the perpetual excuse

[Guest Patriot]

And only an uptighty-righty would support a President usurping the Constitution, there are laws in place that apply to The Shrub like any other American.  Get over it nitwit.

78053[/snapback]

The presidents primary responsibility is protecting the american public and that's

what he's been doing since Clinton allowed the events of 9/11 to be planned

without detection. The constitution was written a long time ago, before radical

Islam and terrorism were household words. A document written hundreds of

years ago cannot protect us in todays world of homicide bombers and dirty nukes.

GWB has taken the inititive to do what is necessary to protect us and only the

Kool-aid drinking Loony Lefties don't seem to get it.

[Guest Guest]

You don't understand the choice, or refuse to see it. It's not about calling Aunt Millie. It's about being constantly spied on by the government, which has granted itself the right to call you a traitor and lock you up for whatever reasons it deems sufficient. That's how dictatorships are created.

78061[/snapback]

Your paranoia is showing.

[Guest 2smart4u]

Yes, it happened. There is an example in history.

Do you ever read and analyze anything or is 100% of your brain spent on blathering?

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11845.htm

78084[/snapback]

So you equate Hitler's Nazi Germany with GWB's efforts to protect the

american public from radical Islam's homicide bombers by scanning phone

calls originating overseas. If you seriously believe that, then you're probably

spending a lot of time with your lights out watching for the black SUV's.

[Strife767]

Great post, I'm with you 100%.

78080[/snapback]

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=78044

[Guest a proud american]

Are you unaware that the defeatocrats have been in charge of congress for

  the last 3 years and have "achieved" an approval rating of 20% (an historic

  low)?

78005[/snapback]

better yet, did you know that the Democrats regained the Congress and Senate in January, 2007 not three years ago?

And with regards to their approval rating, I believe that this pertains to all of the congress and Senate.

[Guest Keith-Marshall,Mo]

The presidents primary responsibility is protecting the american public and that's

  what he's been doing since Clinton allowed the events of 9/11 to be planned

  without detection.  The constitution was written a long time ago, before radical

  Islam and terrorism were household words.  A document written hundreds of 

  years ago cannot protect us in todays world of homicide bombers and dirty nukes.

  GWB has taken the inititive to do what is necessary to protect us and only the

  Kool-aid drinking Loony Lefties don't seem to get it.

78147[/snapback]

Kinda like the Bible,right?

[Guest Sgt. Rock]

Those who would give up freedom for security deserve neither.

78044[/snapback]

Can't enjoy freedom if you're dead-- can you son??

[Guest Moneyman]

So if I understand you correctly, even though none of the terrorists that 1. Bombed the WTC in 93, 2. had nothing to do with 9/11 3. Had not been involved in any acts of terrorism within the United States were from Iraq but from Saudi Arabia and Jordan (both allies of ours) led by Osama Bin Laden, you're saying that Hussein was the number one terrorist in the world? Are you really that delusional?

And can you explain to me why Bin Laden hasn't been hunted down and killed or captured? And please don't blame Clinton. Bush was on duty on 9/11.

74884[/snapback]

Who was footing the bill?

[Guest Guest]

Nonsensical gobbly gook.

78146[/snapback]

Actually a thought from a far greater thinker and American than the White House has seen in the last seven years..........Ben Franklin

[Guest Guest]

The presidents primary responsibility is protecting the american public and that's

  what he's been doing since Clinton allowed the events of 9/11 to be planned

  without detection.  The constitution was written a long time ago, before radical

  Islam and terrorism were household words.  A document written hundreds of 

  years ago cannot protect us in todays world of homicide bombers and dirty nukes.

  GWB has taken the inititive to do what is necessary to protect us and only the

  Kool-aid drinking Loony Lefties don't seem to get it.

78147[/snapback]

WHO was in the White House on 9/11 nitwit? WHERE was the alleged protector then? Looking for the liquor cabinet?

[Guest Guest]

better yet, did you know that the Democrats regained the Congress and Senate in January, 2007 not three years ago?

And with regards to their approval rating, I believe that this pertains to all of the congress and Senate.

78189[/snapback]

No sharing the blame on this one, the dems control the vote, they get the blame.

[Strife767]

So you equate Hitler's Nazi Germany with GWB's efforts to protect the

   american public from radical Islam's homicide bombers by

further destabilizing an area that is now home to more terrorists than before we invaded? Some protection. Idiot.

[Strife767]

Nonsensical gobbly gook.

78146[/snapback]

Hah, the founding fathers would call you a fool for saying that (indeed, it was one of them who coined that phrase, though I'm sure you didn't know that). They knew well the dangers of an overbearing government.

You, on the other hand, are one of those people who has fallen right in line with terrorists' desires. They're called TERRORists--their tool is fear. If they've got you so scared that you want the government to watch over you every second, and are willing give up all of your civil liberties just so you can convince yourself that you're safe (even though this administration has proven countless times that it is not trustworthy), then they have truly succeeded.

Your cowardice disgusts me.

P.S. Don't forget, more of our people have died in Iraq than in the 9/11 attacks. The Bush administration has nothing to brag about--it's lowered just about every other developed country's opinion of us, and increased the level of terrorist activity in the middle east (and beyond). How would you like to knock on the door of a family who has lost a loved one in Iraq and tell them that that person's death was in vain? No, I'm sure you'd much rather substitute your "mission accomplished" fantasies with reality instead.

[Guest Patriot]

Hah, the founding fathers would call you a fool for saying that (indeed, it was one of them who coined that phrase, though I'm sure you didn't know that). They knew well the dangers of an overbearing government.

You, on the other hand, are one of those people who has fallen right in line with terrorists' desires. They're called TERRORists--their tool is fear. If they've got you so scared that you want the government to watch over you every second, and are willing give up all of your civil liberties just so you can convince yourself that you're safe (even though this administration has proven countless times that it is not trustworthy), then they have truly succeeded.

Your cowardice disgusts me.

P.S. Don't forget, more of our people have died in Iraq than in the 9/11 attacks. The Bush administration has nothing to brag about--it's lowered just about every other developed country's opinion of us, and increased the level of terrorist activity in the middle east (and beyond). How would you like to knock on the door of a family who has lost a loved one in Iraq and tell them that that person's death was in vain? No, I'm sure you'd much rather substitute your "mission accomplished" fantasies with reality instead.

78306[/snapback]

So you consider our soldiers who have died as "dying in vain. Very nice. That

doesn't surprise me at all about you, it's typical of the "blame america first"

defeatocratic mantra. I bet your momma's proud of her little boy.

[Guest Patriot]

Hah, the founding fathers would call you a fool for saying that (indeed, it was one of them who coined that phrase, though I'm sure you didn't know that). They knew well the dangers of an overbearing government.

You, on the other hand, are one of those people who has fallen right in line with terrorists' desires. They're called TERRORists--their tool is fear. If they've got you so scared that you want the government to watch over you every second, and are willing give up all of your civil liberties just so you can convince yourself that you're safe (even though this administration has proven countless times that it is not trustworthy), then they have truly succeeded.

Your cowardice disgusts me.

P.S. Don't forget, more of our people have died in Iraq than in the 9/11 attacks. The Bush administration has nothing to brag about--it's lowered just about every other developed country's opinion of us, and increased the level of terrorist activity in the middle east (and beyond). How would you like to knock on the door of a family who has lost a loved one in Iraq and tell them that that person's death was in vain? No, I'm sure you'd much rather substitute your "mission accomplished" fantasies with reality instead.

78306[/snapback]

"Your cowardice disgusts me" ?? Well, we all can't be brave little cupcakes

like you. You are good for a laugh.

[Guest a proud american]

So you consider our soldiers who have died as "dying in vain. Very nice. That

  doesn't surprise me at all about you, it's typical of the "blame america first"

  defeatocratic mantra. I bet your momma's proud of her little boy.

78411[/snapback]

I don't think that the persons here believe that the Soldiers are dying in vain in the literal sense. What I think they are trying to say is that the soldiers are dying because of an ill advised foreign policy debacle that should never have occurred in the first place. No one ever wants to see one american killed or wounded and I think that you would agree with that.

With regards to your blame america first coment, no one here is blaming america for anything. However we blame the leaders who decided to abandon the threat from Bin Laden and instead went after a leader who posed no threat using cherry picked information and lies to further their personal agenda.

Whether or not we are there in Iraq is no longer the issue. The issue now is how do we get out. We can stay forever, as some poiticians want, we can leave now or five years from now. But there are two main points that you don't seem to feel important. 1. We are paying for this war with borrowed money, that will have to be paid back. And 2. Whether we stay for 5,10 or fifteen years the end result is going to be the same. And this is the part that you can't seem to grasp. Right now the surge is having the military effect we wanted. But every military person from Patreaus to Sanchez is saying that there has to be a political solution and thats where the problem is. The Iraqi government simply cannot govern effectively and won't as long as they know we are there to protect them. And since it's now apparent that our Government is working with the Sunni's to the detriment of the Shia how long is it going to be before the battles start up again?

I hope never but deep down we both know that is not realistic.

[Guest Guest]

So you consider our soldiers who have died as "dying in vain. Very nice. That

  doesn't surprise me at all about you, it's typical of the "blame america first"

  defeatocratic mantra. I bet your momma's proud of her little boy.

78411[/snapback]

The soldiers have done the job they took an oath to do, there's nothing "in vain" about those who have died doing their job. That DOES NOT validate the decisions of their nitwit CinC.

[Guest Guest]

"Your cowardice disgusts me" ??  Well, we all can't be brave little cupcakes

  like you. You are good for a laugh.

78412[/snapback]

And YOU PatRat are good for NOTHING!

[Guest a proud american]

Fresh evidence has emerged that the US government's warrantless wiretapping program predates the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Secret surveillance operations that enabled the National Security Agency (NSA) to access telecommunications traffic data have been in place since the 1990s, according to the New York Times. In an attempt to gain intelligence on narcotics traffickingThe NSA forged an uneasy alliance with telcos to gather data on phone calls and emails from the US to Latin America.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/18/wa...tapping_latest/

Huh.  They forgot to mention how Clinton put a stop to it while he was in office!

77866[/snapback]

I did some checking of my own and as usual, Bryan has it wrong.

There is a difference between legal and illegal surveillance. During the Clinton years, they used two things that apparently Bush forgot. When Clinton used surveillance, it was with a court order obtained through the FBI based on probable cause allowing these calls to be monitored.

And when necessary, they went to the FISA Court for authority. They didn't send all the calls to the NSA as is the case today. If the FBI had been paying attention to the Agent who advised them that two of the high jackers were taking flying lessons without interest in learning how to land a plane then maybe 9/11 would not have happened. When asked why they didn't take this seriously the response was they didn't think they could get a warrant from FISA.

And since the neo-cons want to blame Clinton, why won't they answer who's watch the first WTC bombing was planned on. And if i'm not mistaken, didn't they convict and imprison the person (s) who planned the attack?

Anyone who would like to check on whether Clinton, as bryan says did the same thing as Bush can go to ask.com/ warrantless surveillence programs during the Clinton years. Theres truth and then there's bryan's truth. You decide.

[Guest Guest]

Actually a thought from a far greater thinker and American than the White House has seen in the last seven years..........Ben Franklin

78259[/snapback]

Don't bother explaining. Half of the nitwits here don't know who Ben Franklin is. And the other half, if they lived in Franklin's day, would have called the revolutionaries anarchists or worse.

[Strife767]

Can't enjoy freedom if you're dead-- can you son??

78238[/snapback]

Can't enjoy freedom if you let a dictator wannabe take it from you, can you, son?

It's better to die on your feet than live on your knees.

[Guest Guest]

So you equate Hitler's Nazi Germany with GWB's efforts to protect the

  american public from radical Islam's homicide bombers by scanning phone

  calls originating overseas. If you seriously believe that, then you're probably

  spending a lot of time with your lights out watching for the black SUV's.

78150[/snapback]

I didn't say that. But by your statement above, you just did.

You stated

"Freedom isn't blasted away in one shot, but eroded little by little over time"??

You know this HOW ?? Is there an example in history that proves it or is it

just another Kool-aid dream??

I gave you an example YOU asked for.

[Guest Guest]

Hah, the founding fathers would call you a fool for saying that (indeed, it was one of them who coined that phrase, though I'm sure you didn't know that). They knew well the dangers of an overbearing government.

You, on the other hand, are one of those people who has fallen right in line with terrorists' desires. They're called TERRORists--their tool is fear. If they've got you so scared that you want the government to watch over you every second, and are willing give up all of your civil liberties just so you can convince yourself that you're safe (even though this administration has proven countless times that it is not trustworthy), then they have truly succeeded.

Absolutely right.

Every terrorism expert will tell you that is the REAL point of terrorism. Its not to blow people up, its to get them scared and cause changes in policy due to their fears. The more you scare, the better it works.

The terrorists have succeeded admirably with a portion of our population. The "chicken little's" of America. By their fears, they enabled the terrorists to project influence beyond their wildest dreams. Who would have known that this very small, sad bunch of terrorists could have scared so many and so profoundly changed the world.

[Bryan]

I did some checking of my own and as usual, Bryan has it wrong.

The only complaint you can have about what I wrote is that Clinton didn't bring a stop to it after all.

The rest (in bold) was quoted directly from the BBC ... and (surprise, surprise) the proud american provides no account of the checking he did on his own.

There is a difference between legal and illegal surveillance. During the Clinton years, they used two things that apparently Bush forgot.  When Clinton used surveillance, it was with a court order obtained through the FBI based on probable cause allowing these calls to be monitored.

That's not at all what the BBC reported. So, did you check with Madame Claudia via one of her clairvoyant phone associates or what?

And when necessary, they went to the FISA Court for authority. They didn't send all the calls to the NSA as is the case today. If the FBI had been paying attention to the Agent who advised them that two of the high jackers were taking flying lessons without interest in learning how to land a plane then maybe 9/11 would not have happened. When asked why they didn't take this seriously the response was they didn't think they could get a warrant from FISA.

And since the neo-cons want to blame Clinton, why won't they answer who's watch the first WTC bombing was planned on. And if i'm not mistaken, didn't they convict and imprison the person (s) who planned the attack?

Anyone who would like to check on whether Clinton, as bryan says did the same thing as Bush can go to ask.com/ warrantless surveillence programs during the Clinton years. Theres truth and then there's bryan's truth. You decide.

78433[/snapback]

Bryan's Broadcasting Company:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/

They just publish whatever I tell them to publish.

[Guest Guest]

So you consider our soldiers who have died as "dying in vain. Very nice. That

  doesn't surprise me at all about you, it's typical of the "blame america first"

  defeatocratic mantra. I bet your momma's proud of her little boy.

78411[/snapback]

There is such a thing as an unnecessary war and unnecessary death. You have to justify every war because you have to justify the carnage.

As for blaming America first, America is my country. I blame it first only in the same sense as I blame myself first. I'm the one whose actions I have control over.