Posted on 12/28/2005 5:51:37 AM PST by bnelson44
December 28, 2005--Sixty-four percent (64%) of Americans believe the National Security Agency (NSA) should be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States. A Rasmussen Reports survey found that just 23% disagree.
Sixty-eight percent (68%) of Americans say they are following the NSA story somewhat or very closely.
Just 26% believe President Bush is the first to authorize a program like the one currently in the news. Forty-eight percent (48%) say he is not while 26% are not sure.
(Excerpt) Read more at rasmussenreports.com ...
Tom Daschle is deeply saddened. Watch how fast this subject drops from the news.
Game.Set.Match.
If you listen very carefully, you can almost hear Reid, Pelosi, et al let out a little sob.
"Watch how fast this subject drops from the news."
LOL..and the dem playbook!
The RATS will now change the subject matter to "minority rights" even though a majority don't favor this "minority right".
So the liberal MSM has miserably failed once again! Good news for the security of our nation, and a slap in the face to the NYT for their non story.
Sorry demonrats!!!!
Apparently America doesn't hate America as much as the Old York Times hates America!
Pray for W and Our Freedom Fighters
Does that mean with or without a warrant?
You've gotta wonder what possessed them to dredge up this old news in a non-election year. This could have been a potential October surprise last year or next year, but they saved it till they saw the uptick in Dubya's approval rating. I'm not complaining, but it makes no sense.
I hope that includes Saddam and his commie lawyers...
...listening in on Saddam and his commie lawyers, that is.
Chrissie Maphews is 'gonna be pissed when he comes back from his week at the spa!
You're right. They will continue to hammer it. Which is why the numbers are as they are now. The more ferocious they are in pushing this story, the more it'll backfire on them, as these numbers show.
Only 64%? Pathetic.
That means 36% are fools.
Well lets impeach him anyways...
FWIW, there probably about a 4% spread toward Bush if this poll was of likely voters. In other words the likely voters are probably going to split at least 72% for NSA/Bush.
No only 23% are fools. The rest are undecided.
Do you really think it matters to Joe Sixpack or Soccer Mom?
When will the MSM tell us that NSA spying on terrorists causes global warming? There's got to be a $250,000 taxpayer grant here for some untenured con-man using this angle.
rasmussen: 50% support the way the WOT is going so far, despite 48% Support for Iraq/Bush
Democrats will be soon saying stuff like "Of course we always supported the authority of the President to ensure our safety, why would you say we said otherwise?!?"
Americans want the government to listen in conversations between terrorists? Shocking! /sarcasm
I agree completely. The MSM will continue pushing, most likely harder, so that they can change these numbers. They have done it in the past and their ego is on the line.
What if the program calls for scanning 1000's of potential sources every hour? Is it practical? If you were a terrorist, wouldn't you send thousands of false calls to mask the real one?
What if the FISA court has said no in a given situation but the president wants to continue to follow a certain source and appeal the ruling. Even the 72 hour after the fact doesn't work there.
There are so many off the top of the head situations that require immediate reactions that this is nuts.
Lets try a different context. Lets say that our military had to run everything thing they did through a FISA court. Can't you see the problems that imposes?
I submit, what is the difference between requiring the military to file a brief for every action it takes and requiring the NSA to do so in connection with its tracking of terrorists?
Actually, you pose a very intriguing question. While a federal court may of course determine the constitutionality of duly enacted laws, can they actually go so far as to restrict the authority of either the legislative or executive branches? Would that not give the judiciary more power than the other two? The argument here is that the president is exercising authority explicitly outlined in the constitution, and congress (whether they like it or not) explicitly approved such authority when asked (even when such approval was not necessary).
So what is the judiciary's role in this? I don't pretend to be a lawyer or know the answers, but I'm not sure I like the idea of the judiciary deciding how the USA should prosecute a war.
That means 36% are fools.
That's the way it's always been, the 36% are liberals and they've always had a death wish.
Oh but it does if you think like an America and Bush hating Moonbat. They live in their own little "bubble" you understand. All they know and speak to are like-minded, self-reenforcing idiots. Thus they come to the conclusion that trying to stop terrorist attacks is actually a bad thing. They can't imagine anyone disagreeing with them.
Well, Congress cannot restrict the President's constitutional powers without amending the constitution, that's clear.
The question is whether the President has the powers in question. The reasoning I've seen tends to indicate he does.
It seems some terrorist defense lawyers are starting to gear up for a fight on this. Good. Settle the question once and for all.
If the Dems try to make hay out of this issue, I suspect that they are crawling out on a limb that will be cut off behind them.
Second, the damage is already done the islamopignazis now know a great deal more about our surveillance tactics and those scum already captured already have their lawyers looking into getting their cases thrown out due to "illegal wiretapping"
No, I would say their plan came together perfectly!
Correct.
Looks like the DNC/MSM have found another broken down nag to continue their ride into the sunset.
Just wait when the terrorist start suing (which they already have) and the people see that this helped us put the bad guys away...I hope we have the main RATs on record as saying we should do this, or if they were President they would never have done such things.
"I’m no longer surprised that journalists lack an internal regulatory mechanism (sometimes called 'ethics' or another quaint old-fashioned term that no longer applies, 'patriotism') to prevent the release of information that could damage their own country. On the contrary, they actively search for that information and release it with great relish." -- Charles Johnson, in "The Media are the Enemy"
"Sometimes the fourth estate seems more like a fifth column."-- Dr. Thomas Sowell
"It's the enemedia." -- Fred Nerks
Bye-bye, troll.
When you say, "their plan came together perfectly", you mean like a Pinto wagon stuck on the tracks and flattened like a pancake by a freight train "perfect" because otherwise you are dead wrong. How you think this helps the demoncrats who are seen, rightly so, as weak on the WOT is beyond me. This is a lovely Christmas gift the liberal MSM has given us!
The public isn't the problem. Usually, most of the time, their initial assessments are correct which is why I generally reject the term "sheeple".
The problem that enters into discussion is that they are subject to endless propaganda in an attempt to beat down their knowledge of what is right. The MSM will keep trying to confuse and distort. This is why the administration needs to keep attacking and remain on offense so they get no traction to impress what is false on the public.
The other problem is D.C. They live in their own bubble. Weak power grabbing pols, like McCain, wanting to impress the MSM and their pals across the aisle instead of nailing the leaker will try to stage a takeover of the president's constitutional powers. Watch them, defeat them.
I agree. The Media will keep on it...they're still talking about Rove being indicted, which is making a story out of a non-story. They still quote Bush's poll numbers in the low 30s. They think gas is $3.00 a gallon.
Watching MSNBC (which I do with a barf bag in my lap) has become a good barometer for the focus of the elitest national media. Nowhere else will you see more rationalization of coverage based on conjecture and false hopes. These people assume everything bad about Bush is truth and think all Americans agree with them. It is a meeting place for liberal elites to come together and rub on each other.
Even Scarborough Country, MSNBC's lame attempt to steal Fox viewers, has failed. Former Democrat Joe has reverted to his Populist ways and is eager to be accepted by the Elites. Tucker Carlson is nothing but an elitest liberal who doesn't like to pay taxes. MSNBC is becoming the Air America of cable.
Especially since NSA *is* the military, and was engaged in military surveillance.
Do you mean teh same FISA court that never denies the warrants since it was created...well until GW asks for some warrants after 9/11 and they said NO!!!!
GW did the right thing. Just say you don't need a bunch of pansie libs to approve his WOT efforts...congress already athorized it.
Because if they file the brief it can be used in court against them. The purpose of this monitoring is to protect America from terrorists NOT to it them in court to convict them.
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.