True Character of Democrats Emerges in Senate/House Debates

Wiretap Bill Sets Up Election-Year Issue By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer Fri Sep 29, 3:20 AM

WASHINGTON - The House approved a bill Thursday that would grant legal status to President Bush's warrantless wiretapping program with new restrictions. Republicans called it a test before the election of whether Democrats want to fight or coddle terrorists.

"The Democrats' irrational opposition to strong national security policies that help keep our nation secure should be of great concern to the American people," Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said in a statement after the bill passed 232-191.

"To always have reasons why you just can't vote 'yes,' I think speaks volumes when it comes to which party is better able and more willing to take on the terrorists and defeat them," Boehner said.

Democrats shot back that the war on terrorism shouldn't be fought at the expense of civil and human rights. The bill approved by the House, they argued, gives the president too much power and leaves the law vulnerable to being overturned by a court.

"It is ceding the president's argument that Congress doesn't matter in this area," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md.

The bill, sponsored by Rep. Heather Wilson, R-N.M., that give legal status under certain conditions to Bush's warrantless wiretapping of calls and e-mails between people on U.S. soil making calls or sending e-mails and those in other countries.

Under the measure, the president would be authorized to conduct such wiretaps if he:

_ Notifies the House and Senate intelligence committees and congressional leaders.

_ Believes an attack is imminent and later explains the reason and names the individuals and groups involved.

The Senate also could vote on a similar bill before Congress recesses at the end of the week. Leaders concede that differences between the versions are so significant they cannot reconcile them into a final bill that can be delivered to Bush before the Nov. 7 congressional elections.

For its part, the White House announced it strongly supported passage of the House version but wasn't satisfied with it, adding that the administration "looks forward to working with Congress to strengthen the bill as it moves through the legislative process."

But with Congress giving Bush the other half of his September anti-terrorism agenda _ a bill setting conditions on how terrorism suspects are to be detained, interrogated and tried _ Republicans shifted from lawmaking to campaign mode.

After the House voted 253-168 to set rules on tough interrogations and military tribunal proceedings, Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., was even more critical than Boehner.

"Democrat Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and 159 of her Democrat colleagues voted today in favor of more rights for terrorists," Hastert said in a statement. "So the same terrorists who plan to harm innocent Americans and their freedom worldwide would be coddled, if we followed the Democrat plan. "

Retorted Pelosi: "I think the speaker is a desperate man for him to say that. Would you think that anyone in our country wants to coddle terrorists?"

She and other Democratic critics of the GOP's September anti-terrorism agenda contend the Republican-written bills make Bush's programs vulnerable to being overturned in court. More broadly, they argue the legislation reflects the White House's willingness to fight the war on terrorism at the expense of civil and human rights.

A Democratic majority in either House would set the balance right, Democrats say. "In 40 days, we can put an end to this nonsense," said Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass, referring to the election.

A federal judge in Detroit who struck down the warrantless surveillance program turned aside a government request for an indefinite stay Thursday. U.S. Judge Anna Diggs Taylor said the government could have a week to appeal.

At long last, we are seeing the congealing of opposing ideas in the halls of our government regarding the prosecution of our war against Islamic murderers.

One idea is to give our president every tool possible to command a changing military in a highly fluid and unstable battlefield, with the oversight of Congress. The other idea is to elevate the civil rights of our enemy over the civil rights of American citizens- an idea that motivates Democrats to opposes every meaningful and effective strategy at our disposal in this war; to demand immediate withdrawal from regions in which the enemy is being killed wholesale and democracy is being established; to put forward no plan whatsoever as an alternative to the current one; and to push legislation that would further erode America's ability to secure our borders and prevent illegal immigrants from insinuating themselves into our society without penalty.

The Democrats have abandoned all pretense at this point. The protestations are still there for the media to propagate, but at this point the cards are all on the table and America stands at the threshold of one of the most important elections in her history. We can choose to press on in the fight, or to capitulate to the terrorists. While there are other issues to consider in the upcoming election, if our security as a nation is forfeited then none of the other issues will matter all that much.

The passage of House Bill H.R. 5825 and Senate Bill S. 3931 will go far to uphold our ability to prosecute the most unorthodox war in our history. Yet the Democrats, in their usual fashion, oppose them. Patrick Leahy, who singlehandedly caused the deaths of CIA agents by exposing them to our enemies, called the senate bill "bad" and "dangerous." And Leahy knows all about being bad and dangerous.

Kellman cites House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R- Illinois) as saying that "Democrat Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and 159 of her Democrat colleagues voted today in favor of more rights for terrorists... So the same terrorists who plan to harm innocent Americans and their freedom worldwide would be coddled, if we followed the Democrat plan."

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Iran) shot back, "Would you think that anyone in our country wants to coddle terrorists?"

Well, yes, Nancy. We do think that there are people in our country want to coddle terrorists. We call them Democrats. The Democrats convince of of this idea through their obstruction of America's capacity to wage war against our enemies, through their scorn of American citizens' rights in favor of defending terrorist murderers, through their continued enablement of illegal immigration, and through their constant assault on the Constitution regarding the rights of Americans to defend themselves against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

For once, Pelosi and the Democrats who voted with her in lockstep clearly articulated the single most defining characteristic of the modern Democrat Party: treason.

Actually, you need to dig deep to find the "true character" of the Democrats. The superficial media (TV, newspapers, news magazines) has never reported what you are reading here. The vast majority of the general population believe that the sky is pink and George Bush is a spoiled frat boy who is in waaaay over his head because that's what they have read in the papers, heard on the evening news, and been told by their union bosses and welfare providers. I hold no hope that more than 30% of America is even aware that the Democrats are working on the side of the terrorists and that actual treason is being committed on a daily basis in the editorial rooms of the New York Times.

So woefully lacking is civics education that the average voter entering the polling place is more often that not voting on the basis of hype, slander, rumor, innuendo, and outright lies than anything remotely resembling the truth. The United States of America as founded by Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, and Adams is in its last days, and its past time for the red states to band together and demand that we return to the liberty that was initially granted to American citizens on December 15, 1791. Failing that, we must take our cue from our founders who said “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.”

I may be feeling a little too outraged today since I just turned 50, but my disgust with politicians, judges, lawyers, and those organizations who’s sole purpose for existence is to change our representative republic into a soviet socialist utopia is growing to a point where my mere act of voting is insufficient at expressing my outrage.

If I were as malevolent as the 'Rats are, you know what I'd do?

I'd throw the elections. I'd have all the 'Pubbies stand down, pull out of their races, and send what, 476 Democrats to the House of Representatives? Same thing in the Senate -- you'd wind up with about 60-70 Democrats in the Senate.

Then, the President and Vice President could resign as soon as Speaker Pelosi was sworn in and stick her with the White House and her choice of Vice President (U-Boot Kapitan Teddy would be one good choice!).

Then sit back and wait for the jihadis to start nuking American cities. Matter of time, no matter what the Dems do -- they could run a foreign policy right out of Mr. Rogers and Barney the Dinosaur, throw all the moderate Arabs and the anti-Ba'athist Iraqis to the wolves. It wouldn't matter -- sooner or later we'd get it.

And hundreds of thousands, millions even, of Democratic voters would pay for their folly with their lives.

We could do that. We could limp-leg it, let the country learn its lesson the hard way.

But like I said, I'd have to be as cynically malevolent as the 'Rat pack.

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.