Attacks Foiled on West Coast-More Info Today

[j2mirish]

Ok, then. Can you please clarify your point, because I didn't see one other than Bush bashing.

OH...all I saw was Democrat bashing..........

 

[calus_3]

I don't personally give a dang if they were legal or illegal......

As you put it 'you are missing the point'.....

The point is that terrorist attacks were prevented. I understand your frustration because good news for America is terrible news for the liberals out there.

Bu ... bu..... bu....bu....but the wire taps . I wonder if being a liberal is painful?

Cal

 

[j2mirish]

I agree. There are some things I think should be kept Top Secret. A former Navy "high up" that I know made a statement to me about the wiretap issue - he said there ARE some things that the government (now and in the past, not just current administration) would want and need to keep from Congress, that there are certain details that Congress really has no need to know about, for national security purposes. That there are some details that should not be included in a search warrant. IMO, that's probably true. We, the people, do not need to know every little bit of information. And in the wrong hands, can do more harm than good. JMHO.

Kinda reminds me of the hours and days after 9/11 - the "where's the President and VP now?" Some had this 24/7 mentality of demanding to know. Ya know what, I, as "joe citizen" really didn't NEED to know that - I need to be more concerned that wherever they are, they're doing whatever they need to do to keep us safe and secure, and hunt the bad guys down.... JMHO. I don't want the bad guys to know too many details of who does what and where after such a tragedy. They aren't dumb.

I also don't expect a President (any President) to have to tell EVERYTHING to the media and/or the public. It should be who has a need to know the top, utmost, sensitive information. And the way the leaks go, I hate to see such sensitive information leaked. That bothers me. And that rings true for both parties.

Dang, I'm probably going to get blasted for that, but it is my opinion (for now, LOL!)

no blast from me ITA with you

 

[calus_3]

OH...all I saw was Democrat bashing..........

Well, get on the side of America...the right side of history.....and the right side in the fight on terrorism and there will be nothing to bash Democrats with.

I say that when you cannot read a speech and easily tell if the writer is a Democratic SENATOR or Osama Bin Laden, something is terribly wrong. When a certain Senator that wanted to become President calls our troups terrorists.....that is seriously wrong. When the world's greatest terrorists quotes a United States SENATOR in his rant against America....I get a sick feeling in my stomach.

Cal

 

[DEPUTYDAWG]

no blast from me ITA with you

Whew, thanks!

 

[calus_3]

no blast from me ITA with you

Amen, the Congress is a politically charged institution. We have already seen Kerry, Kennedy, Pelosi and that ilk doing everything to get in the way of the President during WARTIME because they think it will buy them votes. I am certain that the wiretap controversy leak originated from some of the Democratic Senators briefed previously about the program. My question is that if they are so outraged now, where was their outrage then when they could have prevented such atrocities?

If the President told Congress everything, we would have no National Security because as far as I am concerned, the Senate is filled with a bunch of crooks that would rather see America defeated.

Cal

 

[Buzz Mills]

I don't personally give a dang if they were legal or illegal......

As you put it 'you are missing the point'.....

The point is that terrorist attacks were prevented. I understand your frustration because good news for America is terrible news for the liberals out there.

Bu ... bu..... bu....bu....but the wire taps . I wonder if being a liberal is painful?

Cal

The office of the president doesn't make the laws of this country, and it isn't allowed to be above the law. They can't overstep the intent of the law, which, according to some of the best legal minds of our country, they have done.

 

[calus_3]

Oh bull...

We are at war....the President has much broader powers during a time of war to prosecute that war. This fallls under it.....it just to bad that most of the American public is so busy with what Britney was holding in her lap than the facts about the case.

Cal

 

[Buzz Mills]

Oh bull...

We are at war....the President has much broader powers during a time of war to prosecute that war. This fallls under it.....it just to bad that most of the American public is so busy with what Britney was holding in her lap than the facts about the case.

Cal

So, in your way of thinking, the end justifies the means. How about if I was a philanthropist, and I donated badly needed funds to all of the schools, to make up for the federal, state, and county, shortfalls. Wouldn't that be great??? Only problem is, I get all of my money from secretly stealing from each American. Because of the great work I do, ignore the fact, that my donations came at everyone else's expense.

Same thing, just a different context.

If the President needs a new law, he needs to request new legislation.

 

[calus_3]

So, in your way of thinking, the end justifies the means. How about if I was a philanthropist, and I donated badly needed funds to all of the schools, to make up for the federal, state, and county, shortfalls. Wouldn't that be great??? Only problem is, I get all of my money from secretly stealing from each American. Because of the great work I do, ignore the fact, that my donations came at everyone else's expense.

Same thing, just a different context.

If the President needs a new law, he needs to request new legislation.

When it comes to National Security, nothing else takes preceidence.

Out of all this greyness will probably come laws and I welcome those laws as long as they do not hinder inctercepting communication between known or suspected terrorists overseas and/or known or suspected terrorists here.

Cal

 

[Buzz Mills]

Oh bull...

We are at war....the President has much broader powers during a time of war to prosecute that war. This fallls under it.....it just to bad that most of the American public is so busy with what Britney was holding in her lap than the facts about the case.

Cal

If the President was so concerned about our national security, why is it taking him so long to seal our border with Mexico?? There are something like 12 million illegal aliens in this country, and there are more coming in every day. A month ago, or so, in one of his footnotes, he finally indicated that it might be time to do something about the Mexican border. We're supposed to feel safe??

 

[calus_3]

You know what Buzz....you might want to sit down on this one...

I think the President is so far off base with his immigration and this bogus guest worker/immunity program. I am just red faced about it because I am so mad.

I have very very serious doubts about the fact that the President is a conservative at all.

But I will tell you one thing....we are all here becuase this President has taken on the enemy. With the Islamic nations that are developing nuclear weapons and their willingness to die, it is just a matter of time before we have a nuke detonated on foreign soil. If these camel jockeys are willing to blow up a pipe bomb filled with nails that is strapped to their waist in a market in Israel, imagine the line of them to be attached to that nuke when it goes off. The only thing stopping them is money and time....the knowhow and desire is already there.

Cal

 

[altruist1000]

It is my suspicion that the "LEAK" of the program happened due to one of two occurrances:

1) attempt to abuse the program for political purposes
2) actual abuse of the program for political purposes

I do not believe that anybody who was in position to know of the NSA program divulged this information just to "protect civil liberties", if there was no abuse or attempt at abuse things would have just continued as they were.

I think history shows us that, for the most part, "LEAKS" take place when professional non political civil servants become aware that governmental programs have become or are about to be abused by politicians "in power". Political affiliation has nothing to do this.

There have been way too many wonderful, ethical public servants "constructively discharged" due to not following misadvised internal policies. These public servants don't go public they argue for improvement & policy correction only to be demoted, put aside to where they are ineffective in performing their skills to protect some slob of a politically appointed incompetent. It comes to the public attention much much later on not due to personal protection but out of devotion.

Devotion to our country & it's citizens should be applauded not spun for deceptive purposes to continue the enablement of abuse & incompetence. This is the 21st century & we as a nation should be demanding much better from our representatives, from all parties.

We're smart, ok about time we start exercising brain power & reject manipulation. There is no way that I can believe that we do not have the capability of bi-partisanship of constructing a "system" that contains internal checks & balances to ward off abuse without any public policy being announced.

It's called maturity & fiduciary responsibility. These are not new concepts.

 

[IdahoMom]

If these camel jockeys are willing to blow up a pipe bomb filled with nails that is strapped to their waist in a market in Israel, imagine the line of them to be attached to that nuke when it goes off. The only thing stopping them is money and time....the knowhow and desire is already there.

Cal

...and their marching orders. The terrorists cells that are in existence all over our country are just waiting for "the word".

 

[calus_3]

...and their marching orders. The terrorists cells that are in existence all over our country are just waiting for "the word".

Precisely!

I often wonder if a liberal in the NSA or CIA agency received an intercept from a terrorist that said 'Blow up Atlanta' and they didn't have a warrant at that time, if they would allow the message through on principle alone? Forest for the trees folks!

Cal

 

[j2mirish]

Well, get on the side of America...the right side of history.....and the right side in the fight on terrorism and there will be nothing to bash Democrats with.

I say that when you cannot read a speech and easily tell if the writer is a Democratic SENATOR or Osama Bin Laden, something is terribly wrong. When a certain Senator that wanted to become President calls our troups terrorists.....that is seriously wrong. When the world's greatest terrorists quotes a United States SENATOR in his rant against America....I get a sick feeling in my stomach.

Cal

please dont tell me if I am on the right or wrong side...and no need to lecture me while you are at it-

 

[j2mirish]

Amen, the Congress is a politically charged institution. We have already seen Kerry, Kennedy, Pelosi and that ilk doing everything to get in the way of the President during WARTIME because they think it will buy them votes. I am certain that the wiretap controversy leak originated from some of the Democratic Senators briefed previously about the program. My question is that if they are so outraged now, where was their outrage then when they could have prevented such atrocities?

If the President told Congress everything, we would have no National Security because as far as I am concerned, the Senate is filled with a bunch of crooks that would rather see America defeated.

Cal

I agreed there are some things that should be left as TOP SECRET--

didnt bring any other persons name into the post

 

[calus_3]

please dont tell me if I am on the right or wrong side...and no need to lecture me while you are at it-

You are either with us or against us....there is no middle ground. You are for stopping terrorism on our soil and worldwide or you aren't. "As long as we don't violate their rights doing it"......oh my.

I guess your argument is much like the "I support the troups but not the war" nonsense.

Of course, your whole complaint is premised on the fact that the President did something wrong. First the Democrats make out like he was listening to Aunt May telling the Bush beans secret recipe. These were calls from/to known or suspected terrorists overseas to PEOPLE HERE IN AMERICA. Only in today's America where the liberals and the Democrats are trying hard to erase any doubt what so ever that they aren't rooting for the terrorists would people oppose listening to these calls. I guess guess these are the people who search the 80 year old fish-belly white Irish grandmother at the airport and let the arab dressed in a burka with wires sticking out of their shirt sleeve go on by....we wouldn't want to profile the known type of person who is seeking to attack us. Nah, that's bad.

Pick sides, I say.

Cal

 

[j2mirish]

You are either with us or against us....there is no middle ground. You are for stopping terrorism on our soil and worldwide or you aren't. "As long as we don't violate their rights doing it"......oh my.

I guess your argument is much like the "I support the troups but not the war" nonsense.

Of course, your whole complaint is premised on the fact that the President did something wrong. First the Democrats make out like he was listening to Aunt May telling the Bush beans secret recipe. These were calls from/to known or suspected terrorists overseas to PEOPLE HERE IN AMERICA. Only in today's America where the liberals and the Democrats are trying hard to erase any doubt what so ever that they aren't rooting for the terrorists would people oppose listening to these calls. I guess guess these are the people who search the 80 year old fish-belly white Irish grandmother at the airport and let the arab dressed in a burka with wires sticking out of their shirt sleeve go on by....we wouldn't want to profile the known type of person who is seeking to attack us. Nah, that's bad.

Pick sides, I say.

Cal

please show me anywhere thru this thread I have made either of these statements--
next time you lecture me-- at the very least, dont put unspoken words or quotes in the lecture!! :slap:

 

[calus_3]

I didn't say YOUR argument, I said THE argument.

Forest for the trees!

You can't be for doing everything to prevent a terrorist attack and then fight those protecting us every step when they try to intercept calls/emails from those who issue the strike orders.

I really don't see how people can justify creating rules of engagement, if you will of what we will do and what we will not do with regards to communication. "Set forth from this point forward the US will not allow intercepts of any calls to people in America". Gee what do you think the terrorists will use to make the next strike call?

Cal