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

Skip to comments.

Shocking discovery: President determined to defend U.S.
TownHall.com ^ | Jan. 9, 2005 | Paul Greenberg

Posted on 01/08/2006 11:12:35 PM PST by FairOpinion

Dana Priest of The Washington Post sounds shocked - shocked! - to discover that George W. Bush ordered a complete remobilization and reinvigoration of the CIA immediately after September 11th:

"The effort President Bush authorized shortly after Sept. 11, 2001, to fight al-Qaida has grown into the largest CIA covert-action program since the height of the Cold War, expanding in size and ambition despite a growing outcry at home and abroad over clandestine tactics . . . ."

This is news? Isn't this just what W. told the country he would do in the aftermath of September 11th?

"Ours will be a broad campaign, fought on many fronts. It's a campaign that will be waged by day and by night, in the light and in the shadow, in battles that you will see and battles you won't see. It's a campaign waged by soldiers and sailors, marines and airmen; and also by FBI agents and law-enforcement officials and diplomats and intelligence officers. . . . Our campaign will be difficult, and it will take time. But I can promise you this: It will be waged with determination, and it will be waged until we win. We will do whatever it takes to protect our country." - George W. Bush, Oct. 17, 2001.

Apparently W. meant it. According to the Post's Ms. Priest, the president signed an order six days after September 11th empowering American intelligence agencies in a way not seen since the Second World War.

Gosh, just as if we had suffered a surprise attack and thousands of our people had been killed in a second Pearl Harbor.

Do you think maybe the president decided to fight this like a world war because, far ahead of his critics, he realized we were in one? The result: A moribund CIA was suddenly brought to life, just as the FBI and OSS were during the last great world war.

To quote Ms. Priest: "The CIA faced the day after the attacks with few al-Qaida informants, a tiny paramilitary division and no interrogators, much less a system for transporting suspected terrorists and keeping them hidden for interrogation."

A lot has changed since then. The CIA proved instrumental, if not decisive, in winning a war in Afghanistan. It is helping to win another in Iraq. It has made covert alliances with foreign intelligence services across the globe, has been given billions of dollars to set up counter-terrorism operations in two dozen countries, and is reported to have set up secret prisons - excuse me, ahem, detainment centers - in at least eight other friendly countries. And inevitably, to borrow a phrase Ronald Reagan used a couple of decades ago, Mistakes Were Made. Just as they are in every war.

And yet this president has persisted even as his critics at home and abroad profess to be shocked at his having carried out his promise to the American people.

Other presidents have been careful to arrange political cover when they authorize a covert war; this one proclaimed his. What ever happened to deniability, a phrase that grew familiar during the Nixon presidency and debacle?

This president not only gave the order to launch this campaign but has taken responsibility for it. What's more, he apparently wants to know just how his orders are being carried out. As if he were commander-in-chief. Goodness. Some of us thought they'd stopped making presidents like that after Harry Truman.

John Radsan, a former counsel with the CIA, seems unhappy with the president's insistence on knowing just what's going on: "In the past, presidents set up buffers to distance themselves from covert action. But this president, who's breaking down the boundaries between covert action and conventional war, seems to relish the secret findings and the dirty details of the operations."

Gosh, just as if we were engaged in a new, unconventional world war that needs to be fought in a new, unconventional way. It's called asymmetrical warfare, one in which an aggressor without a national base can use a worldwide network of terrorists to wreak havoc on an unprepared country.

In this new kind of warfare, an ever-surprised, ever-vulnerable America, was supposed to be easy pickings for these new kamikazes. This country was going to be reduced to cowering behind defenses full of holes.

Instead, this president and this country have taken the offensive - "in battles that you will see and battles you won't see." And at home and abroad, those unhappy with the results are joining in a single chorus: Unfair!

And the unfairest thing of all is the way the CIA has been conducting this secret war - well, mostly secret till The New York Times reveals still another classified document.

Naturally the new, reborn CIA would rile our enemies most; it has been the most successful of American agencies in this war on al-Qaida. To quote Ms. Priest, "The CIA, working with foreign counterparts, has been responsible for virtually all of the success the United States has had in capturing or killing al-Qaida leaders since Sept. 11, 2001."

What's more, the CIA apparently intends to continue tracking down every one of these killers. It seems to feel it's engaged in defending the country, as when it uses predator drones to dispatch al-Qaida leaders with the help of a Hellfire missile or two. Instead of first reading the suspect his rights.

To quote the deputy director of national intelligence, a general named Michael Hayden: "We're going to live on the edge. My spikes will have chalk on them. . . . We're pretty aggressive within the law. As a professional, I'm troubled if I'm not using the full authority allowed by the law."

Yes, shocking. Some of us had no idea they made American intelligence agents that way anymore. And we're much assured they still do.

Why not treat the attacks on this country as a problem in civil law enforcement and escape all the criticism now being directed at this administration?

Because, to quote a former CIA agent named Dewey Clarridge, "You have a spy agency because the spy agency is going to break laws overseas. If you don't want it to do those dastardly things, don't have it. You can have the State Department." Yes, just leave national security to the State Department. Now that's frightening.

But what, in the end, do we have to show for these tactics that have raised eyebrows in every law school in the country? Only that Americans haven't experienced a terrorist attack on our shores since September 11, 2001.

I know the folks responsible for the CIA's secret successes aren't interested in public recognition. Quite the contrary. But let's hope they all get medals. In a secret ceremony.

Paul Greenberg is the Editorial Page Editor for the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette.


TOPICS: Editorial; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: bush43; fisa; gwot; homelandsecurity; nsa; patriotleak; paulgreenberg; spying; terrorattacks; terrorism; terrorists; wiretap; wot
"In this new kind of warfare, an ever-surprised, ever-vulnerable America, was supposed to be easy pickings for these new kamikazes. This country was going to be reduced to cowering behind defenses full of holes.

Instead, this president and this country have taken the offensive - "in battles that you will see and battles you won't see." And at home and abroad, those unhappy with the results are joining in a single chorus: Unfair! "

We really should give some advantage to the terrorists, according to the Dims. That's why they cannot be trusted with National Security and we need to keep pointing out the obvious, to make sure the American public understands.

1 posted on 01/08/2006 11:12:39 PM PST by FairOpinion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

Bump for later read.


2 posted on 01/08/2006 11:15:19 PM PST by defenderSD (い In a battle of wits against a FReeper, the typical liberal is unarmed. い)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

"Shocking discovery: President determined to defend U.S."


People should vote for Republican presidents if they don't want the nation defended...


3 posted on 01/08/2006 11:17:04 PM PST by gondramB (Democracy: two wolves and a lamb voting on lunch. Liberty: a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

There's a reason Dana Priest is just another prematurely aging writer for the Washington Post --
and George W. Bush is President of the United States.


4 posted on 01/08/2006 11:20:12 PM PST by MikeHu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gondramB

I think you got that backwards. People should NOT vote for Republican presidents if they don't want the nation defended.


5 posted on 01/08/2006 11:20:24 PM PST by defenderSD (い In a battle of wits against a FReeper, the typical liberal is unarmed. い)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: defenderSD

Thanks for catching that typo

I definately meant:

People should NOT vote for Republican presidents if they don't want the nation defended...

sorry about that.


6 posted on 01/08/2006 11:23:30 PM PST by gondramB (Democracy: two wolves and a lamb voting on lunch. Liberty: a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: MikeHu

Silly stuff they write, isn't it? I can only think of one reason why Dick Cheney was staying at undisclosed locations with a small shadow government: a credible threat of a nuclear terrorist attack on the US. If that doesn't justify a massive CIA response, then nothing does. Why do we spend $40 billion annually on intelligence agencies if we're not going to put them to use in a crisis?


7 posted on 01/08/2006 11:24:18 PM PST by defenderSD (い In a battle of wits against a FReeper, the typical liberal is unarmed. い)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
This is a keeper. The writer shows how the Dims are so low on ammo to fight Bush that they're simply slanting the facts of his doing his job as if by DOING it he's guilty of something. It's like a newspaper having a breaking story revealing that your mailman actually WALKS right up to your private property--your mail box--and has the audacity to OPEN IT! in plain sight of others, and....put DOCUMENTS into it! Is this what the Founding Fathers intended?!?!?!?!?!

That's what the Dims are doing these days. They so want to say "There is no terrorist threat!" but they can't. And you know the Chomskyites among them want to say "We should be losing more civilians because it's really not fair that since 9-11 George Bush hasn't let anymore of them die."

Many of us are disappointed with certain aspects of the Bush presidency, but some day I believe it will be looked back on the way the Reagan presidency is. Remember, after he left office, we heard plenty of instant rewriting of history by the libs. When Reagan died, though, I was surprised how many of them suddenly gave up and said, "You know, he was a great President." Even on DU they were saying "At least he was a great American, unlike The Chimp!!!"

Once the political battles are forgotten, people will have no choice but to look back on the post-9-11 era and realize that Bush did SOMEthing right to prevent further attacks. The rational people, at least.

8 posted on 01/08/2006 11:25:25 PM PST by Darkwolf377 ("Stay off our corner!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: defenderSD

It's one thing to be just another aging writer for the Washington Post --
and quite another thing to be President of the United States.

But I guess all they'll ever know is how to be another prematurely aging writer for the Washington Post --
and think all there is possible.


9 posted on 01/08/2006 11:31:31 PM PST by MikeHu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Darkwolf377

"It's like a newspaper having a breaking story revealing that your mailman actually WALKS right up to your private property--your mail box--and has the audacity to OPEN IT! in plain sight of others, and....put DOCUMENTS into it! Is this what the Founding Fathers intended?!?!?!?!?! "



heheheh, good comparison.


10 posted on 01/08/2006 11:32:51 PM PST by HighWheeler (def.- Democrats: n. from Greek; democ - many; rats - ugly, filthy, bloodsucking parasites.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: MikeHu

Fortunately, they reward them by their seniority.


11 posted on 01/08/2006 11:33:36 PM PST by MikeHu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
ironic isnt it?

For decades the democrats and the likes of JOhn Kerry and been seeking to destroy the CIA and our military, and now we see the Clintonastas within the CIA and the NSA are determined to destroy Bush by these leaks & illegal disclosures.

12 posted on 01/08/2006 11:36:06 PM PST by prophetic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MikeHu

If I had a penny for every two-bit newspaper writer trying to prove they were smarter than the President of the United States, I'd be a very rich man.

In fact, they'd have to build another mint just to increase the supply of pennies.


13 posted on 01/08/2006 11:47:04 PM PST by MikeHu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

I would be shocked if the post ever reported something that wasn't liberal biased.


14 posted on 01/08/2006 11:47:45 PM PST by Proud_USA_Republican (We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good. - Hillary Clinton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: prophetic; LibWhacker

Appropriate cartoon posted by LibWhacker on another thread.

15 posted on 01/08/2006 11:53:50 PM PST by FairOpinion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

.


16 posted on 01/09/2006 12:10:12 AM PST by Mo1 (Republicans protect Americans from Terrorists. Democrats protect Terrorists from Americans)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
We really should give some advantage to the terrorists, according to the Dims.

I can't speak for any Dims, but Americans have an advantage called the Bill of Rights that no president is empowered to take away. I have yet to see a justification for ignoring the FISC and obtaining warrants (even after the fact as the law permits) for searches conducted on Americans. Instead I see attacks on the patriotism of anyone who questions the executive's claims of limitless power to search Americans without obtaining a warrant.

17 posted on 01/09/2006 1:07:44 AM PST by Gunslingr3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gunslingr3
Did you ever wonder why the Dims are squealing so much about Bushes use of Commander in Chief powers to listen in on the conversations of Americans?

I mean have the Dims turned into Civil Libetarian Mavins overnight?

The reason the Dims are squealing so much is quite simple, all the little prick, civil servants who were appointed by Clinton, and who are leaking items to the press in order to subvert US policies established by our president, are being detected and called onto the mat! This is a GOOD thing, and Americans are loving it.

Squeal you Liberals Squeal, just like the stuck pigs you are!

18 posted on 01/09/2006 1:21:43 AM PST by Candor7 (Into Liberal Flatulence Goes the Hope of the West)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Candor7
Did you ever wonder why the Dims are squealing so much about Bushes use of Commander in Chief powers to listen in on the conversations of Americans?

The President is not empowered to violate the 4th amendment. FISA provides the FISC to review and approve searches of Americans pursuant to national security. It even permits the FISC warrant to be pursued after the fact. Nothing empowers the president to ignore the 4th amendment.

If you accept that the president can disregard the Bill of Rights at his whim then we have substituted tyranny for constitutional government. I don't want an America where a President Hillary Clinton can read any American's mail or tap their phones without following the established legal process of obtaining a warrant.

19 posted on 01/09/2006 1:47:13 AM PST by Gunslingr3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Gunslingr3

The POTUS doesn't need a warrant to surveil enemy agents and their domestic contacts in time of war when national security is at stake, there are established legal precedents for this, anybody who doesn't understand this is either an idiot or an unpatriotic liberal politician trying to topple a GOP led administration.

"The government had long maintained that it had extensive discretion to conduct wiretapping or physical searches in order to protect national security. In Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), the Supreme Court acknowledged that the President had claimed special authority for warrantless surveillance in national security investigations, and explicitly declined to extend its holding to cases "involving the national security." Id. at 358 n. 23. Similarly, Congress in Title III stated that "nothing in Title III shall . . . be deemed to limit the constitutional power of the President to take such measures as he deems necessary to protect the United States against the overthrow of the Government by force or other unlawful means, or against any other clear and present danger to the structure or existence of the Government."


20 posted on 01/09/2006 2:05:51 AM PST by Rome2000 (Peace is not an option)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
..."Ours will be a broad campaign, fought on many fronts. It's a campaign that will be waged by day and by night, in the light and in the shadow, in battles that you will see and battles you won't see. It's a campaign waged by soldiers and sailors, marines and airmen; and also by FBI agents and law-enforcement officials and diplomats and intelligence officers. . . . Our campaign will be difficult, and it will take time. But I can promise you this: It will be waged with determination, and it will be waged until we win. We will do whatever it takes to protect our country." - George W. Bush, Oct. 17, 2001...

My belief is that there is nothing new under the Sun in the rotten parts of human nature. The leftists are always hanging out, doing nothing, until they think they can grab the positive rewards of those who had the courage and the fortitude and the perseverance to do great things. We have not had another attack since 9-11 and that is due specifically to the brave and logical leadership of George W. Bush, our President. They know that..Now, they are trying every sleazy thing they can think of to grab power now that everything is under some kind of effective control. If they can do that, guess what else they will do? They will grab the credit for everything President Bush and his Policies have given to America for all the years of his Presidency. Every week I wonder, do these people not know we are all mortal and do they not know what a dangerous world we live in? The bottom line is very simple..George W. Bush is their competition and he is wildly successful..History will prove it. Today, we will witness another travesty against our Government and its checks and balances as the Democrats attack Judge Alito and his nomination to the Supreme Court. It would seem that their cause for hatred always is any person who shrinks from the massacre of babies in America. Regardless of what charges they spin out today against this man, who is as suitable as an person ever could be for the Supreme Court, the real reason they hate has to do with abortion. We live in a very dangerous world, both literally and figuratively..
21 posted on 01/09/2006 3:35:29 AM PST by jazzlite (esat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
In this new kind of warfare, an ever-surprised, ever-vulnerable America, was supposed to be easy pickings for these new kamikazes. This country was going to be reduced to cowering behind defenses full of holes.

Which is exactly what would have happened had Al Gore succeeded in cheating his way into the White House in 2000 (shudder).

22 posted on 01/09/2006 3:38:05 AM PST by alnick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Candor7

Yes, and why would anyone not want knowledge of the communications of terrorists. One cannot help but think that only those assisting our enemies might object to this age old method of keeping us safe.


23 posted on 01/09/2006 3:40:06 AM PST by jazzlite (esat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Darkwolf377
It's like a newspaper having a breaking story revealing that your mailman actually WALKS right up to your private property--your mail box--and has the audacity to OPEN IT! in plain sight of others, and....put DOCUMENTS into it! Is this what the Founding Fathers intended?!?!?!?!?!

That is a great analogy.

24 posted on 01/09/2006 3:40:49 AM PST by alnick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Gunslingr3
Instead I see attacks on the patriotism of anyone who questions the executive's claims of limitless power to search Americans without obtaining a warrant.

Well, then you're seeing things because no one claimed the President has limitless power to search Americans without obtaining a warrant.

He does, thank God, have pretty broad powers, however, to spy on Al Qaeda.

25 posted on 01/09/2006 3:46:12 AM PST by alnick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Gunslingr3
... to search Americans without obtaining a warrant.

Is it your assumption that wiretapping an incoming phone call from a non-citizen is "searching Americans"?

That will be a interesting and challenging legal argument for you to make. Please give it a shot and educate us all.

26 posted on 01/09/2006 3:53:12 AM PST by been_lurking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: been_lurking

Its about time someone has quoted the actual words spoken by the President shortly after 9-11 instead of the propoganda put out revisionists .There should be more wholesale release of the presidents speeches from 2001


27 posted on 01/09/2006 4:08:17 AM PST by ballplayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
An immediate and thorough housecleaning should have been undertaken at the CIA after 9/11/01. I'm talking wholesale firings of the legions of incompetents.

All I remember is President George W. Bush going to visit CIA headquarters after the mass murder attacks and giving them a nice pep talk.

I was furious.

A pat on the back for a massive intelligence failure of the most expensive spy agency on earth?

This is the same agency that completely missed forecasting the break-up of the Soviet Union.

I picture hundreds of people sitting around in their office cubicles playing Solitaire on their taxpayer-financed computers.

As I predicted, the failure of the United States government to control entry into our country has made America vulnerable to the worst kind of murderous trash crossing our borders.

The government has been forced to ramp up its surveillance (Big Brother) and spy on all of us native citizens because that government REFUSES to keep the barbaric trash out of our country.

I have the vivid memory of airport security agents attempting to confiscate the Medal of Honor belonging to a very elderly Joe Foss, a World War II, Pacific Theater fighter ace. They deemed his possession of the small medal a "threat" while allowing Middle Eastern men to board airliners unchallenged, lest our security efforts be seen as politically incorrect "profiling."

The term "government intelligence" is a laughable contradiction.

28 posted on 01/09/2006 4:09:51 AM PST by NoControllingLegalAuthority
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gunslingr3
It appears that a terrorist is not a criminal but an enemy soldier operating outside the law of war as well as the criminal codes. He may be operating inside or outside the U.S. Is he protected by the Bill of Rights? If so, then the war on terror is a law enforcement issue and we are full circle back to Sept 10, 2001. If not, then he is subject to surveillance and reconnaissance to determine his capabilities and intentions and to provide targetable intelligence to engage him without a court order. Since he may strike with surprise against unprotected civilians as a method of engagement there is an inherent sense of urgency every time new information is developed to determine what his intentions are.

The problem is that there are Americans inside the U.S. making contact electronically with these individuals. Some may be innocent. Some may be traitors (yes there may be Americans selling out their fellows for profit - drug smugglers and dealers do it all the time, but we accept that as a law enforcement problem). Whoever the individuals are they become suspect. It is a judgment call as to when and how to apply FISA to them and the lawyers will argue about this forever.

There is a risk/reward dilemma here. The risk of delaying surveillance is that a terrorist will be able to use the window of opportunity created by a delay to execute his operation. The reward is that we are assured that no one's 4th Amendment rights are violated. On the other hand, acting as we are now, the risk is that our executive department acting through its agents in the FBI and CIA will act not just on terrorist but also against political opponents. The reward is that actionable intelligence, if properly handled, will be available to possibly preempt terrorist without any administrative delay.

Isn't it ironic that the Barrert Report, which apparently makes the case that the previous administration was doing just that (acting illegally against its political opponents)with the IRS, is being suppressed by the very same people who are denouncing the methods used on the war on terror as being being extralegal?
29 posted on 01/09/2006 4:19:12 AM PST by RedEyeJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Gunslingr3
****I have yet to see a justification for ignoring the FISC [btw it's FISA] and obtaining warrants (even after the fact as the law permits) for searches conducted on Americans.****

  1. There are no "searches" being conducted, nor are any "phones being tapped" (quote the Dems) - period.
  2. Nobody knows if your so-called 'searches' are being conducted on "Americans".
  3. The only people saying "Americans" are the RATS & the MSM.
  4. The FISA law pertains to criminal justice matters (like say tapping the phone of an Israeli spy), not military intelligence gathering while we are at war.
  5. No law can usurp the Article II powers of the POTUS as CIC. Congress might as well pass a law that says the POTUS must wear brown on Wednesdays - it would have the same meaning, nothing.
  6. Lastly the 4th Amendment protections contains one salient word "unreasonable". As such, if one if plotting against the USA to kill "Americans" - any 'search' is then NOT unreasonable.

30 posted on 01/09/2006 5:14:41 AM PST by Condor51 (The above comment is time sensitive - don't BUG ME an hour from now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Darkwolf377

As well, there were many Republicans that stabbed Reagan in the back. Many that sought to distance from him. Now they can't stop invoking his name in campaigns. Some things never change.

It may take longer for G.W.B. to receive his due, mainly because he's younger and theoretically has many more years to live. I don't see him being recognized for the good he did until he passes unfortunately. It will happen eventually. Explaining the Democrats desperation as they saw their inability to prevent Reagan's legacy in end, they are rapidly approaching the day they can't prevent G.W.B.'s.


31 posted on 01/09/2006 5:27:53 AM PST by Soul Seeker (Mr. President: It is now time to turn over the money changers' tables.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: RedEyeJack

Time for a

BARRETT BUMP

(I also found it ironic that this report was filed by the "Arkansas Democrat")


32 posted on 01/09/2006 5:35:04 AM PST by freema (Proud Marine Mom, Aunt, Sister, Friend, Wife, Daughter, Niece)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: gondramB

"People should vote for Republican presidents if they don't want the nation defended..."

You are kidding, right?


33 posted on 01/09/2006 6:19:51 AM PST by EQAndyBuzz ("We don't need POLITICIANS...we need STATESMEN.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: jazzlite

And their names shall NOT be in the book of LIFE...


34 posted on 01/09/2006 6:39:33 AM PST by Edgerunner (Proud to be an infidel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
"Shocking discovery: President determined to defend U.S."

That is why why employ effective tactics, such as open borders.

35 posted on 01/09/2006 6:49:44 AM PST by GingisK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

it's all a joke with the borders wide open.


36 posted on 01/09/2006 6:56:11 AM PST by the gillman@blacklagoon.com
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gunslingr3
The President is not empowered to violate the 4th amendment.

Please show a link or proof where this has been done.

I don't want an America where a President Hillary Clinton can read any American's mail or tap their phones without following the established legal process of obtaining a warrant.

It's already been done by them.

37 posted on 01/09/2006 7:07:04 AM PST by DJ MacWoW (If you think you know what's coming next....You don't know Jack.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: defenderSD
I think you got that backwards. People should NOT vote for Republican presidents if they don't want the nation defended.

Are you kidding - you would rather have had John Effing Kerry - part of the "Cut and Run" party of RATS? I don't understand?

38 posted on 01/09/2006 8:27:26 AM PST by p23185 (Why isn't attempting to take down a sitting Pres & his Admin considered Sedition?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: EQAndyBuzz

Me:""People should vote for Republican presidents if they don't want the nation defended..."

You are kidding, right?"

EQAndy:"You are kidding, right?"

Nope, not kidding... Major typo - should have been

""People should NOT vote for Republican presidents if they don't want the nation defended..."

Sorry about that.


39 posted on 01/09/2006 9:29:27 AM PST by gondramB (Democracy: two wolves and a lamb voting on lunch. Liberty: a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: p23185; defenderSD

defenderSD: "I think you got that backwards. People should NOT vote for Republican presidents if they don't want the nation defended.

p23185: "Are you kidding - you would rather have had John Effing Kerry - part of the "Cut and Run" party of RATS? I don't understand?"

Just for the record, DefenederSD did not say anything about suporrting John Kerry. He was pointing out, politely, a typo in my post. Sorry for the confusion but any blame is mine, not defender's.


40 posted on 01/09/2006 9:34:01 AM PST by gondramB (Democracy: two wolves and a lamb voting on lunch. Liberty: a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

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