Slaves to George W. Bush and the Republican Party

No evidence, huh?

1. Where are these documents? Let's see them.

2. Do you know for sure that there were not those within that group who were not dealing with terrorists? How do you know?

Joseph Botwinick

 

http://tinyurl.com/dc57u </font>[/QUOTE]So far all we have is a bunch of speculation and smear from a bunch of dishonest little peace sissies.

Joseph Botwinick

 

JB, we said there are reports, we showed the reports, you disrgard the reports. The proof you want is the actuall recordings from the wiretaps, I doubt we will get those.

I would assume even if there was proof you would still justify it by saying that these are "bad" liberal groups and that the Constitution is a living document that doesn't matter. Besides the administration should have the power to do whatever it needs to do to monitor any group that would speak out against the "war on terror". Right?

I haven't faulted the administration, just said that these reports need to be investigated and shown to be true or false. We can't give the federal government a blank check and free reign to do whatever they feel.

 

This supposed DOD investigation does not seem to be the same program that Bush is catching flak for. I did not read anything about wiretaps and such.

 

Yea, anyone who is in favor of peace is a real "sissy!" Kind of like that Jesus guy, right?

 

Matthew 10[34] Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

 

Nowhere in the Constitution or the oath of office of the presidency does it say that the United States or it's agents do not have the right or authority to monitor communications of it's enemies during a time of war.

What you people are so conveniently forgetting to mention is that these are Al Queda operatives.

If the government were sayin, "Joe Blow is a subversive, let's keep tabs on him", then you might have a point but that isn't what's happening here.

The NSA and teh FBI are monitoring phone calls from Al Queda operatives.

In the days leading up to Pearl Harbor, Japanese spies were all over Hawaii and they conversed freely over private, unsecured telephone lines. They reported their information to Tokyo and received orders from Tokyo over the phone.

Should the government have monitored their calls?

Of course it should have.

There is no Constitutional right to share information with the enemy during a time of war.

Good for President Bush for doing the right thing and ignoring the ignorant and the Anti-American.

Now, I'm curious to know where the left was when Clinton was tapping phone lines when national security was not an issue.

I'm also curious as to where all of the libs who called for heads to roll in alleged "outing" of a CIA worker (who wasn't undercover in the first place) are now.

 

Public demonstrations are just that, public.

If you take part in a public demonstration of any kind, there is a reasonable expectation that you will be observed by someone. In fact, isn't that the point?


You don't get to pick who sees you. It may be a rapist or a killer picking his next target. It might be a thief letting his partners know where you are.

It may also be, horrors, someone in law inforcement. If you are protesting against the military or their mission, it may also be a DoD investigator.

So what!

If one doesn't want to be observed by anyone, they shouldn't take part in public demonstrations.

 

And, you just trust that the government is only spying on terrorists? How do you know that the President isn't using this for political gain?

This situation needs to be investigated to see if the Bush administration only used this power against potential terrorists or against U.S. citizens. Of course if Bill Clinton were president, your viewpoint would be completely different.

 

And, you just trust that the government is only spying on terrorists? How do you know that the President isn't using this for political gain?</font>[/QUOTE] A thing called oversight. This program was secret. It was also conducted with the full knowledge of judicial and congressional (read Democratic) officials.

Now perhaps there was a conspiracy with all those Dems and liberals to let Bush use this ability to spy on George Soros or Michael Moore... but I don't think so.

Interesting though that a Dem would make such a charge considering that Hillary illegally held 500 FBI files on people who specifically were political adversaries... There was certainly no legitimate reason for her to have them was there?

Au contrare. There have to be checks and balances... but if Plamegate was grievous because it endangered an intelligence operative... this leak is catestrophic. It could very well result in the deaths of our operatives or informants in a time of war.

Of course the media has no interest in covering this angle.

 

I want to know that there are proper safeguards in place to protect our rights concerning this type of intelligence gathering and am not satisfied that there currently are. I also recognize that a long process can result in the loss of the most fundamental right- life.

There has been "zero" evidence presented that Bush used this power inappropriately... but the fact that he or a future politician could is not acceptable.

It does not appear that Bush broke any laws. However, the use of this power does point to the need for specific safeguards.

I am much, much less concerned about what President GW Bush might do with this power than I am about what a President Hillary might do... She has already demonstrated disregard for laws concerning privacy and due process (with the FBI file scandal) and the frequency of audits against Bill's political enemies. She and Bill are people who used the power of government against their political adversaries in both Arkansas and Washington.

 

Until I see evidence to the contrary, I have no reason to doubt that they are telling the truth.

Because he's not the one doing it.

And I believe that an airing of NSA and FBI tactics at this time would be a terrible blow to national security.

Actually, no. If circumstances were similar, I would back him every bit as much as I'm backing President Bush.

I was very outspoken in my criticism of President Clinton, but I was also very up front in my praise when he did manage to do the right thing.

 

I hope someone is saving these quotes by the George W. Bush/Republican supporters who have no problem with Snoopgate in case they change their tune starting in January 2009 if a Democrat becomes president. </font>[/QUOTE]If a Democrat, God forbid, were to become president, and he acted in a similar manner, under similar circumstances, I will be among his chief supporters.

 

Sombody just has to moniter those Quakers, as theres no tellin what they'll do next.

What possible reason would there be in monitering US citizens other than the govt's operation against terrorism?
I certainly have nothing to fear, except that all this concern over govt's power diminishes their ability to wage this war on terrorism.

The Democrats desire to treat the constitution as a "living document" is the main reason it is being defanged, and much concern is being expended on its abuses.

Constructionism, leaves no room for judicial interference, and leftist revisionism.

 

Reports of snooping on US citizens?

Reports are easy to dream up. There are reports of aliens in Area51. There are reports that FDR deliberately ordered the Paciffic fleet into Pearl Harbor. There are reports that Martin Luther King was a communist.

There were even reports that Jesus was a subersive trying to overthrow Rome.

Reports and a couple of bucks will get you a cup of coffee most places. The key word is PROOF.

 

There were reports of Clinton, an intern and a blue dress...aren't you glad they took the time to investigate these reports?

You can't have a double standard, let them investigate the reports and find out the truth.