves by liberal Democrats to block the extension of parts of the USA Patriot Act in the Senate and denunciations of President Bush amid concerns that these initiatives could violate the civil liberties of innocent Americans.

"I think when you suggest that civil liberties are just as much at risk today as the country is from terrorism, you've gone too far if you leave that impression. I don't believe that's true," said Michael O'Hanlon, a national-security analyst at the Brookings Institution who advises Democrats on defense issues. ...

"The Republicans still hold the advantage on every national-security issue we tested," said Mark Penn, a Democratic pollster and former adviser to President Clinton, who co-authored a Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) memo on the party's national-security weaknesses.

Nervousness among Democrats intensified earlier this month after Democrats led a filibuster against the Patriot Act that threatened to block the measure, followed by a victory cry from Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, who declared at a party rally, "We killed the Patriot Act." ...

Recent polls say 56 percent of Americans approve of the job Mr. Bush is doing to protect the country from another terrorist attack.

Even the DLC recognizes the problem, but they have lost the attention of the party leadership as embodied by Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Howard Dean. All three have pitched in with the MoveOn faction of the radical Left, with Reid's now-infamous boast of having "killed" the Patriot Act -- and then watching as it got extended anyway. Both have votes on security issues that demonstrate nothing more than political expediency; both voted for Patriot before they voted against it, recalling the fecklessness of their last Presidential candidate.

Small wonder, then, that the DLC's internal polling shows the Democrats behind on national security issues by anywhere from four to ten points, even at this stage. Once the election cycles start in earnest and the current leadership makes its influence felt, those numbers will expand and probably will cost the Dems even more seats in both the House and Senate. As the Iraq War begins to phase out as an issue, domestic security and the pursuit of AQ will once again take center stage, and American voters won't be fooled with a lot of irrational Bush-hatred in a mid-term election.

One more worry that the Democrats should consider is this: After watching the liberal press dismantle the NSA program on the front pages of the Times and Harry Reid dancing like Grandpa Fred on the corpse of Patriot, the Democrats had better hope that George Bush keeps the country safe from an attack in the next few months. If an attack should occur, a lot of people will start asking what changed, and they're going to look at the New York Times and the Democrats to explain their actions.
 
The one thing Democrats have not learned about Kerry's defeat is Americans want a president that will be gutsy and vigilant in fighting terrorists, especially here.
And yet
 
Bonnie said:
The one thing Democrats have not learned about Kerry's defeat is Americans want a president that will be gutsy and vigilant in fighting terrorists, especially here.
And yet

And polls are showing the 'People' do get it. The dems are setting up the 'blowback':

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20051228-122207-1549r_page2.htm

Some centrist Democrats say attacks by their party leaders on the Bush administration's eavesdropping on suspected terrorist conversations will further weaken the party's credibility on national security.

That concern arises from recent moves by liberal Democrats to block the extension of parts of the USA Patriot Act in the Senate and denunciations of President Bush amid concerns that these initiatives could violate the civil liberties of innocent Americans.

"I think when you suggest that civil liberties are just as much at risk today as the country is from terrorism, you've gone too far if you leave that impression. I don't believe that's true," said Michael O'Hanlon, a national-security analyst at the Brookings Institution who advises Democrats on defense issues.

"I get nervous when I see the Democrats playing this [civil liberties] issue out too far. They had better be careful about the politics of it," said Mr. O'Hanlon, who says the Patriot Act is "good legislation."

These Democrats say attacks on anti-terrorist intelligence programs will deepen mistrust of their ability to protect the nation's security, a weakness that led in part to the defeat of Sen. John Kerry, the Democratic presidential nominee, last year.

"The Republicans still hold the advantage on every national-security issue we tested," said Mark Penn, a Democratic pollster and former adviser to President Clinton, who co-authored a Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) memo on the party's national-security weaknesses.

Nervousness among Democrats intensified earlier this month after Democrats led a filibuster against the Patriot Act that threatened to block the measure, followed by a victory cry from Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, who declared at a party rally, "We killed the Patriot Act."

After Mr. Bush sharply attacked Mr. Reid, saying lack of the Patriot Act "will leave us in a weaker position in the fight against brutal killers," Senate Democrats dropped their filibuster and accepted a six-month extension. A Republican-backed five-week extension was adopted last week by the House and Senate.

Recent polls say 56 percent of Americans approve of the job Mr. Bush is doing to protect the country from another terrorist attack.

"In shaping alternative policies -- particularly on national security, terrorism and Iraq -- Democrats have to be extremely careful to avoid reinforcing the negative stereotype that has cost us so much in the last two national elections," the recent DLC memorandum said.

Republicans led the Democrats by 40 percent to 36 percent on questions about which party can keep the country safe, 45 percent to 40 percent on which party can be trusted on national security and 48 percent to 38 percent on "which party can be trusted more to fight terrorism," the DLC said.

Other Democrats argue that emphasis on protecting civil liberties in surveillance programs won't hurt Democratic candidates.

"The Democrats' vulnerability on national security is not a new problem, but standing up for civil liberties and the Constitution will not make the problem worse and, besides, it's the right thing to do," said Bill Galston, a one-time Clinton White House adviser.

"In standing up for civil liberties and the rule of law, Democrats are not undermining the party's standing on national security," he said.

White House deputy press secretary Trent Duffy yesterday discounted the scope of the eavesdropping operation.

"This is a limited program," he told reporters in Crawford, Texas, where Mr. Bush is vacationing at his ranch.

"This is not about monitoring phone calls designed to arrange Little League practice or what to bring to a potluck dinner. These are designed to monitor calls from very bad people to very bad people who have a history of blowing up commuter trains, weddings and churches."
 
I think it's just the usual making a mountain of a molehill. Anyone that wants to listen in on MY phone conversations must not have a life.

My phone conversations differ little from my posts on here, or my personal conversations in real life, so I really don't care who listens.

Bet your butt if someone tapped Bush's phone the leftwing MSM wouldn't have one qualm about printing it word for word.
 
It's like this... "do I WANT someone listening in on my phone conversations"? Well, actually, I don't give a rats ass. I have nothing to "hide". Is it an intrusion? Yes. But, WE'RE AT FREAKIN' WAR! "SHOULD" America's intelligence agencies listen in on "SUSPECTED" communications with "KNOWN TERRORIST COUNTRIES"?

YOU BET YOUR FREAKIN' ASS!!!

You're an IDIOT and a damn TERRORIST SYMPATHISER if you think otherwise.

(Why are some young people so mother fucking STUPID?)
 
Mariner said:
so scared of terrorism that you're willing to let Big Brother tap your phone and read your email with zero probable cause and no need of a legal review?

How would it have hurt Bush to have the wiretaps reviewed by the judge within three days, just so someone, at least, was keeping an eye on Big Brother?

Already, we've learned that the supposedly international-only monitoring was in fact domestic at times (they're claiming computer error).

Where are the libertarian Republicans on this board? Where are the people who believe in a small, unintrusive government? Is everyone here simply in support of everything George Bush does? Has no one noticed that many Republican Senators' stomachs have gotten a bit upset over this wiretapping business? For once, I'd love to hear one of the regulars take an alternative Republican point of view than Bush's.

Mariner.

Shoot, I wish they would wire tap my phone!
 
Mariner said:
For once, I'd love to hear one of the regulars take an alternative Republican point of view than Bush's.

Mariner.

Your head is so far up your ass you couldnt hear anything anyways.
 
I noticed you failed to respond to Adams Apple question re: one person who has had their rights violated due to the patriot act.

You might think we dont notice, but we do. It doesnt make you look good or be persuasive at all, well, then again, nothing you do is.....

Mariner said:
When people say, "They mean to kill you," they are playing into the fear that is exactly what Osama bin Laden wanted to spread.
Mariner.

What an idiotic statement

FIrst, what makes you assume that if we agree with letting the President do wiretaps, that our decision is based on "fear"?

And do you really think OBL wants us to be scared to the point that we will give more ammunition to the one man who is willing, and can do the most damage to his network? :cuckoo:
 
LuvRPgrl said:
I noticed you failed to respond to Adams Apple question re: one person who has had their rights violated due to the patriot act.

You might think we dont notice, but we do. It doesnt make you look good or be persuasive at all, well, then again, nothing you do is.....



What an idiotic statement

FIrst, what makes you assume that if we agree with letting the President do wiretaps, that our decision is based on "fear"?

And do you really think OBL wants us to be scared to the point that we will give more ammunition to the one man who is willing, and can do the most damage to his network? :cuckoo:

It is interesting that M has not considered a strong possibility...that is "THEY WANT TO KILL YOU!" AQ and many other Muslim extremists have stated such publicly many, many times and their actions lend much weight to their words. It seems to me that if someone makes such a statement and then proceeds to prove it, a prudent person would do all they could to prevent the successful completion of such a plan.
 
LuvRPgrl said:
I noticed you failed to respond to Adams Apple question re: one person who has had their rights violated due to the patriot act.

You might think we dont notice, but we do. It doesnt make you look good or be persuasive at all, well, then again, nothing you do is.....

I didn't expect a response. I knew he couldn't provide a verifiable example of a person who had his/her rights violated due to the Patriot Act.

The libs like to shot off their mouths without any factual basis. I recognize it as that--hope others do as well--and go on to other things.
 
Adam's Apple said:
Here's a perfect example of a professional writer who can put your thinking on this spying topic into better words than you can. BTW, if you're a fan of Kathleen Parker's writing as I am, her best columns are now being printed by Jewish World Review.

Spies Like Us
By Kathleen Parker
December 30, 2005

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/kathleen/parker123005.php3

Excellent! I like this:

...Thus, try as I might, I can't muster outrage over what appears to be a reasonable action in the wake of 9/11. As a rule, I'm as averse as anyone to having people "spying" on me. I'm also as devoted to protecting civil liberties as any other American.


But the privilege of debating our constitutional rights requires first that we be alive. If federal agents want to listen in on suspected terrorists as they plot their next mass murder, please allow me to turn up the volume.


Meanwhile, unless I start placing calls to Peshawar using phrases such as "I want my 72 virgins now," then I figure I'm safe to make my next hair appointment without fear of exposure. OK, fine, so I highlight...

Related I'd say to this thread:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?p=368302#post368302
 
Seems like WaPo thinks this is a 'bad' idea, but I doubt that many agree with that take. This is exactly what was missing prior to 9/11:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/31/AR2005123100808_pf.html

NSA Gave Other U.S. Agencies Information From Surveillance
Fruit of Eavesdropping Was Processed and Cross-Checked With Databases

By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, January 1, 2006; A08

Information captured by the National Security Agency's secret eavesdropping on communications between the United States and overseas has been passed on to other government agencies, which cross-check the information with tips and information collected in other databases, current and former administration officials said.

The NSA has turned such information over to the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and to other government entities, said three current and former senior administration officials, although it could not be determined which agencies received what types of information. Information from intercepts -- which typically includes records of telephone or e-mail communications -- would be made available by request to agencies that are allowed to have it, including the FBI, DIA, CIA and Department of Homeland Security, one former official said.

At least one of those organizations, the DIA, has used NSA information as the basis for carrying out surveillance of people in the country suspected of posing a threat, according to two sources. A DIA spokesman said the agency does not conduct such domestic surveillance but would not comment further. Spokesmen for the FBI, the CIA and the director of national intelligence, John D. Negroponte, declined to comment on the use of NSA data.

Since the revelation last month that President Bush had authorized the NSA to intercept communications inside the United States, public concern has focused primarily on the legality of the NSA eavesdropping. Less attention has been paid to, and little is known about, how the NSA's information may have been used by other government agencies to investigate American citizens or to cross-check with other databases. In the 1960s and 1970s, the military used NSA intercepts to maintain files on U.S. peace activists, revelations of which prompted Congress to restrict the NSA from intercepting communications of Americans.

Today's NSA intercepts yield two broad categories of information, said a former administration official familiar with the program: "content," which would include transcripts of a phone call or e-mail, and "non-content," which would be records showing, for example, who in the United States was called by, or was calling, a number in another country thought to have a connection to a terrorist group. At the same time, NSA tries to limit identifying the names of Americans involved.

"NSA can make either type of information available to other [intelligence] agencies where relevant, but with appropriate masking of its origin," meaning that the source of the information and method of getting it would be concealed, the former official said.

Agencies that get the information can use it to conduct "data mining," or looking for patterns or matches with other databases that they maintain, which may or may not be specifically geared toward detecting terrorism threats, he said. "They are seeking to separate the known from the unknown, relationships or associations," he added...
 
Adam's Apple said:
I didn't expect a response. I knew he couldn't provide a verifiable example of a person who had his/her rights violated due to the Patriot Act.

The libs like to shot off their mouths without any factual basis. I recognize it as that--hope others do as well--and go on to other things.

Its always good to call them on it.
 
It's like this... "do I WANT someone listening in on my phone conversations"? Well, actually, I don't give a rats ass. I have nothing to "hide". Is it an intrusion? Yes. But, WE'RE AT FREAKIN' WAR! "SHOULD" America's intelligence agencies listen in on "SUSPECTED" communications with "KNOWN TERRORIST COUNTRIES"?

YOU BET YOUR FREAKIN' ASS!!!

You're an IDIOT and a damn TERRORIST SYMPATHISER if you think otherwise.

(Why are some young people so mother fucking STUPID?)

How do you like the Patriot Act now?
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top