Posted on 12/25/2005 11:14:03 PM PST by indcons
As they attack George W. Bush on the surveillance issue, Democrats are proving themselves to be either really principled or really stupid, at least in terms of their electoral futures. I am having a hard time figuring out which it is - although I have a hunch.
Many top Democrats seem convinced that "snoopgate" is a big winner for them. E-mailing his million or so closest friends, Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean asks, "Did George Bush break the law?" The presumption is that Bush is guilty, of course, but Dean needs money now to launch his own investigation.
Other Democrats are climbing out even further on this particular Bush-bashing limb. Rep. John Lewis of Georgia and Sen. Barbara Boxer of California have both been throwing around the I-word, "impeachment," in recent days.
And some in the liberal-leaning media are fanning the flames. Newsweek's Jonathan Alter writes, "If the Democrats regain control of Congress, there may even be articles of impeachment introduced."
Let's get a grip here. Based on what we've seen so far, Bush is in no danger of losing his job. In fact, if this controversy continues, W. will likely go up in the polls. Why? Because the American people want to be safe. And they will surrender some of their rights to be safer. That political reality may infuriate hard-core civil libertarians, but it's true during all periods of wartime.
All through the Cold War, for example, the American and British governments got around the rules against spying on their own people through a simple stratagem: Each government spied on the people of the other country, and then the two governments exchanged the resulting intelligence.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsday.com ...
What rights have we surrendered??
Wasn't the income tax supposed to be "temporary"?
You have got to be kidding me. Pinkerton has never written a "great article" and this one is worse than most.
Hm. Democrats (at least the leadership): Really principled, or really stupid?
Shall we take a poll? Do we need to?
I'm not a huge fan of his but this is a succinct look at this story, and how the Dems have grabbed a hold of that tar baby. They have cemented their rep as the Anti-War on Terror party, and I don't think the MSM has grasped that, for the most part.
"...may infuriate hard-core civil libertarians, but it's true during all periods of wartime."
Guess this is what it boils down to - Democraps (definitely)and hardcore libertarians (possibly) will always be against anything that Pres. Bush does.
Oops.....we don't agree there. I think Pinkerton has done a great job of exposing the Democraps here.
I am a christian conservative and an economic libertarian. I have failed to see anyone telling us what rights we are losing.
Good night all.....off to sleep.
bttt
To accept unbugged calls from our "friends" in Pakistan*.
Of course why should you have the expectation that authorities in Pakistan wouldn't violate your rights by monitoring the calls?
As I'm sure you know, it isn't that anybody lost rights, it's that they might lose a right sometime in the future by an unethical leader, assuming they survive subsequent terror attacks before they lose those rights.
-PJ
It just makes them insane.
I gladly surrender the rights of terrorists and their collaborators to have their phones tapped.
All through the Cold War, for example, the American and British governments got around the rules against spying on their own people through a simple stratagem: Each government spied on the people of the other country, and then the two governments exchanged the resulting intelligence. This was "the Mid-Atlantic Swap," in which the U.K. Government Communications Headquarters spied on Americans, while the U.S. National Security Agency spied on Britons. It was cynical but legal.
Interesting, never heard about this arrangement before, and I thought I knew about these things.
Great article again by Jim Pinkerton. From the article: "Oh, and of course, if the Democrats were to succeed in restraining presidential snoop-power, and if there were to be another attack on the United States after that - well, then, the Democrats would all have to look for new lines of work other than politics."
Keep in mind the Dems are praying for another 9/11 as they are convinced as an article of faith that they can then hang it around Bush's neck and that us peasants will then hail them back into power like Jesus into Jerusalem (Hosanna, Hey-sanna, etc.)
I personally heard with my own ears Bill Mahr say that we should not attack an enemy nation which may have WMDs unless and until New York City is nuked. Only THEN do we have a right to attack. Many other Democrats feel exactly the same way.
Thank God Bush was elected.
=o)
hang on... I support their right to have their phones tapped.... lol
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.