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

Skip to comments.

Democrats Say They Didn't Back Wiretapping
Yahoo (AP) ^ | 12/20/2005 | KATHERINE SHRADER

Posted on 12/20/2005 6:30:32 AM PST by The_Victor

WASHINGTON - Some Democrats say they never approved a domestic wiretapping program, undermining suggestions by President Bush and his senior advisers that the plan was fully vetted in a series of congressional briefings.

"I feel unable to fully evaluate, much less endorse, these activities," West Virginia Sen. Jay Rockefeller, the Senate Intelligence Committee's top Democrat, said in a handwritten letter to Vice President Dick Cheney in July 2003. "As you know, I am neither a technician nor an attorney."

Rockefeller is among a small group of congressional leaders who have received briefings on the administration's four-year-old program to eavesdrop — without warrants — on international calls and e-mails of Americans and others inside the United States with suspected ties to al-Qaida.

The government still would seek court approval to snoop on purely domestic communications, such as calls between New York and Los Angeles.

Some legal experts described the program as groundbreaking. And until the highly classified program was disclosed last week, those in Congress with concerns about the National Security Agency spying on Americans raised them only privately.

Bush, accused of acting above the law, on Monday issued a forceful defense of the program he first authorized shortly after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. His senior aides have stressed the program was narrowly targeted at individuals with a suspected link to al-Qaida or affiliated extremist groups. And Bush said it was "a shameful act" for someone to have leaked details to the media.

He bristled at the suggestion at a White House news conference that he was assuming unlimited powers.

"To say 'unchecked power' basically is ascribing some kind of dictatorial position to the president, which I strongly reject," he said angrily. "I am doing what you expect me to do, and at the same time, safeguarding the civil liberties of the country."

Despite the defense, there was a growing storm of criticism in Congress and calls for investigations, from Democrats and Republicans alike. Until the past several days, the White House had only informed Congress' top political and intelligence committee leadership about the program that Bush has reauthorized more than three dozen times.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said he and other top aides were just now educating the American people and Congress. "The president has not authorized ... blanket surveillance of communications here in the United States," he said.

The spying uproar was the latest controversy about Bush's handling of the war on terror. It follows allegations of secret prisons in Eastern Europe and of torture and other mistreatment of detainees, and an American death toll in Iraq that has exceeded 2,150.

The eavesdropping program was operated out of the NSA, the nation's largest and perhaps most secretive spy operation. Employees there appreciate their nicknames: No Such Agency or Never Say Anything.

Decisions on what conversations to monitor are made at the Fort Meade, Md., headquarters, approved by an NSA shift supervisor and carefully recorded, said Gen. Michael Hayden, the principal deputy director of intelligence.

"The reason I emphasize that this is done at the operational level is to remove any question in your mind that this is in any way politically influenced," said Hayden, who was NSA director when the program began.

Since the program was disclosed last week by The New York Times, current and former Congress members have been liberated to weigh in.

Former Sen. Bob Graham (news, bio, voting record), D-Fla., who was part of the Intelligence Committee's leadership after the 9/11 attacks, recalled a briefing about changes in international electronic surveillance, but does not remember being told of a program snooping on individuals in the United States.

"It seemed fairly mechanical," Graham said. "It was not a major shift in policy."

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., received several briefings and raised concerns, including in a classified letter, her spokeswoman Jennifer Crider said.

Former Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle said he, too, was briefed by the White House between 2002 and 2004 but was not told key details about the scope of the program.

Daschle's successor, Sen. Harry Reid (news, bio, voting record), D-Nev., said he received a single briefing earlier this year and that important details were withheld. "We need to investigate this program and the president's legal authority to carry it out," Reid said.

Republicans, too, were skeptical.

Sen. Arlen Specter (news, bio, voting record), R-Pa., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has promised hearings next year and said he would ask Bush's Supreme Court nominee, Samuel Alito, his views of the president's authority for spying without a warrant.

Bush said the electronic eavesdropping program lets the government move faster than the standard practice of seeking a court-authorized warrant under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. "We've got to be fast on our feet, quick to detect and prevent," the president said.

And he was cool toward investigations. "An open debate would say to the enemy, `Here is what we're going to do.' And this is an enemy which adjusts," he said.

___


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 109th; dems; denial; homelandsecurity; nsa; patriotleak; spying; surveillance
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-160 next last
The MSM continues to defend the democRATs. But it is interesting to note that after you finish reading past Rockefeller's lies, most of the democRATs admit they recieved the briefings. But of course the MSM will never put that in the first paragraph.
1 posted on 12/20/2005 6:30:32 AM PST by The_Victor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: The_Victor
War is for protecting your life, not your civil liberties. Some day, liberals will understand what is going on. I assume they also missed the speeches by Iran's new head that calls for the extermination of Israel and the U.S. It's fine with me, as long as they start with Hollywood.

My guess, the intelligence was officially gathered by a 'foreign agent' and passed to the U.S. The NSA loophole -- deal with it. All you need is a foreign agent at the controls of the NSA phone call eavesdrop console.

BTW, if you read the 9/11 Omission report they cite FISA as being too slow and cumbersome for fighting terrorists in the new information age.

I guess we need another "see he didn't connect the dots" event before liberals will finally get it. Only reason I can come up with for why liberals are hampering the dot connecting.

Hey defeatists -- It's a war. Get it? The terrorists want to kill us all? Get it yet?

Liberals are not to be trusted with the defense of the country.

2 posted on 12/20/2005 6:33:22 AM PST by Tarpon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The_Victor

I can't believe that even Democrats are stupid enough to think attacking Bush for this will increase their chances in the next election.


3 posted on 12/20/2005 6:34:18 AM PST by bkepley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The_Victor

Half of the dems won't even admit getting the briefings, fools like Graham claim they don't remember. You want to trust these cowards with the national security?


4 posted on 12/20/2005 6:34:26 AM PST by Williams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The_Victor
"I feel unable to fully evaluate, much less endorse, these activities," West Virginia Sen. Jay Rockefeller, the Senate Intelligence Committee's top Democrat, said in a handwritten letter to Vice President Dick Cheney in July 2003.

John D. Rockefeller, III sure has a slow mind, doesn't he?

5 posted on 12/20/2005 6:35:10 AM PST by syriacus (Murtha wants our troops redeployed. I wonder how he'd feel about redeploying them to Iran.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The_Victor

They think they've finally found something to impeach Bush with.
Turley on BOR last night and one of the Dem Reps hinted to just this thing yesterday.


6 posted on 12/20/2005 6:35:47 AM PST by philo (They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist. . . . Union General John Sedgwick last words)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The_Victor
Yes, Democrats please jump on this bandwagon. Just like they jumped on the torture bandwagon, until a poll comes out that most people value the safety of their families more than the rights of the enemy.

What a bunch of losers and liars!

7 posted on 12/20/2005 6:37:20 AM PST by BallyBill (I want NY Times publishers added to the Ten Most Wanted list.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The_Victor

"I voted for it, before I voted against it."


8 posted on 12/20/2005 6:37:36 AM PST by Stark_GOP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The_Victor
They're admitting again they were too dense to understand what was being briefed just as they admitted not understanding the war resolution they passed in 2002.

Should reconsider which party should be called the 'Stupid Party'.

9 posted on 12/20/2005 6:38:09 AM PST by Semper Paratus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The_Victor

If one is functioning in the real world, and not moon-bat LaLa land, it's easy to see that this is total BS because thad they been opposed they would have leaked this 4 years ago. That they didn't do this is proof that they had no problem with it. That's the way Washington works.


10 posted on 12/20/2005 6:38:33 AM PST by 2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten (Is your problem ignorance or apathy? I don't know and I don't care.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The_Victor

They supported the wire tap before they were against the wire tap.


11 posted on 12/20/2005 6:39:07 AM PST by Vasilli22 (http://www.richardfest.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The_Victor
Right. The same people who never read the intelligence briefings. Dumb as Ox Democrats.
>

(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie.Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")

12 posted on 12/20/2005 6:39:40 AM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Williams

>> "fools like Graham claim they don't remember" <<

Isn't Graham the nut job that kept a detailed daily diary of everything he did, every day.


13 posted on 12/20/2005 6:40:05 AM PST by sd-joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Semper Paratus
Should reconsider which party should be called the 'Stupid Party'.

"Stuck on stupid."

14 posted on 12/20/2005 6:41:01 AM PST by The_Victor (If all I want is a warm feeling, I should just wet my pants.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: All

It is amazing to me the people that we send to Congress have no knowledge of what their job is. I have heard more Congress people say "I didnt know, understand, read..." Its scary. What have we done to ourselves? God Help Us


15 posted on 12/20/2005 6:41:24 AM PST by newconhere
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: 2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten

If any of the attacks that were thwarted by this "spying" had actually gone ahead and gotten Americans killed, every one of these Dems would have been screaming that Bush did not act!


16 posted on 12/20/2005 6:42:17 AM PST by TNCMAXQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: syriacus
"I feel unable to fully evaluate, much less endorse, these activities," West Virginia Sen. Jay Rockefeller, the Senate Intelligence Committee's top Democrat, said in a handwritten letter to Vice President Dick Cheney in July 2003. "As you know, I am neither a technician nor an attorney."

Why is this guy on the intelligence committee?
17 posted on 12/20/2005 6:42:20 AM PST by stocksthatgoup ("It's inexcusable to tell us to 'connect the dots' and not give us the tools to do so." G W Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: The_Victor
This was such a poorly thought out article, it was almost too painful to read. The idea that "some Republicans" have concerns, and then mention one name, and it was shocking to see that it was Arlen Specter. The author takes every chance she can find to make gratuitous attacks against the administration, including the death count in Iraq. I guess I should expect this level of "reporting" from the AP.
18 posted on 12/20/2005 6:45:43 AM PST by Sthitch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The_Victor
Wait a minute these liberals did not give a rat's hairy behind when Clintons were wiretapping, collecting FBI files and that ABLE DANGER data mining for their own political purposes.

We got some mental defects being exposed for them to start claiming they do not back wiretapping.
19 posted on 12/20/2005 6:46:03 AM PST by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The_Victor
Sen. Arlen Specter (news, bio, voting record), R-Pa., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has promised hearings next year and said he would ask Bush's Supreme Court nominee, Samuel Alito, his views of the president's authority for spying without a warrant.

Why, again, did Bush prop up this guy against Toomey, and then not get rid of him as Judiciary chairman after the election?

20 posted on 12/20/2005 6:46:35 AM PST by NYCVirago
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The_Victor
The 'rats are going to drown trying to challenge the President on this.

My wife said last night that Americans would not be able sleep at night if people like Byrd, Reid, Pelosi, and Kerry were in charge of keeping us safe.

21 posted on 12/20/2005 6:46:40 AM PST by Semper Paratus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The_Victor

Listening to the members of the MSM/dem party caterwaul last night, their talking point was "the President has not made the legal case for intercepting and eavesdropping on phone calls."

To begin with, I was under the impression, and someone I am sure will correct me if I am wrong, that it is perfectly legal intercept phone calls so long as it is done abroad, ex-US. During the news conference yesterday, the President hinted that this was the case, the he authorized intercepting calls ex-US. It also seems to me that in order for the President to thoroughly defend himself, which I believe he can with the greatest of ease, he would be forced to reveal the minute details of many top secret programs still underway, thus undermining or destroying our nations intelligence gathering capabilities. The President was NOT willing to do this in the name of expediency and relied upon his war powers as CIC to justify his actions. Of course, during times of war other Presidents (named Roosevelt and Lincoln, for example) have made Bush's actions look tame, but hey, suddenly the Constitution has become a suicide note.

Nonetheless, the MSM/dem party still takes the position that the President has not made the legal case. This position presupposes two things 1) that the President has no war powers because Republican Presidents should have no powers at all; and 2) even if the President did have war powers, THIS IS NOT A WAR.

There is one group out there that disagrees with the Invasion of Iraq and thinks it is not an extension of the War on Terror, thinks that Afghanistan should have remained our main area of focus, and thinks that we were united in the War on Terror until the Iraq invasion. There is yet another group that supports the larger War on Terror, but still thinks it is time to get out of Iraq. What do both crowds have in common? They both know there is a War on. Moreover, these groups realize that prior to 9/11 we failed to connect the dots even as the attacks against American interests intensified until America itself was hit.

In the aftermath of 9/11 the democrats (hoping to slime Bush) loaded up the 9/11 commission and used it to scream the loudest that Bush had failed to connect the dots. Could anyone forget Hillary Clinton standing on the floor of the Senate blaring that "Bush knew?" Do we have such amnesia that we are unable to remember back just two weeks ago when the 9/11 members were criticizing Bush for not doing enough? Yet now he is criticized and criminalized for carrying out the very actions the 9/11 commission suggested. . . .as if there is NO WAR.

The Patriot Act killed, the Iraq War effort undermined, Intelligence leaked selectively to undermine political opponents at the expense of national security, etc. etc. These actions mean only one thing, the democrats believe that if they aren't in power, the country must not be worth saving. Better a destroyed America than one without them in power. Surely they must know that these extreme positions will win them nothing with the voters. In effect, the dems have strapped a bomb vest on themselves and become the ultimate suicide weapon for our enemies. Congrats guys, you hit rock bottom.


22 posted on 12/20/2005 6:46:43 AM PST by FlipWilson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The_Victor
What gets me is that things were really turning around before this BS. Katrina, Plame, Miers, etc.

Bush finally got on the offensive and his poll numbers are rising. Now this. Pisses me off.

23 posted on 12/20/2005 6:47:05 AM PST by doesnt suffer fools gladly (Merry Christmas!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The_Victor

The Commander-in-Chief does not need permission from a minority in Congress to intercept communications with THE ENEMIES OF THE UNITED STATES!


24 posted on 12/20/2005 6:47:23 AM PST by advance_copy (Stand for life, or nothing at all)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The_Victor
"I feel unable to fully evaluate, much less endorse, these activities," West Virginia Sen. Jay Rockefeller, the Senate Intelligence Committee's top Democrat, said in a handwritten letter to Vice President Dick Cheney in July 2003. "As you know, I am neither a technician nor an attorney."

Apparently he was not sufficiently concerned to follow up with any legal inquiry of his own.

25 posted on 12/20/2005 6:47:27 AM PST by gov_bean_ counter (It is easy to call for a pi$$ing contest when you aren't going to be in the line of fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The_Victor
"I feel unable to fully evaluate, much less endorse, these activities," West Virginia Sen. Jay Rockefeller, the Senate Intelligence Committee's top Democrat, said in a handwritten letter to Vice President Dick Cheney in July 2003. "As you know, I am neither a technician nor an attorney."

"I am, however, a very wealthy trust baby with a low IQ."

26 posted on 12/20/2005 6:47:30 AM PST by Semi Civil Servant (The New York Times: Al-Qaeda's most effective spy network.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The_Victor
Assuming the WSJ yesterday is correct and the President is on solid ground on this one, the GOP needs to turn out another video with the sound bites of biden, levin, pullousy, boxer, kenedy, et al.
27 posted on 12/20/2005 6:48:17 AM PST by paul51 (11 September 2001 - Never forget)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The_Victor
Rockerfeller raised no objections after 911 but as election time grew closer, a year and a half later, he started questioning the validaty of the program on legal grounds? Yea OK. This is the reason no one trust the MSM for not emphasizing the fact that he only objected a year and a half later. MSM's philosophy; ignore the details.
28 posted on 12/20/2005 6:48:29 AM PST by Wasanother (Terrorist come in many forms but all are RATS.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tarpon
It's a war.Get it?

Therein lies the problem.

The dems and the MSM do not get it. They want the President to follow the Marquis of Queensbury rules. Give the other fellow a sporting chance.

IMHO all lawmakers should be made to watch the footage of 9/11 at least once a month. Perhaps then they might remember what we are up against.

God bless President Bush and all the brave men and women in uniform.

29 posted on 12/20/2005 6:49:21 AM PST by Churchillspirit (Anaheim Angels - 2002 World Series Champions)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: sd-joe
Isn't Graham the nut job that kept a detailed daily diary of everything he did, every day.

He put the "anal" in anally retentive.

30 posted on 12/20/2005 6:50:08 AM PST by gov_bean_ counter (It is easy to call for a pi$$ing contest when you aren't going to be in the line of fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: bkepley

Well, they are stupid enough. They have attacked Bush all year long and got his approval numbers down because he did not fight back. However, he is fighting back now and their paradigm of a new Vietnam is going to be broken.


31 posted on 12/20/2005 6:50:22 AM PST by KC_Conspirator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: bkepley

Well, they are stupid enough. They have attacked Bush all year long and got his approval numbers down because he did not fight back. However, he is fighting back now and their paradigm of a new Vietnam is going to be broken.


32 posted on 12/20/2005 6:50:23 AM PST by KC_Conspirator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop; Mo1
Former Sen. Bob Graham (news, bio, voting record), D-Fla., who was part of the Intelligence Committee's leadership after the 9/11 attacks, recalled a briefing about changes in international electronic surveillance, but does not remember being told of a program snooping on individuals in the United States. "It seemed fairly mechanical," Graham said. "It was not a major shift in policy."

Well, Bob sure is changing HIS story. I guess he looked back in one of his daily diaries.

Former Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle said he, too, was briefed by the White House between 2002 and 2004 but was not told key details about the scope of the program. Daschle's successor, Sen. Harry Reid (news, bio, voting record), D-Nev., said he received a single briefing earlier this year and that important details were withheld. "We need to investigate this program and the president's legal authority to carry it out," Reid said.

Ah, how would they KNOW that they didn't get briefed on all the details if they weren't given "all the details?" What ARE the details?

33 posted on 12/20/2005 6:50:24 AM PST by Howlin (Defeatism may have its partisan uses, but it is not justified by the facts. - GWB, 12/18/05)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: The_Victor
As you know, I am neither a technician nor an attorney.

No he is a damned liar, just like Harry Reid. Last Sunday Harry Reid would not answer Tim Russert's question when he asked him 3 different times if he was briefed by the White House. Senator Rockefeller's position in the Senate on the National Security Council would also ensure a complete and in depth briefing. This will blow up in the Democrats face like the mother of all bombs, MOAB. My question is has the leak crossed the line of treason?

34 posted on 12/20/2005 6:50:51 AM PST by cpdiii (roughneck (oil field trash and proud off it), geologist, pilot, pharmacist, full time iconoclast)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The_Victor
So, let me clarify.

The USA has been attacked without provocation or warning.

More than 2,000 innocent Americans perished.

And the demonRATs now want to say doing everything possible to prevent further attacks was not in the nation's best interest?

demonRATs are scum--no...scum is a step up from a demonRAT.

35 posted on 12/20/2005 6:50:51 AM PST by twntaipan (MERRY CHRISTMAS WAS NOT A PROBLEM UNTIL THE DEMOCRATS MADE IT A PROBLEM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten
If one is functioning in the real world, and not moon-bat LaLa land, it's easy to see that this is total BS because thad they been opposed they would have leaked this 4 years ago. That they didn't do this is proof that they had no problem with it. That's the way Washington works.

Exactly!! They are using this now to detract from the success of the elections in Iraq since the "pullout now" tactic wasn't working. These hate-Bush traitors will do and say ANYTHING to undermine this president and his administration even if it compromises our national security and aids those we are at war with. They are truly despicable and their true colors are showing more than ever. I am disgusted.

36 posted on 12/20/2005 6:51:04 AM PST by blinachka (Vechnaya Pamyat Daddy... xoxo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Howlin; Mo1
recalled a briefing about changes in international electronic surveillance

Could this be what Rockefeller didn't "understand?"

37 posted on 12/20/2005 6:51:05 AM PST by Howlin (Defeatism may have its partisan uses, but it is not justified by the facts. - GWB, 12/18/05)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: bkepley

They want to cry Impeachment, Impeachment until it sticks.


38 posted on 12/20/2005 6:51:21 AM PST by bmwcyle (Evolution is a myth -- Libertarians just won't evolve into Conservatives.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: philo

Yeah, and how are they going to do that? The nitwits haven't yet realized 1) They don't own the House 2) Impeachment proceedings begin there 3) The President did nothing deserving impeachment or illegal 4) The American people are once again seeing Democrats protecting terrorists over their safety.

Brilliant startegy Dems. This is the ticket to success. You would think in the polls they believe are gospel that are rising since they went down this path that they'd realize national security isn't their turf, and never will be their turf so long as they embrace Osama, Zarqawi, defeatism and disregard for our safety. All they are doing is conducting one long campaign commercial for the People on why they should remain a decreasing minority. Well, not all they are doing. They seem determined to make us unsafe in the process with their leaks. I want the leaker(s) imprisoned.


39 posted on 12/20/2005 6:51:27 AM PST by Soul Seeker (Mr. President: It is now time to turn over the money changers' tables.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: The_Victor
Some Democrats say they never approved a domestic wiretapping program, undermining suggestions by President Bush and his senior advisers that the plan was fully vetted in a series of congressional briefings.

"I feel unable to fully evaluate, much less endorse, these activities," West Virginia Sen. Jay Rockefeller, the Senate Intelligence Committee's top Democrat, said in a handwritten letter to Vice President Dick Cheney in July 2003. "As you know, I am neither a technician nor an attorney."

Bwa-ha-ha!! Good one Democrats. Bush told you all about it but you lacked the competence to understand it. And you want to be put into power? Now THERE'S a position to run on! Do I see another RNC commercial in future? Hope so!

40 posted on 12/20/2005 6:51:39 AM PST by PMCarey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tarpon

"..War is for protecting your life, not your civil liberties.."


liberals say we don't have wars, we do police action


41 posted on 12/20/2005 6:52:52 AM PST by sure_fine (*not one to over kill the thought process*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: syriacus

Jay Rockefeller is John D. Rockefeller, IV. His father, John D. Rockefeller, III, was born in 1906.


42 posted on 12/20/2005 6:52:57 AM PST by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: The_Victor
Sen. Jay Rockefeller, the Senate Intelligence Committee's top Democrat, said in a handwritten letter to Vice President Dick Cheney in July 2003. "As you know, I am neither a technician nor an attorney."

I just play one on TV....

43 posted on 12/20/2005 6:54:03 AM PST by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The_Victor
Democrats continue to prove they are incompetent at governing.

A sure winning strategy.
44 posted on 12/20/2005 6:54:25 AM PST by PogySailor (Semper Fi to the Marines of 3/1.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KC_Conspirator
Well, they are stupid enough. They have attacked Bush all year long and got his approval numbers down because he did not fight back.

No..no..they attacked the war, which is not stupid. Attacking Bush for wire-tapping suspected Al Qaeda or "torturing" Al Qaeda is not the same thing. It's a loser.

45 posted on 12/20/2005 6:54:39 AM PST by bkepley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: NYCVirago
Why, again, did Bush prop up this guy (Spector) against Toomey, and then not get rid of him as Judiciary chairman after the election?

All we are saying, is give cancer a chance.

46 posted on 12/20/2005 6:54:57 AM PST by Niteranger68 ("Spare the rod, spoil the liberal.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: PMCarey
"As you know, I am neither a technician nor an attorney."

I just play one on TV.

47 posted on 12/20/2005 6:55:01 AM PST by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: 2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten
If one is functioning in the real world, and not moon-bat LaLa land, it's easy to see that this is total BS because thad they been opposed they would have leaked this 4 years ago. That they didn't do this is proof that they had no problem with it. That's the way Washington works.

I think you give them too much credit. They didn't oppose it because they didn't understand it. In fact, they still don't understand it. But they do understand politics and they think this is a political opportunity and they're going to run with it until the story dies out. I'm amazed by how often the Dems are now using incompetence as a defense.

48 posted on 12/20/2005 6:55:35 AM PST by PMCarey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: philo; The_Victor

The Rockefeller memo...


49 posted on 12/20/2005 6:55:36 AM PST by mosquitobite (As the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Tarpon
BTW, if you read the 9/11 Omission report they cite FISA as being too slow and cumbersome for fighting terrorists in the new information age.

Also it is too restrictive. When the FBI wanted to search the computer of Moussari (one of the 9/11/ plotters) the FISA request was turned down as not meeting the standard of probably cause. THIS WAS BEFORE THE 9/11 ATTACK. FISA rules may be the cause of the success of the 9/11 attack.

50 posted on 12/20/2005 6:55:54 AM PST by cpdiii (roughneck (oil field trash and proud off it), geologist, pilot, pharmacist, full time iconoclast)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-160 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