Posted on 12/18/2005 6:34:13 AM PST by yoe
(This Washington Times editorial) notes in passing Chuck Schumer's claim that the New York Times story about the NSA's spying on al Qaeda phone calls to the U.S. "greatly" influenced his vote to filibuster the Patriot Act. Schumer's claim is almost surely false. Like many liberal Democrats, Schumer is an idelogically driven opponent of the president's approach to the war on terror. Can Schumer point to any pronouncement suggesting that he was inclined to permit the Patriot Act to be extended until he read the Times' piece? Perhaps, but I doubt it.
Nor does the Times' story provide Schumer or anyone else with a rational basis for opposing the Patriot Act. The president's decision to listen to terrorist calls to the U.S. without a warrant does not show the president to be too lawless to trust with the powers conferred on him by the Patriot Act. If Schumer read far enough into the New York Times story, he knows that the president bypassed the special security court because he wanted to be able to exploit the seizure of terrorists' computers, cellphones, and personal phone directories as quickly as possible. Imagine what Chuck Schumer and other Democrats would say if a terrorist in the U.S. blew something up after talking about it with an overseas al Qaeda operative in a conversation our intelligence didn't hear because the government was in the process of obtaining court approval.
The special intelligence court that issues these warants virtually always approves of the administration's requests -- someone on Fox News said last night that there was only one known exception. Thus, there is no reason to disbelieve the president when he says that the need to be fast, not the desire to pull a fast-one, was his motive for bypassing the court. Chuck Schumer should explain why he thinks the need for speed is an insufficient justification. Failing that, he should be "greatly influenced" to support the Patriot Act.
the senior senator from my home state makes the junior senator from my home state seem half way decent. this guy has my vote for the all-time worst senator in our history.
he makes mccain look camera shy.
JMHO
Chucky Schmucky Schumer thinks it's okay to snoop into the credit records of Republican candidates, but he doesn't approve of snooping for terrorist activities.
This man is no fool.
He is a typical conniving Democrat whose only objective is to regain power. The results for America be damned! As long as the Democrats can lie and distort their way back to the top, all's fair.
Although only about 33% of the U.S. is hard-core Democrat, another 33% is that swayable sheeplike mass who have no political expertise, and as a result are vulnerable to this tripe.
Our job will remain to be the light shining on this abysmal ignorance.
Beyond his unreasonably high opinion of himself, he prides himself on being a know-it-all when in fact, he's just another empty suit.
Any opportunity to get his face on television is a good enough reason for Chuck the Schmuck to bash the administration.
For Schumer, it's all about him.
If an attack once again occurs on US soil I hope the American people wake up to these seditious SOBs. They should be voted out of office. How dare they whine about connecting the dots for the last few years then remove the most important tool to connect them? Morons! I'm stunned once again at the shear stupidity of the left.
Is Chuck Schumer related to the famous Iranian terrorist/pirate, Fuk Zoomer also known as the "Zoom from Khartoum?"
Of course rumors that they are both the same person are completely false.
This piece of trash is some piece of work.He would betray his own mother for votes, power means so much to him.
The one consistency with Chuck Schumer is that you KNOW if his lips are moving, he's lying.
Clinton used the NSA to spy on Americans after the Oklahoma City bombing.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1541061/posts
Schumer would be happy to rule from a smoking cinder, as long as he got to rule.
It just shows that Schumer is a lacky for the NYT.
The headline is overkill. The word disingenuous has Schumer's picture next to it. So does the word oleaginous.
Oh come now.
There's no comparison to be had in those two pictures.
Monty Burns knows how to be responsible to a profit center.
And how to meet a payroll.
And now he's wooried that Khalid Sheik Mohammed's phone calls to the US might have been tapped.
"Privacy rights"?
Time was of the essence in such circumstances as 9/11. As was the the permission for F-16's in the air, on 9/11, to "fire" upon an airliner that did not behave. Should a hijacked airliner have been shot down by a fighter on 911, all of the passengers's and crew's Constitutional rights would have been technically violated. However, the order and the act would have also been legal and moral.
very well put!
Schummer is a liar and not a very good one at that
He would have voted against it regardless
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.