While Democrats screamed to have Karl Rove "frog marched out of the White House in handcuffs" for something that likely isn't a crime, after being investigated no one was charged and the one ancillary indictment -- against someone who has nothing to do with Karl Rove -- was immediately debunked when respected journalist Bob Woodward admitted that he'd known about the hot DC couple's occupations long before the event on which the prosecutors lone charge was based.
Meanwhile Democrat Sandy Berger was nailed -- red handed -- cramming all sorts of top secret documents into his briefcase, his pants and even into his socks. The guy was caught so dead to rights undermining our nation's security that not even his experience in the Clinton administration saw him able to invent any kind of lie to defend himself. He was forced to plead guilty. Dems, of course, could care less.
Dems love to claim that somehow Democrats were prevented from voting in Florida and THAT'S why Al Gore lost the election. Of course, after all sorts of investigations -- including many by far-leftists-loving Old Media types, it turned out to be about as true as a Michael Moore movie or Steven Spielberg's pro-terror flick, "Munich."
What IS true, though, is that the Old Media DID try to steal the election by falsely calling the election for Gore while polls were still open in the panhandle of Florida. Thousands of people likely went home to their wives and children rather than waste their time voting. Thus the forged document users at CBS and elsewhere ensured that gay South Beach and the slums of Miami would vote but not the overwhelming "red" Americans in the other part of the state.
(Florida consists of two time-zones.)
Democrats claim that the President "lied" to them about Iraq, but, really, who is the liar, the President who said exactly what the previous President said about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction or Senator Carl Levin (et, leftist, al) who claimed that the 45 or so democracies and decent nations that joined the coalition of the willing constituted American "unilateralism"?
Demmies love to slander Fox News -- usually in the person of Bill O'Reilly for being "lying liars" as Al Franken would say, but couldn't care less that CBS News isn't just slanted but uses forged documents in their stories and Al Franken's salary was paid by the theft of nearly a million dollars from a needy children's' charity.
Dems love to attack the President for being "a divider" but, really, who's dividing this nation if not the vicious race-baiters like Hillary Clinton, the hateful (and utterly hypocritical) gazillionaires trying to sell the notion of "two Americas" -- folks like John Edwards and John Kerry or the leftist college professors teaching our children that the victims of 9/11 were all "little Eichmanns."
Lefties love to scream that question hateful, leftists slanders is somehow "squelching free speech" but who is really threatening free speech if not the Democrats who attack Ann Coulter, Bill Krystol and any and all other non-leftists on those rare occasions when the administration will even allow them to speak?
There is quite literally nothing the Democrat says that is true these days, least of all that they want a united America (divide and conquer is their hope), free speech (Democrats know that wherever debate and discussion is allowed they are exposed as lunatics), every vote to count (they know that when they are the Dems lose overwhelmingly) or America to win the war against Islamic fascist terror.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Maybe you'll believe the truth from a Republican in the Dept. of Justice and the Republican President of the United States . . .along with their congressional record of dumping the amendment they needed:
In June, 2002, Republican Sen. Michael DeWine introduced legislation (S. 2659) which would have eliminated the exact barrier to FISA Hayden and his handlers were spinning yesterday.
DeWine's legislation to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to modify the standard of proof for issuance of orders regarding non-United States persons from probable cause to reasonable suspicion. . . .
In other words, DeWine’s bill could have eliminated the “probable cause” barrier claimed by Bush cabal in their latest spin.
The Bush administration, in response, provided a Statement from James A. Baker,who “prepares and presents all applications for electronic surveillance and physical search under the Act to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA Court or Court).”
Baker, in his written statement, blatantly bragged about the Patriot Act on the ground that the 72-hour window stated IN the Patriot Act gave Bush the speed and flexibility he needed:
“The reforms in those measures (the PATRIOT Act) have affected every single application made by the Department for electronic surveillance or physical search of suspected terrorists and have enabled the government to become quicker, more flexible, and more focused in going “up” on those suspected terrorists in the United States."
"… One simple but important change that Congress made was to lengthen the time period for us to bring to court applications in support of Attorney General-authorized emergency FISAs. This modification has allowed us to make full and effective use of FISA’s pre-existing emergency provisions to ensure that the government acts swiftly to respond to terrorist threats. Again, we are grateful for the tools Congress provided us last fall for the fight against terrorism. Thank you.”
The Baker statement:
The Department of Justice has been studying Sen. DeWine’s proposed legislation. Because the proposed change raises both significant legal and practical issues, the Administration at this time is not prepared to support it.
Soooo…in 2002 the Administration refused to support elimination of the very barrier (”probable cause”) which Gen. Hayden claimed yesterday necessitated the circumvention of FISA.
“The practical concern involves an assessment of whether the current “probable cause” standard has hamstrung our ability to use FISA surveillance to protect our nation. We have been aggressive in seeking FISA warrants and, thanks to Congress’s passage of the USA PATRIOT Act, we have been able to use our expanded FISA tools more effectively to combat terrorist activities. It may not be the case that the probable cause standard has caused any difficulties in our ability to seek the FISA warrants we require, and we will need to engage in a significant review to determine the effect a change in the standard would have on our ongoing operations. If the current standard has not posed an obstacle, then there may be little to gain from the lower standard and, as I previously stated, perhaps much to lose.”
Baker, who headed the FISA warrant program was not aware of any difficulties in obtaining warrants under the FISA “probable cause” standard, and the Administration did not support the DeWine amendment to do so.
…”The Department’s Office of Legal Counsel is analyzing relevant Supreme Court precedent to determine whether a “reasonable suspicion” standard for electronic surveillance and physical searches would, in the FISA context, pass constitutional muster. The issue is not clear cut, and the review process must be thorough because of what is at stake, namely, our ability to conduct investigations that are vital to protecting national security. If we err in our analysis and courts were ultimately to find a “reasonable suspicion” standard unconstitutional, we could potentially put at risk ongoing investigations and prosecutions."
Bush Administration’s statement via Gen. Hayden as to why it was necessary to bypass FISA illegally is a complete falsehood.
Their current statement that the “probable cause” component of FISA was preventing it from engaging in the eavesdropping it needed is the opposite of what it told Congress when refusing to support the DeWine Amendment as documented by the Baker statement submitted to Congress in 2002.
The Baker/Dept. of Justice document is on the record here:
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2002_hr/073102baker
The current admin's in the business of protecting this country's citizens. What's your point, Beongia Buzzkill?
First, to Miami,
I feel sorry for America. We need a mature and patriotic opposition party because one-party rule is dangerous in general. There are surely things on the far-right that concern me and, without an opposition party of any regard, there's always the chance we can drift too far to the right.
One of my heroes, Dennis Prager, has a saying..."just because your grandfather was hit by a car coming from the right doesn't mean you don't look left the next time you cross the street" (was that in my article???) The Democrat simply has been conditioned to never look left and to scream insanely at anything coming from the right, even if it's a VW Bug twenty-seven miles down the road.
So they attack Karl Rove for something that's likely not even a crime, for which there is no evidence he was involved and, after a lengthy investigation by a independet prosecutor of the highest regard, found only a secondary charge to bring against some other guy completely. And then even that was quickly debunked when Bob Woodward came forth with new information! Yet when Sandy Berger is caught redhanded (pleads guilty!!!) to craming top secret documents about the most deadly attack on America in our history they barely say a word.
There is quite literally NOTHING a Democrat can do -- from outright racism such as Al Sharpton's helping to fake the rape of a child to Ted Kennedy's murdering someone to Howard Dean being, quite literally, insane that would ever raise a peep because these rapes, murders and insanities are all being committed by the left.
---------------
Now, to Beon...
I apprecaite your efforts to be factual and civil. That's what is missing from most of the discourse from the left (including the leadership).
Whether what the President did was "illegal" or not we will see. That's why we have courts, etc. I don't know that Baker mentions international calls but I do know that FISA doesn't.
Clearly if the President thought he was breaking the law he wouldn't have been consulting with the leftists in Congress. One small leak from these pro-terrorist Dems and the whole thing would have been blown.
So, as with the Karl Rove slanders, maybe it would be better for you guys to wait until the truth comes out, rather than undermining our ability to stop the Islamic, fascist mass murderers who are seeking the extinction of all "infidels" starting with Israel (the closest infidel) and America (the greatest infidel).
Post a Comment