Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

ANN COULTER -- Why We Don't Trust Democrats With National Security
Human Events Online ^ | January 4, 2006 | Ann Coulter

Posted on 01/04/2006 4:05:09 PM PST by bigsky

It seems the Bush administration -- being a group of sane, informed adults -- has been secretly tapping Arab terrorists without warrants.

During the CIA raids in Afghanistan in early 2002 that captured Abu Zubaydah and his associates, the government seized computers, cell phones and personal phone books. Soon after the raids, the National Security Agency began trying to listen to calls placed to the phone numbers found in al Qaeda Rolodexes.

That was true even if you were "an American citizen" making the call from U.S. territory -- like convicted al Qaeda associate Iyman Faris who, after being arrested, confessed to plotting to bring down the Brooklyn Bridge. If you think the government should not be spying on people like Faris, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

By intercepting phone calls to people on Zubaydah's speed-dial, the NSA arrested not only "American citizen" Faris, but other Arab terrorists, including al Qaeda members plotting to bomb British pubs and train stations.

The most innocent-sounding target of the NSA's spying cited by the Treason Times was "an Iranian-American doctor in the South who came under suspicion because of what one official described as dubious ties to Osama bin Laden." Whatever softening adjectives the Times wants to put in front of the words "ties to Osama bin Laden," we're still left with those words -- "ties to Osama bin Laden." The government better be watching that person.

The Democratic Party has decided to express indignation at the idea that an American citizen who happens to be a member of al Qaeda is not allowed to have a private conversation with Osama bin Laden. If they run on that in 2008, it could be the first time in history a Republican president takes even the District of Columbia.

On this one, I'm pretty sure Americans are going with the president.

If the Democrats had any brains, they'd distance themselves from the cranks demanding Bush's impeachment for listening in on terrorists' phone calls to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. (Then again, if they had any brains, they'd be Republicans.)

To the contrary! It is Democrats like Sen. Barbara Boxer who are leading the charge to have Bush impeached for spying on people with Osama's cell phone number.

That's all you need to know about the Democrats to remember that they can't be trusted with national security. (That and Jimmy Carter.)

Thanks to the Treason Times' exposure of this highly classified government program, admitted terrorists like Iyman Faris are going to be appealing their convictions. Perhaps they can call Democratic senators as expert witnesses to testify that it was illegal for the Bush administration to eavesdrop on their completely private calls to al-Zarqawi.

Democrats and other traitors have tried to couch their opposition to the NSA program in civil libertarian terms, claiming Bush could have gone to the court created by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and gotten warrants for the interceptions.

The Treason Times reported FISA virtually rubber-stamps warrant requests all the time. As proof, the Times added this irrelevant statistic: In 2004, "1,754 warrants were approved." No one thought to ask how many requests were rejected.

Over and over we heard how the FISA court never turns down an application for a warrant. USA Today quoted liberal darling and author James Bamford saying: "The FISA court is as big a rubber stamp as you can possibly get within the federal judiciary." He "wondered why Bush sought the warrantless searches, since the FISA court rarely rejects search requests," said USA Today.

Put aside the question of why it's so vitally important to get a warrant from a rubber-stamp court if it's nothing but an empty formality anyway. After all the ballyhoo about how it was duck soup to get a warrant from FISA, I thought it was pretty big news when it later turned out that the FISA court had been denying warrant requests from the Bush administration like never before. According to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, the FISA court "modified more wiretap requests from the Bush administration than from the four previous presidential administrations combined."

In the 20 years preceding the attack of 9/11, the FISA court did not modify -- much less reject -- one single warrant request. But starting in 2001, the judges "modified 179 of the 5,645 requests for court-ordered surveillance by the Bush administration." In the years 2003 and 2004, the court issued 173 "substantive modifications" to warrant requests and rejected or "deferred" six warrant requests outright.

What would a Democrat president have done at that point? Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack. Also, perhaps as a gesture of inclusion and tolerance, hold an Oval Office reception for the suspected al Qaeda operatives. After another terrorist attack, I'm sure a New York Times reporter could explain to the victims' families that, after all, the killer's ties to al Qaeda were merely "dubious" and the FISA court had a very good reason for denying the warrant request.

Every once in a while the nation needs little reminder of why the Democrats can't be trusted with national security. This is today's lesson.

Sign up to receive Ann Coulter's weekly column by email:


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: ann; anncoulter; cia; coulter; democrats; homelandsecurity; lamestreammedia; lmsm; msm; myslimes; nationalinsecurity; nsa; nytimes; patriotleak; security; spying; times; unfit
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-95 next last

1 posted on 01/04/2006 4:05:12 PM PST by bigsky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: bigsky

2 posted on 01/04/2006 4:06:33 PM PST by bigsky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bigsky
Why We Don't Trust Democrats With National Security

Because the Democrats believe all conflicts can be solved with talk or limited surgical military involvment. We know they don't have the intellectual toughness to make hard decisions that will cost lives in order to save even more lives. That's why.

3 posted on 01/04/2006 4:07:46 PM PST by Darkwolf377 (The first and great commandment is: Don't let them scare you. --Elmer Davis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bigsky

Why don't we trust Democrat's with National Security?

Because they are democrat's

enuf said.


4 posted on 01/04/2006 4:07:56 PM PST by edcoil (Reality doesn't say much - doesn't need too)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bigsky

"ANN COULTER -- Why We Don't Trust Democrats With National Security"

I sure don't trust them with the patriot act.... for tht matter I won't automatically trust the next Republican President.


5 posted on 01/04/2006 4:09:12 PM PST by gondramB (If even once you pay danegeld then you never get rid of the Dane.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: edcoil

Later


6 posted on 01/04/2006 4:09:36 PM PST by MarkeyD (Cowards cut and run. Marines finish the job. I really, really loathe liberals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: bigsky
Image hosted by Photobucket.com
7 posted on 01/04/2006 4:09:41 PM PST by dynachrome ("Where am I? Where am I going? Why am I in a handbasket?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bigsky
Why We Don't Trust Democrats With National Security
I don't trust them with anything.
8 posted on 01/04/2006 4:10:29 PM PST by oh8eleven (RVN '67-'68)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bigsky

"The Democratic Party has decided to express indignation at the idea that an American citizen who happens to be a member of al Qaeda is not allowed to have a private conversation with Osama bin Laden. If they run on that in 2008, it could be the first time in history a Republican president takes even the District of Columbia."

Pretty much sums it up, doesn't it?


9 posted on 01/04/2006 4:14:09 PM PST by wolf24 ("go away you hanky-stompin' liberals.......")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: oh8eleven

"If the Democrats had any brains, they'd distance themselves from the cranks demanding Bush's impeachment for listening in on terrorists' phone calls to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. (Then again, if they had any brains, they'd be Republicans.) "

Haha!


10 posted on 01/04/2006 4:14:35 PM PST by WatchYourself
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: bigsky

I'm here for the photos.


11 posted on 01/04/2006 4:14:48 PM PST by My2Cents (Dead people voting is the closest the Democrats come to believing in eternal life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bigsky

Why are we worried about terrorist attacks anyway. The primary targets are New York City and LA. Both predominantly Liberal.

Let them reap what they sow.

Seriously, we can't and must not allow a successful attack on any US city.


12 posted on 01/04/2006 4:17:25 PM PST by dhs12345
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bigsky

Democrats believe that, during a war, Democrats have a right to maintain conversations with enemy headquarters, without those conversations being monitored by anyone.

Unfair?

How many arab terrorists with US citizenship do you suppose vote Republican?


13 posted on 01/04/2006 4:18:29 PM PST by marron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bigsky
If the Democrats had any brains

Ah, but there's the rub. And to make matters worse, they have no morals.

14 posted on 01/04/2006 4:18:49 PM PST by My2Cents (Dead people voting is the closest the Democrats come to believing in eternal life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bigsky
I`ll start thinking about trusting them when there is substantial evidence that they want us to win.
15 posted on 01/04/2006 4:19:00 PM PST by carlr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bigsky

::Yawn:: Ann "Chief Justice Roberts is a Souter clone" Coulter is the most overrated conservative "leader" on FR. I miss Barbara Olsen.


16 posted on 01/04/2006 4:19:50 PM PST by BillyBoy (Find out the TRUTH about the Chicago Democrat Machine's "Best Friend" in the GOP... www.nolahood.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bigsky

It seems Democrats have no problem with the violation or lack of rights involving Government agencies that can really ruin your life like the IRS. I don't hear cries to make government agencies operate under the same laws and limits that are imposed on businesses and citizens. What I have to wonder is why al aqaeda connected individuals would be calling US representatives and senators in the Democratic party on a regular basis. Answering that question would be a real story.


17 posted on 01/04/2006 4:19:52 PM PST by Ma3lst0rm (Thinking for yourself is not illegal or a sin even.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: My2Cents

I'm here for the articles, and the photos.


18 posted on 01/04/2006 4:20:47 PM PST by neodad (Rule Number 1: Be Armed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: bigsky
A few weeks ago, I heard someone attempt to characterize Ann as "Michael Savage in high heels." That is preposterous and simply untrue. Michael Savage is frequently out of control, to wit, the loss of his television show a few weeks after its inaugural. Ann is an "in control" person and frequently reduces those who oppose her to some sort of stammering defense.

In my book, this woman is not only pleasant to look at, she is a nightmare to those on the left. The title of her book, "How to Talk to a Liberal, if You Must," pretty well sums it up.

19 posted on 01/04/2006 4:21:41 PM PST by davisfh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bigsky
Priceless, as usual.

Thanks for posting.

20 posted on 01/04/2006 4:22:09 PM PST by GiovannaNicoletta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bigsky

Coulter BUMP!


21 posted on 01/04/2006 4:22:47 PM PST by JDoutrider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: bigsky
Why We Don't Trust Democrats With National Security

Because liberal Democrats are so adverse to offending anybody (except conservatives) that they'd surrender the country before going to war.

22 posted on 01/04/2006 4:25:19 PM PST by Noachian (To control the courts the people must first control their Congress.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bigsky
In the 20 years preceding the attack of 9/11, the FISA court did not modify -- much less reject -- one single warrant request. But starting in 2001, the judges "modified 179 of the 5,645 requests for court-ordered surveillance by the Bush administration." In the years 2003 and 2004, the court issued 173 "substantive modifications" to warrant requests and rejected or "deferred" six warrant requests outright.

Although I worship the ground Ann walks upon, it might be helpful to know how many total FISA requests each preceding administration made. I only ask, because I know DUmmies will claim Clinton only made 3.. or something like that.

23 posted on 01/04/2006 4:28:03 PM PST by operation clinton cleanup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neodad

All hail the queen of conservative columnists!!
Once again Ann has hit a Home Run.


24 posted on 01/04/2006 4:28:53 PM PST by JerseyDvl ("Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel"-Samuel Johnson to the Dems of today.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Former Military Chick

ping


25 posted on 01/04/2006 4:30:32 PM PST by No Longer Free State (No event has just one cause, no person has just one motive, no action has just the intended effect)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: operation clinton cleanup

I have a big problem giving power over national security to any court, the only unelected, unaccountable branch of government.


26 posted on 01/04/2006 4:38:40 PM PST by JMS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: BillyBoy
Ann "Chief Justice Roberts is a Souter clone" Coulter.

We don't know yet that Ann wasn't correct in her misgivings. We'll know more in coming months with actual rulings, and in coming years when he might "grow" in Office.

27 posted on 01/04/2006 4:40:34 PM PST by Plutarch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: JMS

Me to... BIG TIME!


28 posted on 01/04/2006 4:40:48 PM PST by operation clinton cleanup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: bigsky
Q - Mother May I???
1 - Use counter intelligence to protect the citizens of the US/World?
A - Simon-Dem says...
Only if you are blindfolded with your hands tied behind your back.


Q - Mother May I???
2 - Capture, interogate, and inter enemy militant combatants
A - Simon-Dem says....
Only if you give them allah the rights and citizenship privileges of an ACLU lawyer

ABC CBS NBC CNN its all the SAME, Propaganda.
Might as well call them all AmeriJazerra.
Show them how much Gravitas Hugh Bris has. Vote with your remote! Shut down the Alphabet channels.

He's Got A Plan
Zippo Hero

Kill A Commie For Mommie
Seven Dead Monkeys Page O Tunes

29 posted on 01/04/2006 4:44:42 PM PST by rawcatslyentist (Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic cerem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: bigsky
I read this earlier on H.E.

So, I'm just passing through. ...naturally.

30 posted on 01/04/2006 4:47:24 PM PST by TexasCajun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: My2Cents; Rummyfan; AZ_Cowboy

31 posted on 01/04/2006 4:54:52 PM PST by perfect stranger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: bigsky

I remember that... October 1998 "March for Justice"


32 posted on 01/04/2006 5:01:29 PM PST by thoughtomator (How to recognize the enemy: he says "peace" and means something entirely different)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: davisfh

Michael Savage, a guy I listen to (S.F. radio station) when I can, is a guy I regard as a semi-loon due to the times he's praised Republican turncoats like the wonderful Senator from Arizona, whose "Campaign Finance Reform" bill decapitated the 1st Amendment during election cycles.


33 posted on 01/04/2006 5:01:32 PM PST by OldArmy52
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: bigsky
Put aside the question of why it's so vitally important to get a warrant from a rubber-stamp court if it's nothing but an empty formality anyway.

That's a good point. It says a lot that Democrats would make a big stink about not going to a court that, according to them, wouldn't make any effort to protect anyone's rights anyway. Very commie-like. "You haf your papers??"

34 posted on 01/04/2006 5:10:19 PM PST by wizardoz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Darkwolf377
Because the Democrats believe all conflicts can be solved with talk or limited surgical military involvment

Of course, after stern language fails.

35 posted on 01/04/2006 5:25:04 PM PST by Puppage (You may disagree with what I have to say, but I shall defend to your death my right to say it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: wizardoz

I'm not sure what Coulter is trying to prove. Look at her third-to-last paragraph, where she says that the FISA court modified or rejected ZERO warrant requests from Reagan, Bush Senior, and Clinton, but modified or rejected 179 requests from Bush Junior. I can only think of two possible explanations for this.

1. Clinton fired all the FISA court members and replaced them with partisan Democrats. But according to Wikipedia, FISA judges are appointed by the U.S. Chief Justice (who was Rehnquist). So Clinton never had the power to politicise the FISA court.

2. Bush is abusing his wiretap powers in a way that Reagan, Bush Senior, and Clinton never did.

The second theory seems to fit the facts much better than the first. Am I missing something here?


36 posted on 01/04/2006 5:34:10 PM PST by Whilome
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Whilome
2. Bush is abusing his wiretap powers in a way that Reagan, Bush Senior, and Clinton never did

Abusing? And you know this, how?

37 posted on 01/04/2006 5:38:38 PM PST by Judith Anne (Thank you St. Jude for favors granted.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Judith Anne

I don't "know" it, I'm just inferring it. The FISA court is suddenly rejecting and modifying wiretap requests for the first time in its existence. I'm just trying to figure out why. There's either something wrong with Bush's wiretap requests, or something wrong with the FISA court itself. Can you suggest a third possibility?


38 posted on 01/04/2006 5:49:49 PM PST by Whilome
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: BillyBoy
I have to agree with the "missing Barbara Olson" part.
My wife is a ringer for Mrs.Olson, in looks and philosophy.
Now, if I can just get her to start writing books, everything would be fine.
39 posted on 01/04/2006 6:07:25 PM PST by concretebob (Which part of "National Security" does the press find confusing?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: perfect stranger

Thanks for the ping.


40 posted on 01/04/2006 6:31:19 PM PST by AZ_Cowboy (Christmas isn't over until the 6th. Don't tell the lefty bloggers!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: edcoil

-snip-Why don't we trust Democrat's with National Security?


OK, since nobody else seems willing to say it, I will: the modern Demoncrat party is made up of TRAITORS who think America is the problem, not the SOLUTION.


41 posted on 01/04/2006 6:52:57 PM PST by 43north (Liberals are obsessed by the vulgarity of their lives & the obscenity of their behavior.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: gondramB
for tht matter I won't automatically trust the next Republican President.

That's why it should need to be renewed by Congress voting on it again every two or four years.

42 posted on 01/04/2006 7:09:42 PM PST by Balding_Eagle (God has blessed Republicans with political enemies who have dementia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: bigsky

bump


43 posted on 01/04/2006 7:12:05 PM PST by timestax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bigsky

Bump Ann Coulter... A hot conservative babe!


44 posted on 01/04/2006 7:15:47 PM PST by Poser (Willing to fight for oil)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bigsky
The Democratic Party has decided to express indignation at the idea that an American citizen who happens to be a member of al Qaeda is not allowed to have a private conversation with Osama bin Laden. If they run on that in 2008, it could be the first time in history a Republican president takes even the District of Columbia.

On this one, I'm pretty sure Americans are going with the president.

If the Democrats had any brains, they'd distance themselves from the cranks demanding Bush's impeachment for listening in on terrorists' phone calls to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. (Then again, if they had any brains, they'd be Republicans.)

Right on Ann!!!!

45 posted on 01/04/2006 7:21:31 PM PST by Rummyfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: perfect stranger

Thanks for the PING! You know, Ann's original statement is surely the way to long-term peace.


46 posted on 01/04/2006 7:26:07 PM PST by Rummyfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Rummyfan

I wish some of the conservatives on TV would dispute the rubber stamp label that the FISA court has from liberals. They rejected 179 of Bush's requests. Hardly a rubber stamp.


47 posted on 01/04/2006 7:31:20 PM PST by Democratshavenobrains
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: My2Cents
If the Democrats had any brains Ah, but there's the rub. And to make matters worse, they have no morals.

If they had brains AND morals, they would be conservatives!

48 posted on 01/04/2006 8:26:17 PM PST by p23185 (Why isn't attempting to take down a sitting Pres & his Admin considered Sedition?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Whilome

"Clinton fired all the FISA court members and replaced them with partisan Democrats. But according to Wikipedia, FISA judges are appointed by the U.S. Chief Justice (who was Rehnquist). So Clinton never had the power to politicise the FISA court."

Robertson, a Clinton appointee, just resigned from the FISA court.


49 posted on 01/04/2006 8:33:01 PM PST by Tymesup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: gondramB

The rats don't need a patriot act they will just break the law, then say the law needs to be strengthened so others won't break the law. Remember Clinton and CFR.


50 posted on 01/04/2006 8:33:30 PM PST by Once-Ler (The rat 06 election platform will be a promise to impeach the President if they win.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-95 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson