Thursday, February 14, 2008
|
|
Watching Nancy Pelosi And House Democrats Blind The Country To Terrorist Threats
|
|
Posted by:
Hugh Hewitt at
9:03 AM
|
The threat by Nancy Pelosi to blind the country in both eyes because she lacks the votes to merely gouge out one is one of the most reckless, irresponsible political stunts in American history. Pelosi and House Democrats are gambling with the safety of all Americans, and it is outrageous that she would do so when large bipartisan majorities are prepared to pass the carefully crafted compromise legislation reauthorizing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi signaled last night that debate over the bill is unlikely to end quickly and that Democrats may let the temporary law expire. Although Bush and his aides have said such a move would undermine current surveillance efforts and pose a national security threat, Democrats note that intelligence-gathering orders under the temporary law are good for a year and that routine surveillance powers would remain.
"The President and House Republicans refused to support the extension and therefore will bear the responsibility should any adverse national consequences result," Pelosi said in a statement.
Pelosi's decision to play chicken with the country's safety --which she recognizes with her absurd statement about "responsibility"-- is reprehensible, but also representative of how far the Democrats have fallen into their collective BDS fever.
Call the office of Pelosi and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and demand the Democrats stop gambling with the country's safety: The switchboard for the Congress is 202-225-3121. Ask the operator for the office of Pelosi and then call back and ask for Hoyer's office, and then your own Representative.
|
|
|
To answer your question above Paul has no use for this sort of abuse. While I believe that Pelosi's opposition is primarily partisan, there are a few in both parties whose opposition is based upon the BORs, a document that is held in disdain by most of the posters here. For them their loyalty is Bush first, the Republican party second, and the nation and its founding documents a distant third if at all. They mirror alot of Democrats who behaved in the same manner when Clinton was president. When a Democrat is elected this year they'll change their tune quickly enough for all the wrong reasons based on partisanship. |
|
understand that DTS is mighty concerned that the Dastardly Cheney is listening to John Smith woo Mary Jones on his i-phone.
Me & you are, on the other hand, a tad concerned that Ahmed bin Mole in Detroit is having a little touch-base with a fella named Hussein in Beirut with al Qaeda connections...And, that it might not be a good idea to miss the confab whilst waiting on a FISA judge.
Silly us! |
|
|
11 billion phone calls go through the US a day. |
|
So the democrats want to require a warrant before spying on Americans. They're surrendering to the terrorists again! Oh my God, run for your lives...
|
|
Poyboy-yo's finger wagging, eyebrow arching disapproval of Despots. But, ohhhhhhhh, that BOOOOSH!
PB-yo: Yep, like Queenie7, I'd suggest pointing your sternly Leftward Wings to the Torture of Thought...Let's see...How many years & days since our last attack on Innocent Americans by Islamist Butchers? Ba-da-bing, like dat! |
|
|
Qweenmumof7: Surveillance-states are of all ages and all continents. It's extremely poisonous for society. You wouldn't be the first completely innocent and law abiding person who ends up on a rather sketchy "watch list" without knowing why you are not allowed to board a plane anymore or why you are unable to get another job. |
|
Bush said that American lives will be sacrificed if Congress does not change FISA. He also said that he will veto any bill that does not grant retro-active immunity.
So Bush is willing to sacrifice Americans in exchange for amnesty for the phone companies. But it is Pelosi and House Democrats who are "gambling with the safety of all Americans"?
|
|
DDR was a Differet time, a different world.
like it or not, 911 happend. If having my overseas phone calls tapped, if I am on any 'list', then that's what it takes to make sure that tomorrow, we will be able to say "I'm safe".
I have nothing to hide. Listen, in! Not a big deal for those of us who live the laws. |
|
And all those like you, Hugh, who want to destroy individual rights because you hate muslims.
Jesus wouldn't hate muslims, Hugh. Jesus wouldn't hate muslims. |
|
"If bush had a sack , he would list those who vote against the bill , then list the contributions they recieved from the trial lawyers who are involved in litigation against the phone companies ."
Well, aside from the fact that several non-profits are involved in trying to hold the telecoms accountable, there is the obvious turn around that I wonder how much money the telecoms funneled to the pols who voted yes. |
|
|
behind the scene, amnesty bill, out of the public eye, sneaking it by, to enrich their liberal trial lawyer "budds". Conservatives, should be watching for this over the next few days. |
|
about our security, then WHY oh WHY wasn't the border SHUT DOWN after 9/11 and kept closed?
Bush talks all this talk, but has yet to seal our borders. Why would you go case a criminal and leave your house unprotected at the same time????? |
|
|
be held in contempt, by the citizens, who's lives they put in harms way, but this should come as no surprise to us because they do not view radical Islam as dangerous, quite the contrary, they view them as allies, in the fight, against Christian Conservatives, their true enemy. Enemy of my enemy, my friend, or something like that, but, what the liberal does not see is that Radical Islam views them and their permissive culture as their true enemy, and as such, they would be first in line, to be separated from their heads, by these butchers. Enemy of our enemy, our friend, except Christian Conservatives don't think like that, we leave that to you liberals. |
|
|
If bush had a sack , he would list those who vote against the bill , then list the contributions they recieved from the trial lawyers who are involved in litigation against the phone companies . But of course i'm talking about the king of new tone. Whimp. |
|
Bush already said he would not sign ANOTHER extension of this law. Its already two weeks overdue...why do they need another 3 weeks to get the job done?
Pilosi is spinning this to get political points with the left wing base.
I hope McCain comes out and smacks both Obama and Hillary with this. The ManChickian canidate never bothered to even show up for the debate, and Obama left before the final vote.
Shows how much they care about our national security, doesnt it?
|
|
|
We need to review all the statements by the Dem leadership, House and Senate flacks and realize that these morons have always been for defeat: the Surge has failed, Iraq is a failure, Bush did it for oil, lawyers should be present for all the Islamofascists that we capture(that is why we should shoot all of them; no prisoners), Bush is Hitler, we need a Muslim Summit, and our Military acts like beasts-Pol Pot's guys-Nazi stormtroopers, invaders, occupationists et al. On it goes with Nan, Harry, Obama, Hillary,Kerry, Murtha. And some posters approve of this malarky. They want a real socialist pacifist like Obama to really suspend all reality about jihadist threats to America, our allies and yes, Israel. We need more Mitch Rapps, Jack Bauers and fewer liberal Quislings that feed on the Left and run the Democrat Party. |
|
|
...talk radio. Hey Hugh, responsible journalists present both sides. Why no focus on Bush refusing to sign the FISA extension? Isn't Bush playing politics with our safety too and deserving of equal condemnation? |
|
"I have zero to hide"
Ask the people in the former DDR - of whom many were law abiding citizens and had nothing to hide as well - how it felt to have Big Brother watching every move. |
|
"Americans CARE about FISA and it's something we can pound the sensitivity-to-alQaeda-Rights crowd mercilessly with."
Great. So you think that FISA was adequate enough to spy on terrorists and additional legislation to spy on Americans without warrants and giving amnesty to lawbreakers is unnecessary. |
|
|
ze Peeples Republik von Cullyforjna, I would like to apologize for San Fran Nan. She's a clown. |
|
|
why it's execrable for Pelosi to refuse to support Bush's FISA bill but perfectly acceptable for Bush to refuse to support Pelose's FISA extension? If one is playing chicken with our nation's security, isn't the other as well? |
|
They were willing to extend the existing law to decide whether they'd like to hand the President carte blanche when it comes to spying on anyone and sanctioning law breaking, and the GOP forced the issue.
But yeah, I guess just because some folks actually are concerned about due process and the rule of law they must be terrorist loving traitors.
If the President really thinks the terrorists are going to kill us all if the Protect America Act expires, he should press the GOP representatives to pass another extension while the competing bills get hashed out in committee. |
|
|
|
I called the speaker's office and ALL of us who care about the security of this country should do so as well.
|
|
|
B**ch with her sabotage. Put it out there for "the folks" LOUDLY and often. Great opportunity for McCain to slap the snot outta Hillary & Obama along with the seditionist from La-La-Land. Take NO Prisoners! Americans CARE about FISA and it's something we can pound the sensitivity-to-alQaeda-Rights crowd mercilessly with. |
|
|
therefore, something like this will never effect me. If the govenment wants to know where I'm going and why, I have no problems with it. I don't mind taking my shoes off at airports, standig in line for a few more minutes or having someone check to see why I am calling South America and Europe. If they listen in, all they'll learn is the kids and jobs are doing well, and we look forward to seeing everyone this summer. |
|
... who would sacrifice liberty for security deserves neither.
|
|
|
So you were against Amnesty before your were before it? |
|
|
|