Appropriate cartoon posted by LibWhacker on another thread.
Posted on 01/08/2006 11:12:35 PM PST by FairOpinion
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.
Bump for later read.
"Shocking discovery: President determined to defend U.S."
People should vote for Republican presidents if they don't want the nation defended...
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.
I think you got that backwards. People should NOT vote for Republican presidents if they don't want the nation defended.
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.
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?
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.
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.
"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.
Fortunately, they reward them by their seniority.
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.
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.
I would be shocked if the post ever reported something that wasn't liberal biased.
Appropriate cartoon posted by LibWhacker on another thread.
.
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.
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!
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.
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."
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.