Democrats: Why we cannot trust them with national security


PDA






progunner1957
January 7, 2006, 02:28 PM
This Is Why We Don't Trust Democrats With National Security

by Ann Coulter
Posted Jan 4, 2006

It seems the Bush administration -- being a group of sane, informed adults -- has been secretly tapping Arab terrorists without warrants.

During the CIA raids in Afghanistan in early 2002 that captured Abu Zubaydah and his associates, the government seized computers, cell phones and personal phone books. Soon after the raids, the National Security Agency began trying to listen to calls placed to the phone numbers found in al Qaeda Rolodexes.

That was true even if you were "an American citizen" making the call from U.S. territory -- like convicted al Qaeda associate Iyman Faris who, after being arrested, confessed to plotting to bring down the Brooklyn Bridge. If you think the government should not be spying on people like Faris, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

By intercepting phone calls to people on Zubaydah's speed-dial, the NSA arrested not only "American citizen" Faris, but other Arab terrorists, including al Qaeda members plotting to bomb British pubs and train stations.

The most innocent-sounding target of the NSA's spying cited by the Treason Times was "an Iranian-American doctor in the South who came under suspicion because of what one official described as dubious ties to Osama bin Laden." Whatever softening adjectives the Times wants to put in front of the words "ties to Osama bin Laden," we're still left with those words -- "ties to Osama bin Laden." The government better be watching that person.

The Democratic Party has decided to express indignation at the idea that an American citizen who happens to be a member of al Qaeda is not allowed to have a private conversation with Osama bin Laden. If they run on that in 2008, it could be the first time in history a Republican president takes even the District of Columbia.

On this one, I'm pretty sure Americans are going with the president.

If the Democrats had any brains, they'd distance themselves from the cranks demanding Bush's impeachment for listening in on terrorists' phone calls to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. (Then again, if they had any brains, they'd be Republicans.)

To the contrary! It is Democrats like Sen. Barbara Boxer who are leading the charge to have Bush impeached for spying on people with Osama's cell phone number.

That's all you need to know about the Democrats to remember that they can't be trusted with national security. (That and Jimmy Carter.)

Thanks to the Treason Times' exposure of this highly classified government program, admitted terrorists like Iyman Faris are going to be appealing their convictions. Perhaps they can call Democratic senators as expert witnesses to testify that it was illegal for the Bush administration to eavesdrop on their completely private calls to al-Zarqawi.

Democrats and other traitors have tried to couch their opposition to the NSA program in civil libertarian terms, claiming Bush could have gone to the court created by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and gotten warrants for the interceptions.

The Treason Times reported FISA virtually rubber-stamps warrant requests all the time. As proof, the Times added this irrelevant statistic: In 2004, "1,754 warrants were approved." No one thought to ask how many requests were rejected.

Over and over we heard how the FISA court never turns down an application for a warrant. USA Today quoted liberal darling and author James Bamford saying: "The FISA court is as big a rubber stamp as you can possibly get within the federal judiciary." He "wondered why Bush sought the warrantless searches, since the FISA court rarely rejects search requests," said USA Today.

Put aside the question of why it's so vitally important to get a warrant from a rubber-stamp court if it's nothing but an empty formality anyway. After all the ballyhoo about how it was duck soup to get a warrant from FISA, I thought it was pretty big news when it later turned out that the FISA court had been denying warrant requests from the Bush administration like never before. According to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, the FISA court "modified more wiretap requests from the Bush administration than from the four previous presidential administrations combined."

In the 20 years preceding the attack of 9/11, the FISA court did not modify -- much less reject -- one single warrant request. But starting in 2001, the judges "modified 179 of the 5,645 requests for court-ordered surveillance by the Bush administration." In the years 2003 and 2004, the court issued 173 "substantive modifications" to warrant requests and rejected or "deferred" six warrant requests outright.

What would a Democrat president have done at that point? Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack. Also, perhaps as a gesture of inclusion and tolerance, hold an Oval Office reception for the suspected al Qaeda operatives. After another terrorist attack, I'm sure a New York Times reporter could explain to the victims' families that, after all, the killer's ties to al Qaeda were merely "dubious" and the FISA court had a very good reason for denying the warrant request.

Every once in a while the nation needs little reminder of why the Democrats can't be trusted with national security. This is today's lesson.

If you enjoyed reading about "Democrats: Why we cannot trust them with national security" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Hockeydude
January 7, 2006, 02:59 PM
Apparently, the Repbulicans can't be trusted either since gang bangers and terrorists can walk across the Southern border anytime they wish. With a Republcian congress and President this issue could have been easily solved. Until it is, anything the Republicans say about National Security is hypocritical.

dasmi
January 7, 2006, 03:13 PM
Apparently, the Repbulicans can't be trusted either since gang bangers and terrorists can walk across the Southern border anytime they wish. With a Republcian congress and President this issue could have been easily solved. Until it is, anything the Republicans say about National Security is hypocritical.
+1
Enough with this Republican vs. Democrat crap. Neither party gives a rat's ass about national security.

Don Gwinn
January 7, 2006, 03:13 PM
Riiiiigght.

Well, I see one or two problems with this one:

1. Lots of Democrats are members here, and I'm getting tired of them having to read about what idiots they are.

2. Ann Coulter is a liar who tells lies. I don't trust her. She may be telling the truth this time, but I don't trust her.

3. She says it's OK simply to bypass the FISA court and put a tap on whoever the President suspects because the FISA court is not a "rubber stamp" and might have rejected the warrant request if they'd gone to it.
3a. Well, we'll never know now, will we, Ann? They didn't give the FISA court the chance to approve or reject their request. They just went out and did what they wanted.
3b. The argument that "I shouldn't have to submit to lawful authority because lawful authority may decide not to give me what I want" doesn't work for my 9-year-old son, so I can't in all fairness let you get away with it. The fact that the FISA court might have decided not to grant the warrant is NOT an excuse to go around that court. Your local police don't get to bypass the local judge with the argument "Well, Your Honor, we would have asked you for a warrant, but we didn't have enough evidence to convince you to issue one, so we just went ahead and searched ProGunner1957 without telling you. Or him. But we assure you, he's a really bad man who really deserved it."

4. She makes a big deal out of how "no one asked how many applications were made" as if she's going to prove that the FISA court is unreasonable by citing those numbers. But she never cites the numbers!
The Times' number for approved warrants covers 2004.
Her number for rejected warrants covers 2003 and 2004.
Her number for modified warrants covers 2003 and 2004.
Her number for requests by the Bush administration covers 2001-?

If you try to use her numbers (which we ought not do, since they cover different time periods) we see that even if you figured her number for rejected warrants over one year instead of two, it still means that the court granted 1,754 warrants and rejected or deferred six. That means that
they rejected roughly .003 times as many warrants as they granted or, put another way, that they granted 292 times as many warrants as they denied. Keep in mind that this would be a VERY conservative estimate which would assume that all six warrants were denied in 2004, none in 2003.
It doesn't make the FISA court look very unreasonable.

5. She makes a HUGE deal out of the fact that the FISA court hadn't modified or rejected a request for 20 years before the Bush administration. Fine. But after complaining bitterly about people not giving all the numbers, she doesn't mention the number of warrants requested in those 20 years, either. Is it possible, just possible, that after 9/11 the Bush administration made a lot more requests than earlier administrations were making? Is it also possible that the Bush administration also made requests for warrants which were based on less complete evidence than the warrants in previous years? The sheer number of requests they made suggests this. 20 years from 9/11 leads us back to 1981--meaning this covers the winding down of the Cold War and the period after.



An argument between Coulter and the New York Times is pointless for me. I don't trust either one. Believing that the President needs a warrant to search someone or set a wiretap is NOT pro-terrorist or anti-security, and no matter what the Republicans think the polls look like today, they'll eventually be sorry that they let the Democrats set themselves up as the only ones who care about this.

Bruce H
January 7, 2006, 03:50 PM
Ann Coulter is a prime example of why freedom of speech is so terribly important. Without the ability to rattle on about any topic at will we wouldn't see just how ignorantly stupid these people are. Keep going Ann, you and the rest of your ilk do wonders for yourself.

Nitrogen
January 7, 2006, 04:16 PM
Ann Coulter proves that with a pretty face, you can get away with saying just about anything.

I've got one question for you. Would you want President Hillary Clinton to have the power to wiretap whoever SHE wants?

dasmi
January 7, 2006, 04:17 PM
I've got one question for you. Would you want President Hillary Clinton to have the power to wiretap whoever SHE wants?
Nope. Just like I don't want President George W. Bush to have that power.

Phyphor
January 7, 2006, 06:51 PM
Ann Coulter proves that with a pretty face, you can get away with saying just about anything.

I've got one question for you. Would you want President Hillary Clinton to have the power to wiretap whoever SHE wants?

What would be the difference?

Preacherman
January 7, 2006, 07:09 PM
This thread is mis-titled. Instead of "Democrats", it should read "Politicians". As far as I'm concerned, I don't trust any professional politician not to sell out the Constitution and the American people for his own advantage. Some of them won't even trouble to disguise the fact. Party affiliation is irrelevant: if they're professional politicians, watch 'em like hawks, and stand by with the tar and feathers, for they'll surely be needed sooner or later!

:fire:

Skeptic
January 7, 2006, 07:16 PM
I kinda like that tar and feather thing.....

Personally..... I don't trust either party.... Both are filled with liars, thieves, crooks and just plain morons.

But I do have to say that the democrats are worse.... :p :neener: :neener:

Winzeler
January 7, 2006, 07:27 PM
a.) I trust Ann Coulter, GW, and the NYT as far as I can throw a bulldozer -even when they cite "statistics."

b.) This is not a Constitutional issue.

c.) GW's (as well as the entire GOP) arrogance on this issues is his (their) undoing.

d.) The Democrats will never get ahead with their incessant whining (unless enough ignorant people are swayed by the "get out and vote" campaigns.

e.) Too bad we're only really a two party nation that can't seem to get away from federalism and back to being a Republic.

Spot77
January 7, 2006, 07:35 PM
e.) Too bad we're only really a two party nation that can't seem to get away from federalism and back to being a Republic.

Amen to that brother.

rock jock
January 7, 2006, 07:40 PM
2. Ann Coulter is a liar who tells lies. Example??

Ann Coulter is spot-on with this article. The whole wire-tapping issue proves that the Dems don't care one iota about nat'l security; all they care about is shoving their socialist agenda down our throats. The fact that Bush has embraced some of the same programs that the Dems love and that STILL doesn't satiate their power-lust tells you just how far they want to go.

Like I've said many times, there are a thousand reasons not to like Bush, but defending our security isn't one of them.

Headless Thompson Gunner
January 7, 2006, 08:34 PM
This wire tapping issue isn't about national security. It's about the two parties bickering and playing politics.

Democrats (Clinton, for example) have no problems with spying on whomever they wish. Republicans (Nixon, for example) have no problem spying on whomever they wish.

The NSA has been spying on Americans for decades. It has nothing to do with Democrats vs Republicans, or Bush vs Bush-haters, or whatever.

That said, this is the first time a President has been criticized for spying on a military enemy during war time. Of all the abuses perpetrated by the NSA and the fed as a whole, this is the one the media chooses to have a fit over? :scrutiny: Gimme a break.

FISA isn't the be-all, end-all arbitor of national security issues. Given their propensity for leaking to the media, it's a darn good thing that they were kept out of the loop.

Nitrogen
January 7, 2006, 08:50 PM
What would be the difference?

That's EXACTLY the point I was trying to make.
Someone else in this thread said "Replace Democrats with Policicians" and that hit the nail right on the head for me. Some people seem to think that their party is the "right" one while the others are the "wrong" one. My point being, I don't trust ANY politician with that much power; even one I vote for, even if it's to "protect" me.

Our rights are just that; our rights. I get angry when any of our collective rights are infringed, even if it's for a supposed "good reason"

I mean, gun control is an infringement of our rights for a supposed "good reason" isn't it?

TarpleyG
January 7, 2006, 08:58 PM
Enough with this Republican vs. Democrat crap. Neither party gives a rat's ass about national security.
Amen to that! (hope I didn't offend anyone by that sentiment)

Let me ask because I really am at a loss here...does asking the courts for a warrant to tap/search/whatever really take that much more time and red tape to do that they are willing to throw out the entire 4th for? I am really wanting to know. What is the big deal about asking a judge for a warrant based on the evidence that someone may be doing something wrong?

Greg

walking arsenal
January 7, 2006, 09:27 PM
Enough with this Republican vs. Democrat crap. Neither party gives a rat's ass about national security.

+1

And may i add that they can do no good at all while they are busy squabling with each other like little school children over a ball.

This is easy, get the enemy divided, get them fighting each other, then they can't fight you efficiantly because now they have two fronts.

Dems are fighting repubs. Repubs are fighting dems. And both are fighting who? Exactly?

Don Gwinn
January 7, 2006, 09:34 PM
The examples abound. I noted several damn lies she told with statistics above. Off the top of my head, she's told several lies about McCarthy in her attempt to recast him as a noble figure in American history.

I wonder what three seconds of Googling will turn up?

http://cjr.org/issues/2002/6/slander-scherer.asp

http://slannder.homestead.com/files/slanndermain.html

Two of 1,080,000 results. I don't agree with the second source on much politically, but he's shown that Coulter is remarkably deceptive.j

Don't trust her. You'll be better for it. Not trusting Ann Coulter doesn't make you a whiny liberal.

yucaipa
January 7, 2006, 10:27 PM
I've got one question for you. Would you want President Hillary Clinton to have the power to wiretap whoever SHE wants?

No I would not, the reason is I believe that Hilliary would use/abuse NSA to protect her Herself (like her husband did) and /or as weapon to gain political advantage against her "domestic" political opponents (like Nixion did)

Something that the evidence appears to show President Bush hasn't done, so far.

Time may show that she would not cross that line, and that President Bush does, but if we're betting my nickel I have more faith in Bush doing the right thing on this issue than Hilliary.

Standing Wolf
January 7, 2006, 10:34 PM
Would someone please explain to me how to tell the Republicans from the representatives of the Democratic (sic) party? I can't tell them apart even with a score card.

Manedwolf
January 7, 2006, 10:40 PM
No I would not, the reason is I believe that Hilliary would use/abuse NSA to protect her Herself (like her husband did) and /or as weapon to gain political advantage against her "domestic" political opponents (like Nixion did)

Something that the evidence appears to show President Bush hasn't done, so far.

Um...and what planet are you living on, again?

Remember, this is the administration where anything but yes-men bobbleheads are fired, discredited and subject to ad hominem attacks by their former colleagues, (literal throwing to the wolves), and where people fail upwards.

yucaipa
January 7, 2006, 10:54 PM
Um...and what planet are you living on, again?

Remember, this is the administration where anything but yes-men bobbleheads are fired, discredited and subject to ad hominem attacks by their former colleagues, (literal throwing to the wolves), and where people fail upwards.


Everything you say may be true, so what ?

It has nothing to do with my post.:rolleyes:

Trainman
January 7, 2006, 11:49 PM
Ann Coulter is spot-on with this article. The whole wire-tapping issue proves that the Dems don't care one iota about nat'l security; all they care about is shoving their socialist agenda down our throats. The fact that Bush has embraced some of the same programs that the Dems love and that STILL doesn't satiate their power-lust tells you just how far they want to go.

Like I've said many times, there are a thousand reasons not to like Bush, but defending our security isn't one of them.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Ann Coulter is a freedom-loving American who is right dead-on-target with her commentary on everything. (And Joe McCarthy has been vindicated because it has been proven that Communist subversives WERE trying to undermine the security of this country from within on a massive scale.)

Liberals rejoice in bad news for this country. In a liberals mind, if it is negativity, then it validates their position so it is supported.

Helmetcase
January 8, 2006, 12:38 AM
Ann Coulter's veracity has been debunked about as thoroughly as a person can be. She's the Michael Moore of the right.

The article isn't even close to on-point, nor are the comments of you goose-steppers piping up to support her. The problem isn't spying, or the NSA doing its job--Democrats and Republicans alike support that.

The problem is a chief executive flouting the law because he thinks he doesn't have to follow it. The fact that neonazi nincompoop like Coulter can't grasp that shouldn't surprise anyone.

Don Gwinn nailed it.

progunner1957
January 8, 2006, 12:42 AM
I love to quote Ann Coulter - it always guarantees to stir up a hornet's nest!:D That having been said -
Liberals rejoice in bad news for this country. In a liberals mind, if it is negativity, then it validates their position so it is supported.Truer words about liberals have yet to be spoken.
As far as I'm concerned, I don't trust any professional politician not to sell out the Constitution and the American people for his own advantage. Some of them won't even trouble to disguise the fact. Party affiliation is irrelevant: if they're professional politicians, watch 'em like hawks, and stand by with the tar and feathers, for they'll surely be needed sooner or later!

Right you are, Preacherman!! However, may I suggest replacing "tar and feathers" with "rope and tree."
The NSA has been spying on Americans for decades. It has nothing to do with Democrats vs Republicans, or Bush vs Bush-haters, or whatever.

That said, this is the first time a President has been criticized for spying on a military enemy during war time. Of all the abuses perpetrated by the NSA and the fed as a whole, this is the one the media chooses to have a fit over? Gimme a break.
Right you are, Headless - the liberal/Democrat/socialist media maggots seems to have a condition I would call "selective morality." During the Clinton reign, We The People were surveiled with the NSA's "Echelon" program - but that was okay because it was approved by Clinton, who could do no wrong in the media's eyes.

Such double standards turn my stomach and show the liberal/Democrat/socialist media maggots for what they are - myopic, close-minded, intellectual midgets with not one shred of objectivity, integrity or character.

Helmetcase
January 8, 2006, 12:46 AM
Yeah, because if Ann Coulter says the sky is blue, you better open a window and check to make sure it hasn't been painted red. I wouldn't trust her to start with the letter "A". Some more reading on her BS.

http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20020713.html
http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20030630.html

Alex45ACP
January 8, 2006, 12:52 AM
Ann Coulter proves that with a pretty face, you can get away with saying just about anything.

:what:

Ann Coulter is fugly.

Helmetcase
January 8, 2006, 01:00 AM
Eh, just cause she's got an adam's apple and fingers like the bad guys from Independence Day the movie...her face is still good. But she has that "thousand yard stare" thing going on, it's a little spooky.

Actually what's spooky is that both she and some of the people here actually believe what she's selling. :uhoh:

Biker
January 8, 2006, 01:02 AM
:what:

Ann Coulter is fugly.
Yup. I thought I saw her as an extra in the new Dawn of the Dead.
I'm sayin' that she could make a freight train take a dirt road. I'm tellin' ya that she has to sneak up on a glass of water.
I'm here to tell ya that I've stepped over better stuff than that on my way to...never mind.
Biker

pax
January 8, 2006, 01:41 AM
Coulter's face isn't the issue here.

No I would not, the reason is I believe that Hilliary would use/abuse NSA to protect her Herself (like her husband did) and /or as weapon to gain political advantage against her "domestic" political opponents (like Nixion did)

Something that the evidence appears to show President Bush hasn't done, so far.
Yep, you're right. So far Bush appears to have been pretty much a good guy.

SO WHAT???

Sorry for yelling, but no one is listening and it's getting wearisome ... and frightening.

The issue isn't whether George Bush is a good guy or a bad one. The issue is whether we want our President -- any President, including the ones we don't like who will be in office in the future -- to have the unilateral ability to order wiretaps on US citizens, without so much as a rubber-stamped, after the fact warrant.

You say President Bush is a good guy. Fine, but ...

He ain't going to be in office forever. Doesn't anyone get that?!?

Every power Bush grabs for the Presidency while he is in office, will carry over to the next President. Every single precedent he sets will be followed (and pushed and expanded) by the next inhabitant of the Oval Office.

You don't want President Hillary to have that much power? Excellent. Know how to keep it away from her? Don't give it to President Bush.

That is all.

pax

Concentrated political power is the most dangerous thing on earth. -- Rudolph Rummel

Ryder
January 8, 2006, 02:06 AM
It doesn't make the FISA court look very unreasonable.


Sleeping in the same bed is one possibility. Another is that the administration has been very selective in submitting these warrants and is doing so with good cause. Doesn't necessarily have to be one or the other, could be a combination. I'd be interested to hear what that one judge who quit over this has to say. Has he talked yet?

I've been holding my breath waiting to hear evidence of how this "illegal activity" harmed or was even targeted at any innocent people. Turning blue here. So far it sounds like they've done some very good things for us. I for one appreciate that and it could bias my opiniion on the preceding paragraph.

Ann takes no prisoners. I like that about her.

yucaipa
January 8, 2006, 02:07 AM
Coulter's face isn't the issue here.


Yep, you're right. So far Bush appears to have been pretty much a good guy.

SO WHAT???

Sorry for yelling, but no one is listening and it's getting wearisome ... and frightening.

The issue isn't whether George Bush is a good guy or a bad one. The issue is whether we want our President -- any President, including the ones we don't like who will be in office in the future -- to have the unilateral ability to order wiretaps on US citizens, without so much as a rubber-stamped, after the fact warrant.

You say President Bush is a good guy. Fine, but ...

He ain't going to be in office forever. Doesn't anyone get that?!?

Every power Bush grabs for the Presidency while he is in office, will carry over to the next President. Every single precedent he sets will be followed (and pushed and expanded) by the next inhabitant of the Oval Office.

You don't want President Hillary to have that much power? Excellent. Know how to keep it away from her? Don't give it to President Bush.

That is all.

pax

Concentrated political power is the most dangerous thing on earth. -- Rudolph Rummel

1 I'm not defending Bush

2 I get it

3 I trust Bush more than Hilliary "on this issue" that's all I said.

Phyphor
January 8, 2006, 02:21 AM
Yup. I thought I saw her as an extra in the new Dawn of the Dead.
I'm sayin' that she could make a freight train take a dirt road. I'm tellin' ya that she has to sneak up on a glass of water.
I'm here to tell ya that I've stepped over better stuff than that on my way to...never mind.
Biker

HA!

She makes Right guard turn left.
She makes Old Spice find the fountain of youth.
She makes Sure apprehensive

:neener:

Ryder
January 8, 2006, 03:00 AM
Pax,

If there is harm there should be consequences. If the next president becomes a bad actor then he will be treated accordingly. Why wouldn't he?

Punish people for something that somebody else might do? That's what some places in this country do now to honest gun owners. It isn't right.

We think oversight is good. The President doesn't agree. That is an issue but I don't see it as criminal without injured parties. That's so what.

I wonder if this could change his mind about all these victimless crime laws he presides over? :D

Preacherman
January 8, 2006, 03:12 AM
Coulter's face isn't the issue here.

When a moderator speaks like this, we do expect folks to listen.

It seems some are deaf.

Closed.

If you enjoyed reading about "Democrats: Why we cannot trust them with national security" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!