'Domestic Spying' is political baloney from the left

[pbslmo]

Let's just say the DemocRats are doing their best to make us less safe than we are now and will continue to do so in the near future unless they get it thru their thick skulls that people care about the safety of their family and America. To say that we are not safer than before 9/11 is simply a ludicrous statement.

So DemocRats spy on political enemies within our borders and that is OK. Bush is 'listening' in on conversations taking place between KNOWN terrorists or acquaintances outside the US and people within our borders and you have a fit? Please. This is nothing more than politics. Everybody can see this and the 'FEAR FACTOR' card will once again trump you guys at the polls because you Libs have given the Conservatives the cannon fodder they need in sound bite after sound bite to cook your goose in the upcoming elections.

p.s. Who is the prior Republican president you speak of?

Wow, how can you honestly say that the left is trying to make our country "less safer"? It should be the Righteous that need to get it through their "thick skulls" that "ALL" Americans care about the safety of our families.

Just because we have not been attacked, does not necessarily mean we are any safer. Heave forbid we do get attacked again, but do you think for one instant that the Al Qaeda has given up on plans.

You are right; the Righteous is going to continue the "FEAR FACTOR" approach to politics. It the only thing they have going for them. TERROR TERROR TERROR, I'm making your life safer...

 

[fossten]

True we haven't been attacked again, but you are DEAD WRONG that we are safer. Or was the recent video-taped warning from Osama Bin Ladin, the mastermind of 9/11, still on the loose after 5+ years of BuSh's FAILURE to aprehend or assisinate him, just a figment of my imagination??

My take on this "domestic spying" / "terrorist surveilence" program, if this is ALL just a big misunderstanding, WHY is the BuSh administration so reluctant to propose changes to the letter of the law to clarify this situation once and for all? I'm ALL FOR survillence of terrorists (not just within, but most importantly outside our boarders), as long as the power to do that cannot be abused, like it has by a prior republican president.

The reason Bush doesn't want to get into making new laws about this, O Prognosticator, is because he would be spelling out for the terrorists EXACTLY HOW we're trying to defeat them. If the enemy knows about it, they'll change their tactics, and then we'll get hit again. DUH.

I do realize that my explanation is lost on you because our national security and winning the war on terror are not important to you, and that you'd gladly sacrifice American lives if it means your party regains power.

Explain to me why it's even relevant that we have to capture bin Laden.

 

[MonsterMark]

Johnny,

Explain to me why it's even relevant that we have to capture bin Laden.

The guy can't even make a video anymore. I guess caves do not have electricity or broadband.

 

[pbslmo]

The reason Bush doesn't want to get into making new laws about this, O Prognosticator, is because he would be spelling out for the terrorists EXACTLY HOW we're trying to defeat them. If the enemy knows about it, they'll change their tactics, and then we'll get hit again. DUH.

I do realize that my explanation is lost on you because our national security and winning the war on terror are not important to you, and that you'd gladly sacrifice American lives if it means your party regains power.

Explain to me why it's even relevant that we have to capture bin Laden.

BuSh identified MANY new tactics to deal with Terrorists. However, regarding the wire tapping, he will not disclose anything because of the Abramm and CIA problems. It will implicate he went above the law and poof the righteous are hit with another slam!

As far a Bin Laden, BuSh identified him as the target right after 9/11. Is it ok to let him go? Hell no, But he is a bush puppet. If I hire a hit man, do I get arrested or just the hit man?

National Security and the War on Terror are important to EVERYONE!. I don't believe we will "Win" the war because it is never ending. As long as America and the West continue to harass other countries, they (other countries) will strike in retaliation.

Isn't it the republicans who continue the course on Iraq, sacrificing American lives for the IRAQ people? You need to quite being a Hater, and open your eyes and heart.

 

[TheDude]

Explain to me why it's even relevant that we have to capture bin Laden.

1) He's a terrorist leader
2) One of the founding fathers of Al Qaeda
3) 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center
4) 1998 explosions at U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania
5) 2001 9/11, the event that started Bush's 'War On Terror'

It's safe to say this guy is not going to stop plotting against and attacking America until he is captured/killed. I've also read that 'The U.S. government considers Osama bin Laden to be the most dangerous terrorist in the world.' Not sure if that is really true, but I can't imagine which other terrorist would be #1.

Why do you think it is irrelevant that we capture Osama? If that is what you implied.

 

[fossten]

Why do you think it is irrelevant that we capture Osama? If that is what you implied.

What year did we capture Hitler and Emperor Hirohito?

 

[TheDude]

What year did we capture Hitler and Emperor Hirohito?

Neither were captured, Hitler committed suicide (widely believed), Hirohito surrendered. But that is irrelevant to capturing Osama. Osama is not the leader of any single country we are at war with, he is a terrorist who to this day threatens America and its allies.

 

[MrWilson]

and forget buying gas at $2.50. (will be going up anyway)

Tell your Congressman and Senator you want to start increasing the amount of drilling on American property #1, and you want a couple more refineries #2 and tell the Chinese and Indians to stop growing their economies and having so many kids #3.

Tell investors to stop buying oil futures too. Btw, gas for me is $2.10 today.

If somebody like Feingold or Clinton gets elected, it will be open season on the United States.

We cannot afford to allow the Democrats to ever have control over our foreign policy decisions again. They are too weak, and weakness invites confrontation. Feingold is the one who scares me the most from the Dem side. I can actually see that guy wanting to surrender to terrorists demands if we ever get smacked in the mouth again.

As evil as it sounds, id rather have someone like Feingold or Clinton get elected. When they do, as we all know, the attack will come, and people will finally wise up, and never vote left again (along with kickin em out of office)

Neither were captured, Hitler committed suicide (widely believed), Hirohito surrendered.

While that referance is often made, i feel that osama is more a threat as a symbol of terrorisim, rather than a leader, i believe he can do much more harm by consistantly "evading" us (even though i seriously doubt he his free because we cant find him, hes only free because we dont want to capture him just yet, for some reason or another). By consistantly "evading" us, he is sending a message to the rest of the arab world that we are not invincable. That is NOT the message we want portrayed. He is the david that brought down goliath, to the arab world. IMO he must be captured.

 

[barry2952]

That was astute. Great observation.

 

[pbslmo]

Thank you Mr. Wilson! I appreciate your point.

 

[MrWilson]

Thank you Mr. Wilson! I appreciate your point.

hay, im not a right or left kinda guy. I will take the side based on what i feel is best, not just because WEIB or NPR told me so.

 

[pbslmo]

hay, im not a right or left kinda guy. I will take the side based on what i feel is best, not just because WEIB or NPR told me so.

You are a very astute person Mr. Wilson. I salute you.:iconcur:

 

[MrWilson]

You are a very astute person Mr. Wilson. I salute you.:iconcur:

well, thank you. I salute you as well.

 

[MonsterMark]

While that referance is often made, i feel that osama is more a threat as a symbol of terrorisim, rather than a leader, i believe he can do much more harm by consistantly "evading" us (even though i seriously doubt he his free because we cant find him, hes only free because we dont want to capture him just yet, for some reason or another).

Saddam was free too, remember, before we caught him. Just goes to show, if you put your mind to it, anybody can live in a hole.

Osama could travel with impunity under Clinton. When is the last time you heard that Osama took a vacation in Hawaii or anywhere else for that matter?

 

[Vitas]

Osama is not the leader of any single country we are at war with, he is a terrorist who to this day threatens America and its allies.

OK, I give up, which country is he the leader of?

 

[fossten]

Neither were captured, Hitler committed suicide (widely believed), Hirohito surrendered. But that is irrelevant to capturing Osama. Osama is not the leader of any single country we are at war with, he is a terrorist who to this day threatens America and its allies.

Wrong, wrong, and wrong. We had WWII won long before Hitler killed himself or Hirohito surrendered. We defeated the military arms and invaded the countries in order to win. (See my thread on Bush's brilliance of strategy)

Osama is the leader of Al Qaeda, an organization with which we are at war. It is not necessary to capture or kill bin Laden in order to win the war on terror. He cannot hurt us without money, people, and asylum. As we continue to weaken his organization, his money will dry up and countries will cease to be friendly to him, which will render him ineffective. If we captured him tomorrow, neither is there any guarantee that the war on terror would instantly be over. To think that he is the centerpiece of this is reckless and shortsighted. Winning the war is more important than wiping out a symbol. If he is killed he would just become a martyr, like Che Guevara did.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

Osama could travel with impunity under Clinton. When is the last time you heard that Osama took a vacation in Hawaii or anywhere else for that matter?

Clinton is no more to blame for 9/11 than BuSh Sr. is for WTC bombing I.

Flash-and-distract: A tired principle used by the right to divert attention from the real issue, a sure sign of desperation when they've lost the argument.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

OK, I give up, which country is he the leader of?

:slam What a brilliant post.

 

[Vitas]

:slam What a brilliant post.

Thank you, JohnnyBz00LS.

You are the guy that wanted to attack Saudi Arabia, correct?

 

[MrWilson]

Saddam was free too, remember, before we caught him. Just goes to show, if you put your mind to it, anybody can live in a hole.

Osama could travel with impunity under Clinton. When is the last time you heard that Osama took a vacation in Hawaii or anywhere else for that matter?

Its not the quality of his freedom, its the fact that he has any at all that is the problem.

 

[fossten]

Clinton is no more to blame for 9/11 than BuSh Sr. is for WTC bombing I.

Flash-and-distract: A tired principle used by the right to divert attention from the real issue, a sure sign of desperation when they've lost the argument.

Thursday, March 25, 2004 12:45 p.m. EST

Prosecutors Eyed bin Laden Before Clinton Let Him Go

In 1996, when President Clinton refused Sudan's offer to extradite Osama bin Laden to America, federal prosecutors had already publicly identified the 9/11 mastermind as an unindicted co-conspirator in a radical Islamist plot to blow up New York City landmarks.

Bin Laden's known ties to the terror cell that would later be implicated in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center stands in marked contrast to the ex-president's claim that when he turned the Sudanese offer down, bin Laden had committed no crime against the U.S.

"At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America," Clinton insisted in a 2002 speech to a New York business group. "So I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America."

But reports published before March 1996, when the Sudanese tried to hand the top terrorist over, show that the ex-president did indeed have a legal basis to bring him to America and at least hold him, with an eye toward putting him on trial.

On April 21, 1995, USA Today reported:

"One of the most notorious patrons of Sudan's terrorist camps is Osama Bin Laden, a wealthy Saudi Arabian. He was named by federal prosecutors in New York as a potential co-conspirator in the terror trial of radical Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and 10 other Muslims accusing of plotting a 'war of urban terrorism' in the USA."

Mohammed Jamal Khalifah, better known as "bin Laden's banker," was also named an unindicted co-conspirator who financed Ramzi Yousef's plot to destroy the World Trade Center in 1993, according to a November 1995 report in U.S. News & World Report.

Six Americans died in the '93 attack, with over 1,000 injured.

Five months before Sudan offered to turn bin Laden over to Clinton, the 9/11 mastermind helped carry out another terrorist attack that killed five Americans.

On Nov. 27, 1995, U.S. News reported, "At 11:40 a.m. last Monday, dozens of Americans sat eating lunch in a downtown Riyadh snack bar in a building that housed a U.S.-run military training center for the Saudi National Guard. Suddenly, a van packed with explosives erupted outside. Another explosion followed seconds later. When the dust settled, six people were dead and 60 injured, most of them Americans."

The final death toll rose to seven, with two Indians among those killed.

Four Saudis later confessed to the crime, naming bin Laden as their leader.

In 2001, PBS's "Frontline" chronicled what the U.S. knew about bin Laden before the 9/11 attacks. According to PBS, prior to Sudan's March 1996 offer to turn the wealthy Saudi over, bin Laden had been implicated in the following terrorist activity:


"February/March 1995 - Ramzi Yousef, mastermind of the World Trade Center bombing, is captured in Pakistan and extradited to the United States. A search of his former residences leads investigators to believe he is financially linked to bin Laden. Also, he had stayed at a bin Laden-financed guest house while in Pakistan.

"June 1995 - Unsuccessful assassination attempt on the life of the President of Egypt, Hosni Mubarak, in Addis Ababa. U.S. intelligence sources believe bin Laden was somehow linked.

"August 1995 - Bin Laden wrote an open letter to King Fahd of Saudi Arabia calling for a campaign of guerrilla attacks in order to drive U.S forces out of the kingdom.

"November 13, 1995 - Five Americans and two Indians are killed in the truck bombing of a US-operated Saudi National Guard training center in Riyadh. Bin Laden denies involvement but praises the attack.

"Spring 1996 - President Clinton signed a top secret order that authorized the CIA to use any and all means to destroy bin Laden's network." [End of Excerpt]


On Tuesday the Independent Commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks said there was "no reliable evidence" to contradict denials from Clinton administration officials that Sudan ever offered bin Laden to the U.S. The Commission did not explain why President Clinton's own admission that the offer was real was not considered "reliable evidence."

*owned*

 

[MonsterMark]

Can anyone from the Left explain why 2 of your top lieutenants are siding with Bush. Amazing story and nothing in the Major Press about it. Makes ya wanna go hummmm.

With Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff
For the story behind the story...


Monday, Feb. 13, 2006 9:32 a.m. EST
Tom Daschle, Jane Harman: Don't Stop Wiretap Program

Former Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, along with the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Jane Harman, said emphatically yesterday that President Bush should continue his controversial terrorist wiretapping program.

Daschle was asked by NBC "Meet the Press" moderator Tim Russert: "Knowing what we know now, should the president stop this program?"

The former top Senate Democrat responded: "No, absolutely not. I think it’s a very valuable program."

Moments later, Russert asked Rep. Harman: "Do you think the program should be stopped?"

"No," she responded. "I think the program should go on."

Both Democrats qualified their endorsements of the wiretapping program, saying it should be restructured to comply with the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

"I think we’ve got to respect the rule of law," former Sen. Daschle explained. "I think there ought to be an investigation by the appropriate committees of Congress and look into NSA to see how we might [change] it effectively."

After Rep. Harman offered her endorsement, she added: "I think the program should fully comply with FISA."

The California Democrat also said that she "deplored" the leak to the New York Times that exposed the program in December.

 

[barry2952]

I love the part you didn't highlight. Typical Bryan.

Both Democrats qualified their endorsements of the wiretapping program, saying it should be restructured to comply with the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

You are pissing into the wind again Bryan. I don't think anyone here opposes the program. It's all about the fact that Bush lied about it. Please stop your lame distractions of that event.

 

[TheDude]

OK, I give up, which country is he the leader of?

You miss read what I posted. I said he IS NOT the leader of any country.

 

[MonsterMark]

I love the part you didn't highlight. Typical Bryan.

Highlighting Democrats cover their stink trail is not newsworthy. Just typical.

Both Democrats qualified their endorsements of the wiretapping program, saying it should be restructured to comply with the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Of course Democrats will always qualify their statements. How else can you have it both ways? Typical Democrat strategy. Just come out and say that Bush was right. AGAIN!

You are pissing into the wind again Bryan. I don't think anyone here opposes the program. It's all about the fact that Bush lied about it. Please stop your lame distractions of that event.

Bush Lied. Bush Lied. Sheesh. What did he lie about this time?.................................Can't wait. This should be good.


And please explain to me how you can be an American and not want this Country to do EVERYTHING it can to keep us safe?